Blog # 10

My focus is the Presidents influence over the American Dream. The influence of shaping it, defining it, guiding it and even establishing it./

From my chapter I learned that the American Dream is primarly influenced by the President. The way the President defines it. In the chapter, White is speaking about influence the United States President has over the American Dream. The President is the leader and well known nationwide, additionally he is also the most admired single human being. One strategy that President cadidates appeal to , is the representation of the American Dream. That is elected is because he/she represents the American Dream that the Country aspire.  He gives several example in  different time periods and how each president and even candidaate represented the dream, spoke about the dream and even gave hope and optimism to foreign immigrants

I learned alot of knowledge from this text. So, I already had the main concept that the President was a huge influence to the American Dream however I was never able to think of solid examples of that. This chapter allowed me to understand the effectivneess of the Presidents role over the American Dream  through the extensive veriaty of examples , which btw I had no idea how effective some of these presidents were. Anyway, It also helped me understand the importance of Obamas election. Now that I am older and politically aware, I wish I was able to experience the day he won the election. However at that time I was about 9 years old and didn't know better than " oh cool our first brown president, about time the white house adds some color." In chapter 3 white said that " Obama embodied the American Dream."Through this quote he explains that Obamas election was so much more than just the Presdiency.He also explains how the optimism for the American Dream drastically increased for African Americans. The crazy thing is that Obama was nearly just elected and the perception of the American Dream had already increased. Obama has not done anything!! nO POLICY! NO ACTION!He simply won the election and was already changing the Americna Dream.

I can only come to the conclusion that the President has tremendous amount of power. He has complete control over guiding the United States. He can revive the American Dream, or kill it. He can give it a moral purpose or set an American Dream full of racism and discrimination. The American Dream is the Identity of the nation and the President holds it in his hands.( that is why it is important to choose a good president # not trump) I think partially, that is why the United States is increasing in inequality, Simply because the most powerful man in the United States is racist, therefore many believe it is acceptable and encouraged to be racist aswell. Anyway, going back ti the identity. The American Dream is the idea that you can achieve anything you want, and that is exactly why our soldiers fight, why immigrants come here and why our nation is among the greatest in the world.

Blog #9 -Presidents and The American Dream

Who started the American Dream? Have you ever sit back and thought how did the American Dream come to be? and why is it that other nations dont have a popular dream like that of America? I mean we arent the only first world country, so why arent other countries proud of their "British dream" French dream" or "Chinese dream"? The other countries  also aspire riches and success, what sets the United States apart is the leader of the country. Not only is the American President very influential in international affairs and sometimes even regarded as the 'leader of the free world.' The President is also the most influential citizen in the United States and almost every President appeals to the American Dream when running the campaign. They must re assure the public that they will preserve one of Americas greatest trasures; the American Dream.

John Kenneth White writes chapter 3 of The American Dream in the 21st Century. His chapter " The Presidency and the Making of the American Dream" is broken down into 2 topics- yet 3 parts. The two topics are the President  and Immigrants.Obviously both in context of the American Dream. Among the two topics he dicusses 3 main parts. The first part is how the President embodies the American Dream. This idea that any citizen coming from rags or riches can gain riches and even become the Leader of the country.Obama, Kennedy, Raegen, Washington and many other embodied the American Dream by showing a poor start of their life's until eventually reaching the Oval office. Then White discusses that representing the American Dream is not enough they need speak with "credible optimism." Many use optimism through stories of their fathers or admiring figures.The public just need their lack of hope reassured. A security that the American Dream is alive at its full potential.Perhaps those two topics go hand in hand, I just saw them as a slight different focus.Finally, White discusses Immigrants.  elaborates on 4 different preidenttial candidates (win or lose)  and how they aided in  building the American Dream.One quote mentioned that really stood out to me was  when he quotes Michael S. Dukakis in the election of 1988.  Dukakis said " immigrants had a special responsibility to give something back to the country that had opened up its arms to our parents and given so much to them." Whites overall topic of immigrants is that Immigrants are becoming a stronger part of American culture and that throughout history many president have been responsible for Immigrants adopting the American Dream. However, going back to the topic, it really stood out to me because those who can relate and understand the true meaning of Dukakis words will know how strong and meaningful that is.

My family and I are immigrants under the DACA program. Family of 6. We all have jobs, no criminal records, pay taxes and 4 of us are in college. We are contributors of this country and unlike other people believe that immigrants are  taking advantage of the system,that fear is false and unrealistic. In fact the majority of immigrants are extremely greatfull for the opportunity to pursue the American Dream and only want to be integrated into society to contribute in making America the greatest country in the world.My parents were economically more stable when we lived in Mexico.Owned our own house, business, and principals of a school. Yet they still decided to migrate to an unknown country to live a low income life??That is the value of the American Dream for immigrants.It is difficult and painful but it is so strong it overcomes foreign economic status. So far , it is the best decision my parents have taken.All we want to do is reach  a better status of living. Non-immigrants think that after achiveing the American Dream , Immigrants will go back to their country or simply take advantage of American citizens. That idea is wrong. Immigrants come here to incorporate in society and give back to the only nation that opened its arms to immigrants.It is the "Immigrant Responsibility" ( this paragraph was probably not relevant to the blog, but that quote triggered me)

Throught the test of chapter 3 I had many questions. one of the Main questions was clarified by White in a paragraph however it remains a doubt . My question is , why do presidents embody the American Dream, if most of them were born into a rich and political family. Very few of them can really say they came from "rags to riches." White admits that its myth, and the public knows that so why is it that we still admire them in the American Dream.

Additionally, White mentions optimism. Does that mean the American Dream is not real? It is only constant reassurance , just words to make thhe public think the American Dream is alive, when it really is dead?

Finally, who represents the American Dream better? Immigrants or American Citizens? A citizen simply worries about his/her prosperity.. and that is acceptable. However, the American Dream for an immigrant is a mixture of education, stability, safety, and overall legalization.

The American Dream is so value it is nearly part of the Constitution.

Blog #8 -Materialistic Myth

Walter R. Fisher compares two American Dreams definition in two myths which were identified in each of the candidates of the 1972 Presidential elections.Fisher described how Nixon defined the American Dream as a materialistic myth of working an obtaining. On the other hand stands the Moralistic myth behind Senator McGovern that defined the American Dream freedom;as one conceives itself.
It is amusing when Fisher argues that "Their campaign struggle would be a struggle between rival definitions of the American Dream.(117)". He later goes on to explain that the constituents that voted for each candidate did not mean agreement nor support for the candidates political agenda. They voted for them primarily because of the American Dream that the candidate symbolized.It comes to prove how important the Myth of the American Dream, and how much the Americans value it. I mean Nixon was already battling allegations of watergate and he still won the election by a landslide.I personally think that  has to do a lot with the time period that Nixon won. The concern for social issues was not dominant, the civil rights act of 1965 was very recent and barely gaining importance in the life of American ideology. Meanwhile, the concern for prosperity and Economic success was already deeply embedded in the American Culture.Industiralization, the Gilded Age and Post World War II  were times of great economic success so the Americans see it as the dominant factor in a president.

Moving on to a different topic  Fisher states " the materialistic code assumes that one will pursue ones self-interest, not deny it for the betterment of someone else.(118)This quotation makes sense, you will pursue personal success , to simply survive and not deny yourself of that becasue of kindness.However, this concept has not functioned so smoothly, Americans are very individualistic, we focus on ourselves and even after obtaining economic success we dont turn to our neighbors to help.Specially, when many times our neighbors are part of the reason we obtained our prosperity.The capitalist economy makes complete sense; work to survive.However it should also be mixed with sense of helping others and caring for social issues even when you arent affected.
There must be balance; a a time to work for owns interest and a time to give and help others.I guess it relates to a presidential Promise made by several president throughout the years "America First."Obviously, in some time periods it was necessary for America to back off world issues and focus its attention to domestic issues, in other time periods;specifically recent presidents promise to focus on America and go on to send troops to areas of interest and enter foreign affairs.
Its a characteristic of American politics now days.They seem to be a world leader; a government that wants to help third world countries develop, however the interest are malicious and selfish.

Weird

Isn't it crazy that we see the American corporations running world wide and foreign countries have English as a prominent language? That surely does not mean that foreign countries embrace America! In fact most countries hate Americans for exactly that reason! They are everywhere or atleast they want to be!  American business and politics grt involved in every issue possible and due to that, the americans think that other nations embrace American culture worldwide. , p.s. we call our presudent the “ leader of the free world”  , however that name was selfgiven by the United States culture....other countries dont identify our president as the leader of the free world.

Gary Althen titles his reading “American values and assumptions” .... interesting because he does discuss the values americans have  and the assumption that it is a global concept. 

Althen  first value is “

Individualism.”  This concept is very interesting because  it dates back many centuries.  A strong concept during the gilded age was  an economic view of “survival of the fittest” a social darwin theory that stated that all consequences such as poverty, hunger and homelessness was a result of owns actions and each person should worry about own success.This concept is very dominant in american culture. Parenents teach their kids to be independent as soon as possible, drive at age 14, work at age 16, earn ur own money, make your own decision,  and at 18 you must leave to college or the house.  I dont see how this system functions. It is building selfish machines(humans) that will not care for their neighbor, the one in necessity, or the poor.

Although my community and family is predominantly hispanic  we are still influenced to some extent by the concept of individualism.  However, Hispanics are more attached to their family and the necesssities of others because most come from a struggling situation where they were taught to work in unity and look out forthose around us. It is very hard for a hispanic to seperate them selves frlm their family. In fact the majoroty of hispanics dont leave their house/parents until they are married. Many would argue that hispanic culture doesnt prepare kids for the world since they are always “ dependent” , but it’s not that. The thing is that hispanics are taught to work in unity witj their families and support them throughtout most of their lives.

Another interesting concept of American culture is  “ te future , change and progress.” It is basically this idea of forgetting of the past and focusing on the future.  From what I have observed, americans aren’t very attached to their culture. Unlike other countries like china, mexico, and south american countries that are very proud of their heritage. They express their pride through music, dances, plays , etc. On the other hand American does not display much pride, nor embarassment but they just continue society as if the past never happend.  

A famouse quote says “ those who dont know history, are condemned to repeat it” ( or something like that) . In other words the future focused vision  of the united states has also been the cause of many social issues like racism and gun violence, because they dont remmeber their history, they put it aside and it becomes a cycle that repeats every few decades.

These are just some of the many weird customs Althen describes, and just to be clear , I now understand why most countries see american customs as odd. Americans are pretty damn weird.
Personally, one of the weirdest things Americans do is;wear sandals everywheeeeeeeeeere.I have seen sandals in every location, including locations of respect such as church or rainy weathers. It is really odd.

Ohh and by the way .... Usually when you think about traditional foods for Americans , what is it?.... Hamburgers and Hot dogs?  That is crazy.

cAn YoU eVeN wRiTe? (blog #6)

 Lets be honest, we really do struggle when  teachers ask  us to find rhetorical strategies. At least personally, I always feel  unsure as to what the teachers expect or if my rhetorical strategies are even accurate.I am guessing that it is hard to identify a rhetorical strategy as I read because I am too focused in identifying the claims, evidence and main topic, so I tend to ignore the methods/rhetorical strategies the author uses. 

Her reading was relatively easy to understand. Few concept and words I had to search but the general ideas were understood. However, I did not like how Thonney uses too many examples. Yeah, I know it does add credibility and makes it easier to understand,however I think it is overused in ideas where it is not necessary. For examples when she presents the 3rd point she provides 3 examples almost righ away and they can be kinda of tedious to read.      

I found a contradiction where I still don't have a clear point if teachers would accept. In her first general idea, where she speaks about " what others have written," Thonney  argues that an issues students face is that they  "fail to contribute to the conversation(page 45)" The author basically argues that all the students do is summarize. From my understanding Thonney urges for students to contribute and add on to the reading, yet whenever a students does that most teachers tend to deduct points for giving personal opinion and not following the prompt.I know it does depend on the prompt however thonney points are meant to apply to any writing , "general ideas of writing."Do i contribute? do I not?

It is interesting when thonney point out in her point #3  that when arguing authors tend to use terms  such as " suggest"  and  " it seems." Many of us probably do such things unintentionally. when you want to prove a point you want to seem convinced however stating something as a fact is dangerous because it gives a perception of close mind as opposed to the other terms which allow for disagreements and discussion.

Additionally, her point #5 caught my attention. Primarily because when I write, I like to sound smarter then I really am ( kind of fake, i know ). Honestly, alot of times it gets out of hand... I use complicated words that don't fit in given case. Hopefully, I did not do that in this blog and it is something I need to work on.Nevertheless, Thonney is right when she states that using these terms is an indicator of proficiency in academic writing and convey specialized meanings. See! That is why I like using complicated terms.

To windup this blog, Teresa Thonney accurately presents methods that students can use to improve their writing in almost any type of text.These methods are to improve our skills and write as we are expected, the college level.

Blog #5-exterminating solidarity

You know that feeling you get after you give a home less some money, help an old lady or simply open the door for someone else. That feeling of satisfaction and pleasure, it is natural. Humans are born with the desire to help others,it is our emotion, it is known as solidarity.

However, Chomsky claims that the wealthy only pursue the vile maxim, he even adds that that selfish characteristic is created and not born with. When Chomsky says " You have to drive that out of people's heads"(p.66). He was referring to the natural emotion of solidarity, the characteristics of the wealthy have been made to turn them into selfish followers of their own prosperity.I found this very interesting because no one is born with unethical characteristics ,it is not in our genetics.... they are characteristics that humans learn and catch on to.It is also very sad how a human can reach such level of cruelty where they have complete disregard for anyone else but themselves.

Chomsky proves that the masters of mankind chase their own wealth while purposely limiting the less fortunate through their attack on public education,privatization of medicare and the elimination of the government.

         - when he speaks about public education and the absurdity of the individual paying a huge amount  he is doing a partially detached observation, where he is not directing interacting with struggling college students in debt but he was able to live in 1945 when tuition was essentially free.
         - In the discussion of medicare, Chomsky is once again doing an observation. He is criticizing the privatization of such basic human right and exposing how it is widely desired right.
         -Finally, Chomsky makes another observation that the wealthy want to have full control of the system.

Although Chomsky's examples are solid and questionable the support is very weak.He is able to provide much more support in other areas of his book, however he did not provide as much evidence as he could have.He does present examples however I keep in mind that these our his observation rather than proven facts. Nevertheless, what he does present is enough to convince a large amount of people.

Chomsky's main strategies is division/classification and loaded language.He divides each aspect that the wealthy attack so that he can analyze it and explain it. Additionally,  it can clearly be observed how the masters of mankind pursue the vile maxim.On the other hand, the loaded language is probably the most important. Chomsky , quotes what the wealthy would think "why should I pay taxes so that my neighbor can benefit." That is some very strong language, it sets a very cruel and selfish perception of the wealthy.Most importantly , Chomsky language makes distorts our view of the system. At least personally it made me view the education system as a disgrace.His audience are people who are directly affected by these features that the wealthy are attacking therefore his language strongly appeals to our emotions.

*picture is irrelevant

AMURICA

A government by the people and for the people. The constitution declares that the Government founded was intended to be fully democratic; rest all the power in the hands of the people.

I find it interesting how Madison was not selfish when creating the constitution.Chomsky states the theory that the constitution was set up to prevent democracy, while giving a sense of hope to the poor that they have control.Although this sounds like a scam and huge conspiracy lie, if this was true... then I find it astonishing how Madison's purpose was to vest the power in the rich since they can make the best decision for the entire community.These are called "special classes."

Although his original purpose was not entirely democratic it was not structured to harm the poor. I would have expect for Madison to create a constitution that entirely benefits the rich and purposely harms the poor. Yet that is not the case, Madison wants a constitution that makes America progress and truly excel.

Madison's original intent of the constitution connects to Aristotle writings of government system. Both favor democracy but are able to see through the general issue that comes with it.However, the distinct solutions are both polar ends.Madison is to reduce democracy;give more power to the special classes, while Aristotle is to reduce inequality;close the huge gap between the upper and the lower classes.

I cant really say that Chomsky or Madison are crazy because they are reasonable arguments  and if you observe society it does seem to be run by special classes with a huge inequality gap.On the other hand Aristotle arguments perfections the intended government. If the inequality gap closed down the working class would not try to snatch the wealth of some hard working prosperous people and they would hopefully understand why some people are best suited to run the decisions of the government.

In conclusion, I do agree with the controversy on democracy.If democracy was in effect then there would be no significantly wealthy people in the united states, since their prosperity would be spread out evenly.However giving fake hope to the working class, hope of democracy which is not there ... is not correct.It is a grey area where I cant take a stand whether democracy is the ultimate best system.

On a completely different topic here....I really enjoy reading opposing views and criticisms because they help you observe stuff you may have not noticed.Nevertheless, I do think Chomsky is too radical. He does not seem to see any type of hope or benefit in the American system.Yeah, it is reasonably to say that a big part of the system is wrong or simply failing however there is positive stuff about this structure, there is prosperity and America is not all corrupt.At least Chomsky does recognize the recent democratic victories of the social classes, yet he doesn't clearly state if these are fundamental to creating a better system, he doesn't really say anything about them. Yet he does see failure in the constitution, he sees failure in the economic system, he sees failure in social classes, he sees failure in corporation and I am sure that as we read the book we will find a flaw in almost EVERY single aspect of United States government.


Canada has nothing to do here , yet they are very nice people :)