Sunday, February 26, 2012
written in a directly personal style.' I agree that the book is very insightful and well-researched.
However the review continues to say ' The book contains numerous disdainful comments and one very disturbing rant--"We live in fear of being crushed by some wide-body as she hurtles through the narrow passage from Faded Glory to woman size, lost in fantasies involving
svelte Kathie Lee sheaths." It is unfortunate that a political writer of her caliber has not only not examined fat hatred, but has contributed to it.' I agree with this as I do not understand why it was a necessary comment to make within the novel and a very nasty comment at that. Although it may be true what she is saying, I don't feel like Ehrenreich should be making comments such as this whilst undertaking such an 'experiment.'
'Ehrenreich succeeds beautifully in conveying to her middle-class audience that
she is just like them and that since she could not support herself, never mind a
family, on the jobs available to her, the problem lies in the system of low-paid
work, not in the workers.' Overall I do agree with this review as I believe Ehrenreich did a brilliant job of conveying the depth and degree of low wages in American Society and how trying to support one person alone is bad enough let alone those with a family to sustain.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The blog from Brothers Judd starts by saying that Barbara is the rarest of breeds and is clearly a socialism. They also instantly criticise the way she has wrote the book and suggest that she doesn't give an insight into the real people who go through their jobs and suffering every day and also how she doesn't offer advice on how to improve their lives for the better, so what does this book actually achieve.
They later go on to say that she didn't look for a church to help her out with social and friendship issues. this could tells us the bloggers view point on Christianity, how the book maybe isn't 'real' in their opinion and their view on Barbara herself (possibly as arrogant, not realistic etc.) They go on to say that as she
refuses the Church's advice and later complains about the lack of available help, which has been offered to her and says her anti-religious sensibilities prevent her from accepting an available source.
This makes it clear that the writers of this blog, probably don't like her overall views in life about feminism, money, church and this is presented by the lack of positive praise for the book.
When the writer concludes the review of the book, he actually suggest a few points of how they could help the workers and she doesn't offer any ideas. i found this amusing that they try and basically re write the book as 'she doesn't bring much to the table.'
As earlier said the review doesn't speak of feminism and how she only chooses jobs that women apply for, but rather just speaks of the financial issues.
over all this review doesn't make the book sound interesting, well written or exciting, but rather puts me off the book and others.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
They call themselves the people of the stony shore due to their location but they are coastal dwellers as well. They depend on the shellfish and scaly fish for their diet and have been fishing and whaling in this area long before the industry grew in the 19th century.
Today their is 1400 of their people, and still live on a small part of the ancestral land - the rest has been taken from them in previous wars. They have created a health and dental care buildings in their community to help the local people thrive in their ever-expanding community. Also they have built museums about their history and educational centres and playgrounds for the children. This tells us that they want to keep their history whether good or bad alive for people in the community and others to remember, due to most of their history just being word of mouth past down each century. By building health centres also tells us that they are moving in some ways to the 21st century for beneficial reason, but not the whole way.
They are a self- governing tribe and have federal recognition, which helps them to protect themselves and the land.
They have proposed a casino, which they say will benefit the local community by offering plenty of jobs and improving many peoples way of life;
create 3,450 construction jobs
5,500 full time jobs
12,000 jobs for the local communities
generate $200 million revenue that will help improve the school district
attract super markets, cinemas and other businesses
and create lots of green spaces
All of these are positive for the community and for Long Island in general for tourism attraction and revenue reasons, however does it go against their historical traditions.
'There are many different nations of Apache people. We are Western Apache, closely related to the people of San Carlos, Payson, and Camp Verde. Though there are differences in language, history, and culture, we are also related to the other Apache nations: the
|Chiricahua, Mescalero, Jicarrilla, Lipan, and Kiowa-Apache peoples'|
Friday, February 17, 2012
- The Klamath tribes signed their treaty in 1864 with the United States of America.
- The Klamath tribes contributes upwards of $25 million dollars into the Klamath County economy each year through goods and services.
- The tribes are one of the largest equal-opportunity employers in the Klamath County.
- Kl-mo-ya Casino is the second largest tourist attraction in Klamath County, with approximately 300,000 visitors ech year- second only to Crater Lake National Park.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Saturday, February 11, 2012
This review is found on Entertainement Weekly online in 1996. The review is overall quite positive, however their are some aspects of the novel that Margot Mifflin does criticise. Mifflin says 'Push — the poet Sapphire's debut novel — is only partially successful: Precious' phonetic dialect and stunted vocabulary inevitably flatten segments of her story.' I don't agree with this at all as the dialect Precious has represents who she is and where she is from. I don't see how someone's speech and language can 'flatten segments of the story.' In my opinion it adds effect to the story. Althoug i agree at first it is hard to adjust to the way in which Precious speaks, it doesn't take long to understand with ease what she is saying.
Mifflin continues in a positve manner by saying 'its sad to watch her revert to frustrated illiteracy when, after progressing by leaps and bounds, she's thrown a tragic, unexpected curveball.' I completely agree with this. As a reader you get to know Precious, and seeing her develop and improve through the novel, only to find out she is HIV positive is frustrating and upsetting.
Margot Mifflin ends by saying 'Precious gains control of her life through writing.' I however believe that Precious always had control of her life, and always seemed to know what she was going to do. Even through having two children, Precious always came across as someone with a big heart and for the circumstances she was in, was a very positive person and knew how to behave in certain situations.
However I don't think that Sapphire as an author received enough credit for tackling such a strong issue in such a brilliant manner that is not only disturbing and sad at times, but with the aspect of comedy.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
The America's Society was established in 1965 by David Rockefeller. The Website 'supports the further intergration of immigrant workers into businesses and local communities.' The America's Society, together with 'Council of the America's' produce America's Quarterly, a policy journal for the Western Hemisphere. In these times of critical debate on immigration legislation and the backlash against immigrants, AS/COA believe that greater integration and appreciation for immigration to society will ultimately help advance immigration reform. The America's Society mainly focuses on advancing the immigration of latino's/hispanics, not specifying where it could be improved or how it could be improved. Although they do no focus on helping those who want to immigrate, they do focus on trying to help those who have immigrated adjust and fit in to their new surroundings.
AIC (Americans for Immigration Control) was founded in 1983 and is based in Monterey, Virginia. 'AIC is about deporting those illegal aliens already in the U.S.' AIC are in favour of enforcing stricter immigration laws and increasing penalties. AIC try to encourage all citizens to join their efforts to secure American Borders. This website continually refers to the latino immigrants as 'illegal aliens', giving the impression that they do no belong on the planet, let alone in the U.S. The website also has a list of solutions, one of which is to increase the manpower of U.S border control. I feel like this website is extremely negative towards Latino immigrants without actually giving them a chance. They do not take the time to think of the possibility that these 'illegal aliens' may bring positive opportunities to the U.S. Not only that but I think the AIC has the assumption that they are all illegal, with no reference to those immigrating in a perfectly legal manner. Surely America, as the land of Liberty would allow these immigrants into their country?
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Both these websites create their own debate on how they should be treated and what should be done to try and improve everyone lifestyle. For instance the pro Latino immigration mission states :' Our mission is to improve the quality of life for low-income communities, promoting and protecting human rights, civil and political rights of workers, immigrants and their families. We stand for equality, social justice and economic, and environmental protection.' This tells the reader that they just want a better life for themselves and their families by improving the money difficulties and their human rights. This straight away puts across many good points that for most people would sympathise too and may also believe that they too should be able to try and achieve the American dream if not at least a slightly better life. After all why shouldn't they no one in America in actually 'American' ( apart from the Native Americans) as everyone else has had to immigrate over to America, and for most of the same reasons, whether escaping government, religion or low wages. To start with for me personally this already shows the better argument.
The anti Latino Immigration website was set up by Jim Gilchrist who says that 'after years of frustrated efforts trying to get a neglectful U.S. government to simply enforce existing immigration laws.' By using such words as simply suggests that it's easily done and is something that just needs sorting out without any dispute. Also the word neglectful also tells us about the type of American he is, due to him not agreeing to the governments point of view, whereas it seems the Latinos welcome the government which would make them more favourable to become citizens on the US.
The pro- Latino immigration website uses many images and videos of how Mexicans are mistreated by Americans at times and express how they feel about their life and country. By showing negative imagery of Americans again create support for pro immigration due to the contradictory, arrogance and rudeness of Americans. Considering the main words we connect with America are the dreams, justice, freedom, pursuit of happiness and so on this goes against all what they are trying to stop but also themselves.
I found the anti- immigration website humorous with comments such as donations of $5,000. Realistically people may contribute an average of $50 at best. This means he may be slightly deluded by thinking people will support him this much, which makes the website not seem real and would maybe put people off believing what he is saying. Also he is a veteran of the US Marine Corps, which he likes to keep addressing from his logo, his photos and the constant mention of this job title.
The anti immigration website doesn't really put across good points or facts of his point of view, which would make the reader not fully support his argument. whereas the pro immigration website uses facts, pictures and the use of good wording (justice, freedom etc.) to promote their point of view and persuade others to listen.