Blog4 Topic1

Blog4 Topic1

Ginsberg’s “Howl” and DiPrima’s “Revolutionary Letters” were written roughly at the same time,when in 1950s~60s the youngest people were rebellious for the U.S government because of war, capitalism, mechanization, etc. “Howl” is a bold, imaginative and impactive poem which vividly depicted the depraved lives of the “beat generation” and criticized the government that caused these to happen. “Revolutionary Letters” also criticized the system, but it focused on enlightening and encouraging people for revolution.  “Revolutionary Letters” can be read as a response to “Howl” because, instead of describing the situation and releasing negative emotions, it marked a way for people to change the society. One could see this pattern when many common issues were discussed in the two poems.

In Howl I, Ginsberg showed how corrupted people of his generation were, while DiPrima started “Revolutionary Letters” with similar content but in different ways. Ginsberg displayed that his generation was connected to poverty, drugs and arbitrary sex, and thus one could understand DiPrima’s “I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life.” However, DiPrima stated this to encourage people to fight, since they have nothing to lose: “overthrowing it[the government] is something[crime] else altogether, it is sometimes called revolution”. One could see that DiPrima is more positive; she is confident that “what will win is manstasm the sustenance we give each other”. Though the emotions spreaded in Howl is pretty impressive, at the end of the day, people still have to live and fight for their future, which is DiPrima’s response to the current unsatisfied situation as Ginsberg depicted.

The U.S was governed by capitalism at that time and both poems recognized capitalism as the enemy and somehow advocated communism. In “Howl” II, Ginsburg blamed the Moloch, which is a metaphor of the government, that “bashed open their skulls and ate up their brains and imagination”. He described the Moloch as: “Moloch whose skyscrapers stand in the long streets like endless Jehovahs!”, and “Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks!”. Since skyscrapers and banks are the icons of capitalism, one could see that Ginsberg wrote Howl against it. Though not obvious, he might be a supporter of communism because Ginsberg described in Howl I that people of his generation “distributed Supercommunist pamphlets in Union Square”. Ginsberg stopped at condemning the capitalism, while DiPrima introduced people about philosophies of communism and inspired people to substitute communism for capitalism. The “Revolutionary Letter” is the kind of “Supercommunist pamphlets” that Ginsberg mentioned: “destroy the concept of money as we know it, get rid of interest, savings, inheritance”, “no one ‘owns’ the land it can be held for use, no man holding more than he can work, himself and family working”.Though not seems to be realistic, DiPrima provided an answer to the question left by Ginsberg’s “Howl”: how should we break the current society of communism? Such answer which leads to the Utopia is a target that people could aim at during revolution.

Ginsberg might not desire DiPrima’s answer, because DiPrima’s philosophy is too idealistic for a somehow crazy man like him. Howl is filled with so much negatives such that it’s hard for me to imagine that Ginsberg could calm down and think about the future.

Blog Post 4 Topic #3

Maxine Hong Kingston and Sandra Cisneros works at first glance and seem like they come from completely different worlds but in reality, they share a similar struggle. Both felt that the American culture did not fit them entirely and that they weren’t 100% American or 100% Chinese/Hispanic. The two writers incorporate a lot of the same movements like feminism and the identity struggle. Hong Kingston and Cisneros have separate cultures and experiences and “A House on Mango Street” by Sandra Cisneros and “The Woman Warrior: Memoirs of a Girlhood Among Ghosts” by Maxine Hong Kingston are definitely written in different styles but are essentially sharing beliefs that are very similar. Although it is not expected that two completely different cultures have so much in common, “A House on Mango Street” and “The Woman Warrior: Memoirs of a Girlhood Among Ghosts” are evidence that immigrant and first generation communities from any culture have many aspects that are parallel.

“A House on Mango Street” by Sandra Cisneros entails different stories that all contribute to the development of the character “Esperanza”. Unlike “The Woman Warrior: Memoirs of a Girlhood Among Ghosts”, Cisneros’ work is structured where it contains several different situations that do not necessarily correlate but all contribute to the movements and creation of Esperanza but as separate events in her life. In Maxine Hong Kingston’s work each topic flowed with the next. Even though the stories are about young girls growing and being shaped by their experiences the structure makes a difference. In Cisneros’ work she keeps the events short and to the point and that way gives more content and room to interpretation because each story is so different from the one before. With Hong Kingston’s style choice, we get a story with as much content but set up in a way where the developments are all connected. The styles differ and give different feels to the content and story.

Both Sandra Cisneros and Maxine Hong Kingston address feminism without too much effort. The everyday experiences they address are not uncommon for women every day and without these authors, the topics will scarcely be addressed. They both addressed things that would normally be pushed aside and ignored. They both talked about simple things that when put onto paper people realized it is crazy to ignore. I think they were both very influential to the feminist movement and made many realize some things that are overlooked should not be.

These women both paved the way for other writers but did it in very different ways. Their styles for “A House on Mango Street” and “The Woman Warrior: Memoirs of a Girlhood Amon Ghosts” were completely different and their cultures were in no way the same but the messages they put out there were essentially matching. The two authors focus on immigration experiences but not the same ones which makes them two different insights on the same topic and each gives me a different view of similar subjects.

Blog Post #4

A person that self-identifies themselves as a first generation is a first born citizen of the United States from a family of immigrants. I define myself as a first generation American since I was the first age group born in the United States. My parents came to the United States at a young age and soon after became citizens resulting in them quickly assimilating into the American culture and traditions. Although they assimilated into a completely different lifestyle, their Mexican roots remained strong and assured the continuance of their ethnic culture’s traditions. In relation to their experiences of assimilation, they would most relate to Maxine Hong Kingston. Maxine Hong Kingston is a first generation Chinese-American that reflects upon the cultural experiences of her Asian immigrant family in her literature. In her book, The Woman Warrior: Memoirs of a Girlhood among Ghost, Kingston details the struggles of assimilation and the blending of traditions and cultures as a Chinese-American.

As a Chicana, I was able to relate to Sandra Cisneros the most because she identifies herself as a Chicano too. Sandra Cisneros is a Latina-American novelist where in her book Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories, she creates images that portray life on the border that lies between Mexico and the United States. I am able to relate to her because like her I can critique the culture from the outside since it is not of my own. I was not born in Mexico but since I was raised in a Mexican household I was forced to critique the culture due to my clearer understanding of my own American culture. A topic Cisneros touches that continues to be relevant today is machismo. The concept of machismo is strongly recognized in Spanish-speaking countries for the ideal role men play in society and at home. Someone who is “machista” has an exaggerated masculinity pride that is used to dominate women. This dominance is reflected through aggression and violence. Machismo is seen in most household where women do all of the chores while the men do not since it is in their belief that it is a woman’s role. Although this concept is slowly degrading in the United States, it remains strong in the Hispanic culture.

To prevent traditional concepts like Machismo I believe it is best to recognize them and rebel against it. Most men in Hispanic households are afraid to isolate themselves from this concept in which they were raised from in fear that they will be considered “weak”. Today, in Hispanic households in the United State it is not commonly seen due to the assimilation of the American culture. The man in the house is able to stop the continuance of this by recognizing that it is okay in the American culture for the man to not dominate. Instead, there is an equality in the home chores that prevent this concept. By highlighting the negativity of machismo and educating the youth on how to prevent this “ideal manly role” I believe it is possibly to end this concept in the Hispanic communities in America and in Spanish speaking countries. 

Blog Post 4 Topic 2

Diving Into The Wreck is a free verse poem published by Adrienne Rich in 1973. Rich  uses  short lines and conversational diction to narrate her experiences as if she is telling it in real time. Rich’s use of active voice, writing lines like “I am blacking out and yet my mask is powerful it pumps  my blood…” allows the reader to sense the feelings she is experiencing. When one uses takes her perspective of diving into this wreck along with some information about her personal life, it is clear that the wreck is a conceit for her journey of self discovery with sexuality.

In the first stanza before she has entered the ocean, she tells “I put on/ the body-armor of black rubber/ the absurd flippers…”. The enjambment of these lines isolates “(I) put on” which can be interpreted as it’s informal meaning -  a deception or hoax. The fact that she refers to her flippers as absurd also suggests that she feels like she is dressed up in something silly that is not her true self. In her world above water, Rich protects her identity in the costume that is expected of her to wear but later in the poem when she is in the water, she refers to herself as “the mermaid whose dark hair/ streams black, the merman in his armored body” as if she was meant to live in the ocean. She states her purpose of the dive is to explore the wreck but finds herself distracted from her goal  by those who have “always lived here”, or the other people who also identify as homosexual and who provide her solace and solidarity. She also writes “.. and besides, you breathe differently down here” which shows that perhaps despite the discomfort of first entering the ocean, she senses that she is more at peace in this world among others who relate to her.

The title of the poem highlights that the wreck is the main topic. The metaphor of a shipwreck is very clearly expressing some sort of disaster that she is familiar with.  Her biography mentions that her ex-husband committed suicide shortly after their separation. When Rich affirms that she came down to see “the drowned face always staring/ toward the sun/ the evidence of the damage” it is likely that she is referring to her dead ex-husband who was impacted by her radical lifestyle choice. The next stanza however, upholds her decision and makes any doubts about the comparison of the dive as a metaphor for her self discovery clear. She explicitly refers to herself as both a mermaid and a merman and boldly states “I am her. I am he…”

It is evident that Rich has made this “dive” before, first when she says “ We know what it is for,/we who have used it” when describing the ladder which bridges the air from the ocean and also at the end of the poem when she admits that she and others like herself “find our way back to this scene”. The ocean brings out her true self yet simultaneously hides the wreck that it caused in her life.

Blog Post #4, Topic 4

In a “Woman Hollering Creek”, Sandra Cisneros attempts to describe the lives of Mexicans who face difficulties when coming to the United States. In this story, a woman, Cleofilas, accepts the proposal of a young man, Juan Pedro. Once they marry they decide to move to “el otro lado” to start their lives, but soon after, Cleofilas realizes that things are not as she expected because her husband becomes abusive. In fear, she tries to hide her bruises when going to a pregnancy check up appointment for her second incoming baby. The doctor realizes she is being abused without any help, so she calls her friend and asks her to drive Cleofilas and her child to a bus station returning to Mexico.

Just like Cleofilas, many people decide to leave Mexico for a better life without thinking of the possible difficulties they may encounter in the U.S.. Cisneros does a great job showing immigrant’s beliefs on coming to the U.S. for a better life and how that sometimes doesn’t turn out as expected. Although times have changed, this still seems to be an issue today. A couple years ago one of my mom’s friend found a job, but after two months of working, she noticed her boss lowered her salary below minimum wage and he told her that if she complained he would call Immigration and Customs Enforcement. To this day, she still works for him earning a salary below minimum wage, but due to fear she sticks along with it. There are millions of immigrants living in the United States under scanty conditions, with the fear of being sent back, and being hurt. Cisneros makes us sympathize with these people and make us understand that the U.S isn’t as welcoming to immigrants.

One thing I noticed Cleofilas did not emphasize on was the minimum opportunities immigrants have. She concluded the story with Cleofilas moving back to Mexico but realistically speaking, that happens very rarely. As a first generation person, I have seen my parent’s friends and family members struggle in the United States without being able to go back because they do not have the opportunity or enough money to afford that location shift. Cisneros also did not focus on the difficulty of coming to “el otro lado”. I think this would have changed some things because the audience would understand why she didn't want to speak up the first time she was hit. It takes great effort to cross the border, so deciding to leave because someone mistreated you isn't really considerate for yourself. There's also the risk of leaving and probably never being able to come back to the United States. I think these points, although small, make an impact on the reader’s way of reasoning Cleofilas motives. If I was the author, I would head the same direction as Cisneros, but I would make sure to include the small details that allow us to comprehend the second- guessing of Cleofilas and other immigrants.

Blog Post #4 Topic #4

As a first generation immigrant, whose parents immigrated from Mexico, I am able to relate to Sandra Cisneros’ piece “ Woman Hollering Creek” and her experience in Seguin. In this piece, the writing style of the text is unique, in that, it incorporates the use of Spanish words within English sentences that is often referred to as “spanglish”. As a Hispanic immigrant using “spanglish” while speaking was common throughout my childhood, and even today, as I was able to note in her writing. Cisneros shows how she incorporated the use of Spanish words in her daily life as she stated “ one on either side of the house they rented near the arroyo” along with other comments. This demonstrates Cisneros attempt to adapt to her surroundings that I could agree with through my own personal experience. Growing up in a country that is not your native homeland it becomes difficult to balance the Hispanic culture at home and the American culture that surrounded me everyday during school and public areas. The writing style of the piece reflects one of her difficulties as an immigrant that I can relate to because growing up I had to learn how to balance and embrace the American culture as a of respect for the opportunity given to me for being in America as well as my own culture that I lived by. This affected my ability to speak proper English because I would often revert back to Spanish whenever I did not know how to say a word in English instead of attempting to figure it out.

One aspect of the Hispanic culture that has still remains relevant despite how times have changed is the idea of “machismo” that Cisneros touches upon. Machismo is a word that is used to identify a man in the Hispanic culture and his sense of entitlement as well as power in the family. Throughout my experience as an immigrant whether I lived in the United States or in Mexico “machismo” was and is very much alive as I am able to experience it at home. “This husband… demands each course of dinner [to] be served on a separate plate like at his mother’s, as soon as he gets home” represents a common situation of what women must do for men in the Hispanic culture that has also set the roles of women. Cisneros work reflects how the duties of a women have been imposed by each generation and in a way shows how women “know” their position in the household. The men of the family is there to serve as a reminder of their responsibilities. “Machismo” is still alive today as I’m able to experience in my personal life as it is expected of me to make sure that there is food on the table ready as soon as my father walks through the door. “Women Hollering Creek” has been able to capture a glimpse of what it is like to live in the Hispanic culture, but if I were to have been the author I would have added how the typical customs of women are changing as they do way more than just household chores.

Blog Post 4: topic 4

            Both Kingston and Cisneros wrote about experiences of immigrants in America. With similar styles of writing, they tell stories of what it is like to be foreign in America and how that influences your upbringing and how one might view America. In class, we discussed how Kingston and Cisneros’ work could be seen as perpetuating existing stereotypes within the immigrant community and the Asian and Hispanic communities in particular. As a first generation American, a child of immigrants, I disagree. I think that their pieces, especially Kingston’s are genuine and actually allow immigrants or children of immigrants to relate with someone who has had the same or similar experience.

            I can relate the most with the selection we read of Kingston’s “The Woman Warrior”. It is about her as a young girl in school and the pressure she felt to either fit in or break the stereotype of young, Chinese American girls. I am not Chinese American, I am Ethiopian American and so I didn’t necessarily feel the pressures of any stereotype (because Ethiopian Americans don’t really have one), but I was very quite. Just like Kingston “knew the silence had to do with being a Chinese girl” (64), I think some of it did have to do with the fact that my parents were foreign and that I myself had a different cultural background. For example, my parents always told me to listen to the teacher and not to talk because where they went to school in Ethiopia that was the way. Students had little to no say and were not by any means encouraged to express ideas of beliefs that differed from the teacher. With these lessons in mind, I was terrified of opposing the teacher. There were even a few instances when the teacher would ask me what I thought about a book we read of a movie we watched and I remained silent.

            In addition, the idea of having to translate American culture to foreign parents and vise versa was a task that Kingston portrayed and one that I can very much so connect with. When Kingston’s mom believed they have been cursed, she sends Kingston out to retrieve a gift to undo the curse. Kingston says to her, “They don’t understand stuff like that. I won’t be able to say it right” (66). This is so relatable because there is an obvious cultural and language barrier between foreign people and Americans. For example, there are things that are okay to say in Ethiopia in my parent’s native language that is not considered acceptable here in America. In Ethiopia they say things like “wow, you’re getting fat”. I have heard it plenty of times between family members and in our culture that is not at all an insult. If anything, it is a complement meaning you seem to be eating well and therefor living well (with enough money, I mean). That same sentence, directly translated to English and put in an American cultural context is extremely insulting. Because of this, I have to tell them that stuff like that is not okay to say to American people. The culture is different and they interpret things differently so we have to adjust.

            Times may have changed but immigrant experiences, I think, relatively stay the same I think. Sure, as more and more people from foreign land enter America, Americans themselves get used to them, but there will always be a cultural barrier. Americans might grow to be more accepting, but that doesn’t mean they can completely understand. It is more so the responsibility of the immigrants to adapt to the new culture surrounding them since they are the ones who have entered a new country. If I wrote a similar piece to Kingston and Cisneros’, I would write about the different “kinds” of immigrants. From my experience, I know some immigrants who are fully motivated and excited to adapt to the American culture and on the other hand I know some who would rather be in their homeland if it weren’t for the opportunities that America provides. I would write about their different perspective and the effect it might have on the children that they raise here.