Intro to My ePortfolio: A Maze of Literary Endeavors!

My name is Anna Shusterman, and this ePortfolio is a journey through the exciting academic world of a Foothill College student. I began at Foothill three years ago, and my main concentration has been improving my literary skills because I believe that the ability to read and write and analyze literature critically is something that is applicable in any stage of life. My desired field is that of business marketing, and I think that my efforts to enhance my writing skills especially will help me in my career, not to mention in my continuing intellectual and scholarly life, through transferring to a four year university to receiving an MBA. This ePortfolio is meant to showcase my thinking processes and writing skills to possible future employers, professors, and peers. Included in this ePortfolio are a few relevant pieces of writing from the last three years which show my growth as a college student and an analytical and creative thinker.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1. English 1A: First college essay
2. English 1A: Improvement!
3. English 1B
4. English 1C
5. Modern American Literature: The Harlem Renaissance
6. Overview

English 1A: First college essay

The Uses of Guilt: Cognitions of Life in Catfish and Mandal


Guilt is the poison of our minds, searing through us with acid pain, reminding us that we are alive. In Catfish and Mandala, Andrew Pham feels the terrible burden of guilt his entire life, and the combination of this kind of guilt and a broken heart over losing not just one but two women he loves are what lead him to his fateful journey from Mexico to Vietnam. He begins this journey as a way to atone for not being able to save those he loved, and ends it with the understanding that his guilt is his savior. The turning point in Pham’s life is the realization of Trieu’s weakness and vulnerability towards her abusive biological father which catapults him into a desperate search for salvation from the guilt he feels for his inability to save Trieu as he was unable to save Chi, the Beggar Girl or Kim the taxi dancer.

Trieu, Pham’s longtime girlfriend, had recently moved in with the biological father who had given her up at birth, so that she could discover her roots and find her identity. This was the eternal struggle of all Vietnamese Americans including Pham, to understand one’s identity and where one belongs. “…Trieu found her biological father to be something of a barbarian. But she never said a word….to get to know her roots-him” (Pg. 269) Pham was disgusted by Treu’s father and how he used her for his own ends; to marry her off to some rich American and then sponge off her for the rest of his life. He felt Trieu was too good for her father, above him, and didn’t understand why she didn’t see it too. He even envied Trieu thinking, “She was Vietnamese and American in all the right measures, something I had aspired to without knowing.” (270) She was the standard Pham aspired to, and he needed to believe in her perfection.

Pham’s life begins to deteriorate more and more as the day goes on. He has no idea, but there’s a storm coming for him that’s about to destroy everything he thought he wanted and leave him with a mess of misery, guilt, and confusion. He came to Trieu’s room at night and with the words, “Dad touched me in the car today.” (pg. 274) his whole world fell apart. He felt the anger surging through him, his father’s anger, his grandfather’s anger, swimming uncontrollably through his veins. He couldn’t understand how casual she was, how she could pretend it was nothing. “She had been through an adoption gone terribly wrong only to find a worse truth.”(pg.275) Pham knew Trieu was vulnerable to her father, and he couldn’t grasp her situation. Trieu’s need to have a father above all else was something Pham couldn’t understand or be a part of. It reminded him too much of his own need to be American above all else. “I needed to be away from the twisted vestiges of Vietnam-America….(pg. 277) Pham’s guilt over not knowing or being able to save Trieu from her father, from America, or from herself, made him question his own identity, his role in this world.

While Pham dealt with the loss of Trieu his sister Chi was wasting away. Through her depression over losing her job and her wife she sunk deeper and deeper into a hole
that no one could or would get her out of. Her family ignored her depression for the most part, thinking she would get over it, because that is what Vietnamese people do, they
survive. Chi lived with her family only as a guest, they never asked her any real questions about her years as a runaway or what she was going through, mostly because they just
didn’t want to know. It was easier that way. Chi had become a man, Minh, and his family tried to pretend that that was just the way it had always been, that they weren’t bothered or confused by it, but of course they were. “…all the signs of his imminent suicide were there in front of us, but we chose to ignore them.” (pg. 299) He hanged himself with a yellow rope, with no one in his life to give him real love or understanding. “And his family, who could not love him while he lived, grieved his passing.” (pg. 299)

Pham might not have known Minh was going to kill himself, but he should have been there for the end of his sister’s life. Instead he was too busy, too wrapped up in his own life, to notice or to care. “It was my season of unraveling. And his as well.” (pg.334) Pham was so distracted and devastated by what happened with Trieu, that he didn’t even notice his own sister’s desperate need for love. From the moment Pham and his family lost Minh as a runaway she was gone forever, never to truly be with them again. She had been fated to end her life, and Pham couldn’t understand why Minh had been the sacrifice and not him, why he had the luck and not others. Losing Trieu and then Minh in one fell scoop, not being able to save either one, was too much for Pham. He needed to relieve the guilt from his conscience, this heavy crushing weight, and he needed to find out who he truly was, for himself, for Trieu, and for Minh. He decided the best way to start searching for who you truly are is traveling the world on a bicycle, his real destination being Vietnam.

While Pham was in Vietnam, he discovered more and more about himself and about this strange country he wanted so desperately to understand, to love. This was the land of his birth, the land of his ancestors, what should have been his home, but he felt no more welcome here than in America. He strove to make connections, to understand the misfortunes and lives of these unlucky people who had not had the means to escape Vietnam like he did. Pham felt it was necessary to come to terms with his own guilt towards being the one who left his home country for better things. He wanted to discover what it meant to be Vietnamese so that he could understand himself, understand Trieu, and also understand Minh.

The longer Pham was in Vietnam, the more he understood its people, and didn’t understand them at the same time. His terrible need to make a connection with these people weighed on him and added to his guilt for not truly being Vietnamese or American, for not belonging to either side like Trieu didn’t belong, but only pretending. When he met Beggar Girl his heart broke for her pitifulness, her desperation, her terrible poverty. “She looked back, an exact image-a younger image of Trieu.” (pg.106) Beggar Girl touched something in him that had long laid dormant. He felt like a human being who had finally made an emotional connection to another Vietnamese person, because had fate been reversed, he could be where she was now, as could Trieu. “I was her. She, me. She was Trieu….Random. My world-her world.”(pg.107) Pham felt that he needed to understand these connections, the reasons behind why some fates are fortunate and others are not. He needed for there to be a way for him to save these people,
because if he didn’t save them, or couldn’t, then it would be failing like he had failed Trieu, like he had failed himself by not being the great man she thought he was.

When Pham meets Kim the taxi dancer it is as if he has another chance with Trieu, a chance to make things right. Through her, he wants to understand the life of a victimized Vietnamese woman, as if understanding her will somehow make up for not understanding Trieu. Kim traded sex for money like Trieu traded her identity for her father’s affection. Pham thought that if he understood Kim he would understand Trieu, and he thought that if he found his own identity, it would be like giving Trieu back hers. When the moment came for Pham to tell Kim he loved her he said, “I’ve left everyone I’ve loved. I’ve failed people I loved.”(pg.134) Failing Trieu made him feel that he was incapable of truly loving anyone, that his inability to be the man she thought he was proved that he couldn’t put another human being above himself. Kim said to Pham, “I don’t want to stay here in Vietnam. Take me to America.”(pg.134) Pham told her he couldn’t take her to America, and he realized that Kim changed him by making him understand that taking her to supplementing his guilt over not saving Trieu by saving Kim, and that would be unfair. He couldn’t save everyone, he could only try his best for the people he loved.

The turning point in Pham’s life was when he realized that he couldn’t save Trieu from her weaknesses, and his guilt over that made him feel he could save no one. Trieu changed him in that she led him to realize that his guilt was his humanity, and that the true goodness in his soul came from that humanity. He realized at the end of his journey that he could only do his best in this life, and that any regrets or guilt he had were only what he should feel, what he had to feel. Everyone feels guilt, and in truth it iswhat saves us and makes us know we are human. “…Past wrongs can be mended with the totality of …regrets, a pure desire that things might have been different…”(pg.339) With the ending of Pham’s journey he finds what he has been looking, which is how to survive while understanding others, understanding himself, and feeling the regret of all his past mistakes. He knows that all he can do in this life is move forward with the intention of living his life while being true to who he is, and carrying his regrets with him like badges of honor, always reminding him that he is alive.

English 1A: Improvement!

Globalization: Politically Correct Prejudice

Is globalization the world’s cure for all things prejudiced, or is it just a way to transform racism into a more politically correct institution? In How Soccer Explains the World, Franklin Foer argues that globalization doesn’t reduce racism as modernization theorists claim, it only hides it slightly better so as to make it more acceptable to the general public. While almost every race and religion has suffered through some form of prejudice, the Jews have been one of the most persecuted. Anti-Semitism was what caused Jewish athletes to be considered a joke, and today this kind of racism still exists, albeit in a less dangerous way than it once was. Foer believes that anti-Semitism combined with globalization led to WWII, and that Globalization hasn’t rid the world of racism; only changed it. He also claims that to eradicate racism is possible, which I think can never happen because prejudice is a part of human nature which can never be extracted.

Of the many stereotypes that have become fodder for comedians, Jewish stereotypes have been used more throughout history than any other, and have generally caused much amusement. Just one of these numerous stereotypes is the idea that Jews are the world’s worst athletes. Ironically, before World War II and one of the world’s greatest ethnic genocides, Jews had become some of the world’s finest soccer players.

For many years, Jews believed that to do well in sports was to prove to society that they were as good as anyone else, to prove that they belonged. As Foer demonstrates in detail, “An entire movement of Jews believed that soccer, and sport more generally, would liberate them from the violence and tyranny of anti-Semitism” (Foer 69). While many people thought that Jews engaged in soccer just to prove their superiority over others, this was not the case. Foer explains that Jews did want to show their sense of nationalism to the rest of the world, but the purpose wasn’t to alienate, it was to assimilate. They just wanted to be accepted as an equal part of society, and not as strangers in their own home. They wanted their efforts to be noticed, and they wanted the achievements of Jews to be known all over the world, to be globalized.
Jews believed that if their successes were known around the world, they would be accepted into society. Unfortunately, while their Jewish pride was strong, anti-Semitism was stronger. Even the Jews themselves felt the pull of this anti-Semitism, feeling that they were somehow less than others and must go to extra lengths to prove themselves. Foer postulates that “Zionism and modern European anti-Semitism dripped out of the same fin–de-siecle intellectual spout” (Foer 70). Foer talks of seeing this kind of Jew on Jew racism when he hears Max Nardau’s description of fellow Jews being physically inferior and describes it as “creepy” (Foer 70). He is referring to the effect racism often has on its recipients, especially the kind of open racism that went on just before the Holocaust. This kind of racism changes people’s opinions of themselves; it makes them think that they have something to prove to others, some extra step they need to take in
order to belong. Oftentimes, no matter how hard you try, racism gains the upper hand, as it did with the coming of World War II. Instead of Jewish pride being globalized, only Jewish hate was, and Hitler actively spread his ideas of a world cleansed of the Jewish people through the same techniques globalization uses today: the media, mass propaganda, personal bias, and the need to have a universal culture. The Nazis even went so far as to try to use a documentary of Jews in the concentration camps to prove how well they were being treated and that there really was no genocide, just so people could keep pretending they didn’t know it was happening and could feel they had no active part in it.

Foer argues that while globalization should have eliminated anti-Semitism, especially in our modern age of what is supposed to be racial equality, anti-Semitism has never really gone away. “By most counts, continental anti-Semitism is as prevalent as it has ever been in the post-war era, or even more so”(Foer 71). He agrees that anti-Semitism has changed, but only in that it is now harder to see, and therefore harder to get rid of. He believes that this is one of the main factors supporting his idea that globalization doesn’t work; that if it did anti-Semitism, along with all racism, would be in the process of being eradicated, but it is really only growing and becoming a stronger entity. Foer believes that to wholeheartedly support globalization is to support a new kind of hidden racism that society may never recover from.

In many ways I am in complete agreement with Foer and his controversial ideas. Before WWII Jews all over the world began to rise in social status; from having higher paying and more prestigious jobs, to becoming world renown musicians, artists, and athletes. Yet, most of these Jews, along with millions of others, were brutally murdered in the Holocaust, and nations all over the world either openly or quietly supported the extermination of Jews. The idea of extracting Jews from society spread across the world, and rather than horrify the general public as globalization theorists would argue it should have, many nations supported erasing Judaism out of existence, although not all would openly admit to supporting genocide. Interestingly enough, the Nazi party never actively tried to hide their efforts to rid the world of its pesky Semitic residents, it only tried to gloss over the ways in which they were going about it. A German Nazi named Eichler wrote an essay on the effects of Jewish persecution at the start of WWII claiming, “The world paid attention. It saw that it was no longer a matter of theory, that it was not merely the anti-Semitism of an earlier age, but rather that the final reckoning with Jewry had begun” (Eichler). While some countries did fight back against the Germans, it was more because they didn’t want to give up power than a need to protect Jews.

One thing that Foer and globalization theorists would agree on is that prejudice is something learned which may be un-learned. However, I believe that prejudice is really a reaction to competition, more of a natural instinct than anything else. When we compete we place ourselves in levels of superiority, a kind of social stratification which exists in every society, and trying to resist this instinct to feel that we have done better than someone else can only be a temporary action. In Social Behavior[Its Elementary Form, George Casper Homans conducted an extremely interesting sociological experiment using young children as his subjects of study. He watched how they played a beanbag game to judge how they responded to competition, and discovered that when a team felt cheated because they were losing or superior because they were winning they began to openly show hate and disdain for their fellow teams and began to form close bonds with their own team members. Homans concluded from his study that, “As for competition between groups, it is…likely to increase the hostility members of one group express towards members of the other” (Homans 144). When we compete against each other, our instinct is to form bonds with those on our side, and to compete against those who aren’t.

Humans would argue that the way to solve this problem of inequality breeding prejudice and discrimination is to eliminate competition altogether and become a socialist or communist society. In my opinion, this is a romantic, idealistic point of view which cannot be supported by history or sociology. Socialism can never and will never work because it goes against human nature; the desire to achieve a higher status, to receive recognition for the things you do well, and the need for independence. One editor on Ideas on Liberty strongly stated, “The regret about socialism turns out to be a regret about human nature” (Richman). Socialism, like globalization, can never work because it doesn’t reflect the human race’s natural desire to form groups and compete against each other. The theory of globalization is based on an assumption that human beings essentially want to get along and be at peace, but in my opinion that is completely false. What human beings really want is conflict, and this is why globalization can never work in the way that many hope it will; as a long term solution or racism.

Globalization has modernized and diversified the world, and made a lot of positive advancements in technology and communication, but it has failed in bringing what it hoped to be a world of peace, unity, and an international culture. While globalization theorists argue that soon the world will be almost entirely free of racism, and therefore will have a UN kind of world peace, the evidence tells us that this idea is not only impossible, it’s hypocritical. Globalization has done more to spread prejudice across the world then to quench it, and over and over again globalization theorists are being proven wrong for their ridiculous theories on human nature and the state of the world. Foer also thinks that it is possible for racism to be extinguished, and while I agree with him on his theories of globalization spreading anti-Semitism across the globe and being a cause for the greatest genocide in history, I think his theories on racism are baseless and come from the same kind of idealism that encourages people to believe in the possibility of a society with no social hierarchy, which just isn’t possible.

English 1B

Love: A Synonym for Loneliness?

Being alone in love is the most terrifying emotion there is; it can eat away at your soul until every semblance of the person you once were slowly disappears. Arthur Shnitzler puts it best when he says, "No spectre assails us in as many varied disguises as loneliness, and one of its most impenetrable masks is called love". The problem with this idea of being lonely in love is that the reason a person in love feels alone is because the love is flawed; either it is not meant to last, or something crucial must be changed in the relationship.

The story of Romeo and Juliet is considered both the most romantic and the most tragic story of all time. If two people are so in love that they would risk everything they have just to be together, how could there be loneliness in that scenario? When love surrounds and envelopes you, shouldn't all past feelings of isolation and uncertainty dissolve in the face of such emotion?
When Romeo and Juliet meet, it can be called nothing but love at first sight, a "fatal attraction". Their love story progresses quite a bit differently than Schnitzler predicts when he says, ""Each loving relationship has three stages...the first in which you are happy with each other when silent; the second in which you are silently bored with each other; and the third in which silence becomes a form that stands between the lovers like an evil enemy""(James 703). While the demise of Juliet and her lover Romeo precludes them from ever getting to step two or three, step one was also never part of the process, most likely because what Romeo and Juliet feel for each other is more childhood infatuation than any kind of mature love. Had fate not led to their untimely deaths, their tumultuous romance most likely would have fizzled out before step two.
The story of two young lovers desperate for each other and ready to sacrifice everything to be together is not new, nor is it original. This is an everyday circumstance because young people are too naive and too self-centered to comprehend anything beyond the here and now.

When Romeo looks upon Juliet on the balcony, he says to himself, "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the East, and Juliet is the sun" (2.2.2-3). By comparing a teenage girl he just met to something as powerful and permanent as the sun, he is putting her on an impossible pedestal that she can never get off of, and therefore his love for her is not real. With true love comes true understanding, and the only thing that Romeo understands about Juliet is how beautiful she is and how much he wants her. This is Romeo's loneliness disguised as love; he is making a tragic romance out of the need in his young heart to feel something real, and to believe that there is more to life than just living it.

Romeo, like many other young men, searches constantly for that perfect woman who will fulfill his life and erase all feelings of loneliness from it. When the play begins it is not Juliet Romeo is in love with, but another young woman named Rosaline. He describes her as, "O, she is rich in beauty, only poor That when she dies, with beauty dies her store" (1.2.223-224). He is saying she is so beautiful that when she dies beauty will die with her, and so will the beauty she has stored up for her children. This is exactly the way he talks about Juliet, and when he first sees her his fickle heart leads him to exclaim, "Did my heart love till now? Foreswear it, sight, For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night" (1.5.59-60).

When Romeo talks to the Friar about marrying Juliet he is so shocked to hear of Romeo's sudden change of heart from Rosaline to Juliet he says, "Is Rosaline, that thou didst love so dear, So soon forsaken? Young men's love then lies Not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes" (2.3.70-72). The wise friar, who knows Romeo better than anyone else in the play, sees this new romance for what it is, the desperate attempt of two young people to prove their live will have more meaning and depth than the lives of those around them, when really they are just playing house.
For Juliet the situation is much the same in that she too puts Romeo in an impossible position by asking him to give up everything to be with her. When she cries out, "O, Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo? Deny thy father and refuse thy name" (2.2.36-37), she acts out the cliché of the love struck young teenager who can't live without her man.

In reality, young romances like that of Romeo and Juliet are brought out by the sense of isolation all teenagers, and adults for that matter, feel from the rest of the world, and from the need to have some kind of meaningful connection to another human being. This type of love causes, and is usually caused by loneliness, the love itself is just a disguise for loneliness, a temporary fix for the sense of disconnection we all feel from the world. Famous critic Clive James writes that in the end of this kind of relationship, "You are alone again. You were really alone all along. You have deceived yourself" (702).

It is not to say that this kind of love is wrong or somehow reprehensible, on the contrary, it is a rite of passage. I experienced this kind of overly dramatic emotion myself, with my first love. At sixteen I knew little of the world, let alone the opposite sex, and I met a man who I fell head over heels in love with. I felt that he was my whole world, everything that really mattered, and I let my feelings control me into cutting out everyone else in my life that took away from my time with him. Yet even while I was in love, I felt more alone than I ever had in my entire life because I was with someone who didn't truly understand me. We were pretending to live as one person, but really we were just two completely separate individuals temporarily obsessed with one another. Obsession is not love, it's just a way to keep our mind's so occupied, we don't realize how truly alone we are.

However, love, no matter what form it comes in, is always a blessing. Clive James puts it best when he says, "When you love, the problem begins, and so does your real life" (702). After all, a life without love is really just a series of meaningless activities piling up on each other with each passing moment.

In The Female Brain M.D. Louann Brizendine argues that falling in love is a natural instinct caused by hormones in our brains telling us who would make the best mate. She describes love as an emotion based on chemicals, but also on both physical and emotional connection, claiming that human beings feel an instinctive need for this kind of intimate bond. Brizendine argues that, "The drive to fall in love is always hovering in the background. Being in love, however, requires making room in your life and your brain for the beloved, actually incorporating him into your self image..."(68) For a lasting relationship to come out of love, the love has to come out of mutual understanding and acceptance, which is the reason why true love does not include loneliness, at least not the kind of desperate loneliness that comes out of feeling disconnected and misunderstood.

Although I don't believe that love is a mask for loneliness, I do believe that the feeling of loneliness can be caused by the loss of love. As Brizendine states, "When love is lost, abandoned men are three to four times more likely to commit suicide. Women, by contrast, sink into depression" (75). Falling out of love, or being rejected by the one you love, can be the most depressing and lonely experience of your life.

However, the pain brought on by a broken heart is a necessary part of life. As Brizendine puts it, "It may be that the "brain pain" of lost love evolved as a physical alarm to alert us to the dangers of social separation" (76). Brizendine's argument is that social connection is necessary, both to our future offspring and to our own well being. Social connection is what keeps us feeling like a part of the world, what keeps us from being too lonely to function, and love is the most powerful example of social connection there is.

In The Unbearable Lightness of Being Milan Kundera creates a couple named Tereza and Tomas, whose love keeps them tied together, not through happiness, but through misery. Tereza loves Tomas the way every man should be loved, and Tomas loves Tereza in the same way Tereza loves her dog Karenin, a puppy who won't leave her side, and who needs her for his basic survival. Kundera describes the love of Tereza and Karenin as, "...a completely selfless love: Tereza did not want anything of Karenin; she did not ever ask him to love her back" (297).
This is why the love between Tereza and Tomas could never really work; human beings are selfish, and love does come with expectations. You are expected to be faithful and completely give yourself to the one you love, and Tomas not having the ability to do this is what left Tereza miserable, and what kept them from ever really being a couple. They were just two separate people, tied together by an incomplete love, and for Tereza, her time with Tomas was the loneliest of her life.

Tereza's thoughts of Tomas's love were that, "She had always secretly reproached him for not loving her enough. Her own love she considered above reproach, while his seemed mere condescension" (309). His love might as well have been condescension, because when two people do not love each other equally it is not a healthy or happy kind of love, it can only breed insecurity, despair, and loneliness.

At a certain point in their relationship, Tereza became so accustomed to her own misery, that during lovemaking "She no longer cried out as she had in the past, and, at the moment of orgasm, her grimace seemed to him to express suffering and a strange absence" (226). Tereza was trying to separate herself emotionally from Tomas because sometimes it is better to be completely alone, than to be alone in love.

After Tomas and Tereza move to the country, they seem happier because they are away from distractions and can enjoy each other without threat of Tomas's infidelity. However, this is when love really is a disguise for loneliness, because they are just trying to pretend that everything in their relationship is intact, and that their love can keep them together, even though their love was ruined a long time ago, and can never be repaired.

Yet, Tereza continued to stay with Tomas because, "Even with Tomas she was obliged to behave lovingly because she needed him" (289). This is the reason many couples who are alone in love stay together; they need each other to keep from feeling truly alone. At least if they're together, they can pretend that their life and soul is connected to another human being.

Clive James writes of love, "That we feel bound by a steady longing for freedom, and that we also seek to bind someone else, without being convinced that such a thing is within our rights-that is what makes any loving relationship so problematic" (702). This is what Tomas feels, a never ending to be free of responsibility and obligation, but love isn't an obligation, it's a privilege and a blessing, and men like Tomas don't deserve it. If two people are willing to share equally of this blessing, to bind each other together and to live the life of one, then they will not be lonely, because their connection will be real.

Humanitarian Mother Teresa writes of her feelings on love and loneliness:
When Christ said: ''I was hungry and you fed me,'' he didn't mean only the hunger for bread and for food; he also meant the hunger to be loved. Jesus himself experienced this loneliness. He came amongst his own and his own received him not, and it hurt him then and it has kept on hurting him. The same hunger, the same loneliness, the same having no one to be accepted by and to be loved and wanted by. Every human being in that case resembles Christ in his loneliness; and that is the hardest part, that's real hunger.

Human beings feel a distinct and tangible need not to be alone, and many people equate this need for connection with love, but that is not what real love is about. This is why so many people are alone in their love, because they are living a life of pretend; a life where
their need to be with someone outweighs their need to be understood. A love ruled by need and not by want is not real love at all.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NTWvyXs8-uE

English 1C

The War Rages On

A grammar war might not seem quite as adventurous as a war involving actual violence and bloodshed, but it still has a meaningful and controversial impact on society. A decision must be made in terms of how our language will be structured; should we have rules to control usage, or should we let the people decide individually how they would like to speak and write? Both sides of this issue have their advantages, but the real problem to be considered is how to have one nationally recognized language that still leaves room for change. I submit that the only way for Americans to educate and understand one another is to have written rules about usage, albeit rules that can be changed over time; in this way I am what David Foster Wallace calls a Prescriptivist.

Every day words, phrases, and grammar rules are being badly mangled and misused by the general public. The difference between affect and effect, for example, is constantly misinterpreted. Affect is a verb meaning to have an effect on, and effect is normally a noun meaning the actual effect you have on something. As Garner puts it, "To affect something is to have an effect on it" (24). Effect can also be a verb, meaning to make happen. This distinction is fairly simple, yet it is misused consistently. Confusing these two words can completely change the meaning of a sentence, such as "'Mr. Nir's briefing must have had some affect [read effect] on Mr. Bush...'" (Garner 24). Although most likely written by someone of considerable education and intelligence, the one grammatical error in this sentence makes the entire statement seem lazily and thoughtlessly written.

Even more confusing than the misuse of affect and effect is that of dissemble and disassemble. Dissemble means to keep something a secret, or to represent something falsely, while disassemble means to take something apart. A sentence incorrectly using these two words can be disastrous, such as, "'Rushakoff said that he had to spend a lot of money learning how to use the right tools and the right procedures to dissemble [read disassemble] computers'" (Garner 215). Replacing disassemble with dissemble makes this sentence completely ridiculous because obviously you can't keep something a secret from a computer.

While these kinds of grammar blunders are considered by many to be confusing and illogical, Descriptivists argue they are natural products of discourse communities. While it is true that groups of people that spend considerable time together tend to pick up their own jargon and slang, this cannot be accepted as a form of professional communication. Wallace states that, "...Descriptivists contend, it's the Scientific Method-clinically objective, value neutral, based on direct observation and demonstrable hypothesis-that should determine both the content of dictionaries and the standards of 'correct' English" (11). This stance is impossible to see through however, because to place into the dictionary common language from every discourse community would be impossible, and doing so would make the English language as a whole a meaningless concept. If no grammar rules prevail in a language, then there is no nationally recognized form of speaking and writing, and no higher level of intellect or education evident in speech or literature. Obviously determining level of intelligence through speech and thought can never be done on an objective scale, but society in general can have certain standards for what it deems appropriate in writing and formal speech, which is the reason for a firm grammatical system. One way to show intelligence is putting in the effort to make sure that your speech and writing contains correct grammar and usage, and is therefore coming from a person who cares about language.

However, language obviously is not a constant variable, unchanging over time. Many commonly used words today have drastically different meanings than what the words are now considered to mean. The word guy, for instance, according to the OED, originally meant an effigy of Guy Fawkes. Guy Fawkes was the man who protested ant-Catholic laws by burying about twenty barrels of gunpowder in the House of Parliament. The figures holding a likeness to Guy Fawkes were themselves called guys. The definition changed to mean a person dressed badly, and then changed again to a slang term meaning lantern. The noun then became a verb meaning to run off, and eventually became the noun, meaning man, which is the common use today.
There are thousands of other words such as guy which have gone through astounding semantic changes. The word muse, for instance, according to the OED, was initially the noun mythol, with Greek and Dorican roots. Mythol was the name for the group of nine goddesses in Greek mythology. The word then changed to the noun muse, meaning the inspiration of poetry or song. It then changed to include the definition of a muse as represented in sculpture, and a more rare definition of a woman who embodies a muse. The word then changed, from a verb into a noun. The verb to muse means to be in a state of abstraction, to be perplexed or uncertain, to wonder. Later French scholars referred to a muse as a bagpipe, or as a verbal noun, to play music. The Arab version of this verb actually means a plantain or banana. The most common definition of the term today is to bewilder or puzzle, although it can still refer to inspiration for an artist. However, it no longer refers at all to the initial definition, which is the nine Greek Gods.
These semantic changes support the argument of Descriptivists, which is that language is constantly changing, therefore placing restrictions on it is a fruitless exercise. While I think that restrictions in language are both useful and necessary, I do agree that meanings and usage are flexible ideas because everything changes over time. If the English language had never changed, American citizens would still be speaking Old English. The fact that modern day English sounds like a completely different language than what was spoken in the time of William Shakespeare is telling as to the very nature of semantic change. While Old English and the English we speak today are connected in their beginnings, the differences between them are unbelievable. Understanding Old English is almost as difficult as understanding an entirely different language, and a few hundred years from now people will probably be saying the same thing about the English we speak today. This is the beauty of language; it is a constantly changing entity that can be regulated, but can never be completely controlled.

This is the main reason why errors in usage continue, because it is impossible to control the flow of language among communities. The most that can be done is to educate the largest amount of people possible as to proper grammar and word use, and hope that they understand the importance of the correct use of the English language. Yet mistakes and misunderstandings in grammar will continuously be a problem, as is evident in today's society. People will always use words incorrectly, such as the common mistake of mixing up incredible and incredulous. Incredible means unbelievable, and incredulous means to be unbelieving. While these words are similar in meaning, their intended uses are completely different. A sentence like, ""[T]he delays that were tolerated by the Canadian justice system are absolutely incredulous [read incredible]"" (Garner 366) can make an otherwise intelligent person seem moronic and uneducated.

Although Descriptivist are correct in stating that language is constantly changing and therefore must be flexible, they are incorrect in the assumption that this makes regulations on grammar and usage superfluous. How a person speaks and writes reflects something about who they are, whether that is objectionable to some or not. In groups of friends more casual language is acceptable, but in any kind of professional or even semi-professional setting, a person has to be able to show a certain level of intellect which cannot be seen if their speech is littered with common grammatical errors. Nothing can make a person seem more uneducated than the misuse of a simple word or phrase.

Descriptivists and Prescriptivists are currently at two different sides of a raging grammar war which, for the moment, seems to have no predictable conclusion. The issues in this war affect American society and every day life drastically, because language is a cornerstone of our culture. How and if language should or will be regulated is rarely discussed in our society, but it does affect every single person in the nation. Whether or not you are involved in the academic world, patterns of speech will impact your life. The difference between speaking to friends and speaking to a business associate, how to write a letter or an essay, how to understand both entertainment
television and the news, all of these are important issues in modern day America, and these are the exact issues that Descriptivists and Prescriptivists are currently battling over. While Descriptivists argue for a language with no rules or restrictions, Prescriptivists take the opposite stance and argue for distinctive rules governing all use of language. I believe that the English language should be regulated because the use of language reflects on us as individuals and as a nation, but at the same time I think that regulations should be flexible because language is always changing.

Modern American Literature: The Harlem Renaissance

Race: Just Another Color, Or Everything That Matters?

There is no subject more controversial than racism and the theory of how race and identity are connected. The Harlem Renaissance was a time for African Americans to explore the issues dealing with their race. During this period Claude McKay and Zora Neale Hurston were just two of the leading writers in this sweeping literary movement. McKay wrote some of the most influential and disturbing works of the Harlem Renaissance, calling all African Americans to revolt against the system of class and racism in America, while Hurston took an entirely different route, writing about her own identity as something separate from her race.

McKay wrote many moving and insightful works intended to force Americans to open their eyes to the horror of racism in America. In her poem The Lynching, she paints a vivid picture of an African American being hanged while others stand around and watch, symbolizing the relationship between African Americans and whites during this time. Although slavery no longer existed, African Americans were still being attacked and discriminated against because of their race, and the degradation they felt in their own society was a cause of enjoyment and humor for the whites. Mckay makes her point when she writes, "The women thronged to look, but never a one/showed sorrow in her eyes of steely blue;/And little lads, lynchers that were to be,/ Danced round the dreadful thing in glee (2085). This reveals the whites to be an evil, soulless group, just waiting for the next African American to die, which in McKay's writings is how whites are generally portrayed.

Beyond this idea of the relationship between whites and African Americans lies the true message of this poem, which is that African Americans are being too complacent in society. McKay wrote to inspire her people to fight back against those that tried to push them down, because this was the only way they could ever be free from the power of racism. She introduces this theory by writing, "His Spirit in smoke ascended to high heaven,/His father, by the cruelest way of pain,/Had bidden him to his bosom once again;/The awful sin remained still unforgiven (2084). "His father" refers to God, who he is going to join in heaven after being most likely burned to death. The unforgiven sin refers to the sin of what the whites have done to him and to his people, but it also refers to the sin of African Americans. McKay is making the argument that her people have not fought hard enough against the whites, which in itself is a sin because to not fight is to give in the oppressors, which is unforgivable. McKay is trying to force her fellow African Americans to begin the necessary revolution against white society, because this is the only way that they can get back their dignity and self-respect.

Zora Neale Hurston, while also a writer during the Harlem Renaissance, has very different works that that of McKay. Her style is entirely different; instead of arguing about the necessity of fighting against racism like McKay, Hurston writes of her race as if it is just one section of herself which does not define her. She claims that being an African American is not in itself an injustice, but actually a gift. She takes it as a thrilling challenge in the story How It Feels To Be Colored Me when she says, "The game of keeping what one has is never so exciting as the game of getting" (2099). She goes further to analyze her feelings about race by stating, "I have seen the world is to the strong regardless of a little pigmentation more or less. No, I do not weep at the world-I am too busy sharpening my oyster knife" (2098). With these quotes Hurston sets up the theme of her story; race should not be an impediment to a person's success, but merely an incentive to work harder at being strong and successful in life.

Although Hurston doesn't feel that race should define a person, she does agree that it contributes to personality. She shows how her race makes her more in touch with the primitiveness laying under a disguise of civility when she writes, "This orchestra grows rambunctious, rears on its hind legs and attacks the tonal veil with primitive fury, rendering it, clawing it until it breaks though to the jungle beyond" (2099). This quote depicts a feeling that white people can never be in touch with because any primitiveness they might have is buried underneath too many layers of civil society, while African Americans are still in tune with the forces of nature inside them. The music she writes about is a symbol for the animal feelings of anger and aggression she has inside of her, which in her mind are not a hindrance, but an essential and beautiful part of her identity, which she could not envision living without.

McKay and Hurston are two of the leading writers of the Harlem Renaissance with extremely different ideas and themes. While McKay argues for a revolution against a racist society, Hurston fights for a sense of identity which is not all-encompassed by her race. Both writers contribute to the strength of the Harlem Renaissance, and to the empowerment of their people, whether through fighting against racism, or fighting to understand its pathetic meaninglessness. One thing that they both agree on is that African Americans need to be stronger than anyone else because that is the only way they can succeed and thrive in life.