Blog Post # 6: Nonfiction Reading Response # 1

Yousef Abou Areda                                                                            Class 811

                                          Nonfiction Reading Response #1

The saying “An Eye For An Eye” is interpreted a little differently from person to person. For the most part, people think it means if someone takes something from you, you should take something of equal value from them. However when you start talking about the death penalty, a very controversial topic, things begin to change. To Kill or Not To Kill by Patricia Smith is a thought- provoking article about the death penalty, and whether it should be allowed in the United States. Recently, the death penalty in the US has greatly decreased, and the government is starting to wonder if the death penalty should be prohibited in all kinds of court cases. The death penalty is used only for the most heinous crimes, however, it’s a punishment that can’t be taken back. You can release someone from jail, but once you kill the criminal, there’s no going back. Given that some people indeed get blamed for crimes they didn’t commit, the death penalty may lead to unjustifiable deaths.  The author demonstrates the negative aftereffect of the death penalty, and why it shouldn’t be used as a from of punishment

            To begin, the author shows how the death penalty is fallacious by providing a first hand account of a victim of the death penalty. She describes how the victim was tortured while he was dying. This leads readers to feel sympathetic, and to see how inadequate the death penalty is. In the article, it states, “ Everyone watching the execution of Clayton Lockett last April instantly knew something was wrong. Lockett was strapped to a gurney in the death chamber of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary and had been given an injection when he started kicking, twitching, and then writhing and moaning in agony” (paragraph 1).  The author uses “loaded” words such as writhing, moaning, and agony leads readers to feeling sympathetic about the victim. This is one of the primary ways the author conveys her message. Most readers, like myself, felt bad for this man that had to be tortured in such a horrible way. The quote portrays the author’s bias that the death penalty is unjust, and is too ruthless of a punishment. The author goes on to explain how more victims such as Joseph R. Wood, which took nearly 640 gasps (2 hours) to die by the lethal injection, used to paralyze and stop the heart of victim (Paragraph 3). To sum up, the author uses first- hand accounts of victims who were tortured to convey that the death penalty is too gruesome of a punishment, and should be banned

            In addition, the Patricia Smith depicts that the death penalty should be banned due to significant problems such as racial bias, and victims that turned out to be innocent after they’d received the death penalty. She uses sources such as Barack Obama to get her point heard. In the article, it says, “ ‘We have seen significant problems- racial bias, uneven application of the death penalty… situations in which there were individuals on death row who were later discovered to have been innocent because of new evidence’ said President Barack Obama” (paragraph 13). Patricia Smith illustrates why capital punishment is defective. She shows that some of the people that receive the death penalty are innocent, and people can be killed just because of racial bias. She does this by quoting the most trustworthy leader in America, President Barack Obama. Obama is the leader of the country, and if he claims that capital punishment is wrong, then most people will go according to his judgment and concur with him. Another way the author shows that capital punishment is injustice is explaining that the death penalty is truly irreversible. In recent years, DNA shows that since 1973, 144  death-row inmates have been exonerated (paragraph 21). These are significant issues because they all illustrate how people have gotten the death penalty, were innocent, and the punishment can’t be reversed.

            Furthermore, Patricia Smith proves that capital punishment is immoral because by killing people, your contradicting your own argument because your punishing them by doing the same mistake they made. She conveys this by explaining protests that occurred outside the US Supreme Court in 2008. In the text, it says, “WHY DO WE KILL PEOPLE WHO KILL PEOPLE TO SHOW THAT KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG” (Paragraph 14). The author wants the readers to know that capital punishment is wrong because were punishing people with the same crime they committed. There are different ways to punish, such as jail for life. It gives a new viewpoint to others that think that the death penalty should be allowed depending on the crime. All in all, it opens up other reader’s minds that are still confused about which side to side for.

            In retrospect, this article has changed my viewpoint of capital punishment. I used to go by the quote “An Eye For An Eye”, which I interpreted as if someone takes something from you, you should take something of equal value from them. I was like most people, and thought that if a person committed a really bad crime, they deserved the death penalty. After reading this article, I have decided that under no circumstance should the death penalty be a form of punishment. I think a lot of people in the world still don’t realize that by killing people that kill, its teaching others that killing is okay. People that are innocent get the death penalty all the time. The biggest issue with the death penalty is that it’s irreversible. On top of that, most people are tortured to death in the process. Overall, capital punishment is a very controversial topic that is open to many viewpoints.

Original Poem For Social Activism

Women stood together

So did Quakers

They fought as one

They weren’t fakers

Blacks weren’t scared

To get their voices heard

They couldn’t use the same public facilities

Now that was absurd

We continue to grow as New Yorkers

Now anyone can be gay

The rest of the world doesn’t realize

Gay is okay

We never back down

We never lose

You can be assured

You’ll see our protests on the news

The Museum of the City of New York Response

Museum of the City of New York Response

Yousef Abou Areda                                                                                                                                  Class 811

I recently went on a class trip to the Museum of the City of New York. I learned a lot about the social activism in New York’s history, both recent and distant history. I was never aware of the grandiose history of social activism in New York. I mainly learned about the bicyclists who advocated for their rights for a proper bike lane, women’s suffrage, religious persecution, black rights, and gay rights throughout multiple periods in history. These were brave individuals who continued to struggle and never gave up until their demands were met. They weren’t afraid to advocate for their Freedom of Speech as ensured by the First Amendment of the Constitution. These individuals were not afraid to march over to the oppressive authoritative figures and challenge the previous system in place until their orders are met. I discovered the importance of one being audacious, and fighting for what they believe is right if change is ever to occur. The trip made me think deep about morals, and how the social activism in New York's history and how it's affecting me today. 

            Social activism in New York started about 400 years ago. Believe it or not, there wasn’t always a bike lane. The fight for a bike lane was a long and tough battle, but bicyclists never gave up on what they believed in. They dressed up as clowns and fake cops to gain attention. They weren’t afraid to speak up for what they believed in. Even if they were arrested, or faced innumerous perils with the police, they wouldn’t stop until their goals were met. Their minds were set on getting a bike lane and they would never back down. I also learned the significance of white bikes, and how they stood for a person who died in a bike accident. Just like the bicyclists that fought for their bike lanes, women too never gave up when they fought for their civil rights. Women went out into the streets, wearing nice professional clothing, as people wouldn’t have taken them seriously if they went out in sweatpants, protesting that they should have the right to vote. Women activists like Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton made public speeches at the Seneca Falls Convention, which took place on July 19, 1848 where 48 men attended the convention. They believed that women should have the right to vote. Why did men care about women’s voting rights if they already had the right to vote? This is because the men hated having to passively watch as their mothers or sisters did not have this civil right. America was supposed to be a country based on equality. Women finally received the right the vote through the 19^th amendment that was passed in 1920. Women never gave up on fighting for their rights in the 72 years after the Seneca Falls Convention. Religious persecution also took place. In New Amsterdam, the Quakers weren’t allowed to perform their respective religious practices outside the home and were persecuted if they openly expressed their religious beliefs. This was a great injustice as freedom to express one’s religious beliefs should be a right as people came to America seeking a better life and freedom to practice their religion was assumed to be included in this better life. They were mainly looking to escape religious persecution. Peter Stuyvesant only allowed the Christians to perform religious practices in public. This lead to the Quakers signing a petition claiming what was happening to them was a grave injustice. This was one of, if not the first form of social activism in New York. Black rights also have a long history. After the civil war, black people still weren’t free. The government didn’t help much, and freemen were reduced to occupations like sharecropping, where they didn’t earn any money. Instead they were just given a portion of the crops at harvest time. The whole cause of the Civil War was to test if a country based on equality could exist, and the United States was trying to prove that this model could be successful to the whole world. Representatives in government always found ways to work around laws. Freemen had to pay poll taxes, which required a fee every time you went to vote. However, blacks had little to no money during this time period. Literacy Tests were also required if one wanted to vote. This required you to read and explain a section of the Constitution, however, freemen had little to no education so a lot of the time they were excluded from this activity because of their lack of education and illiteracy. The Jim Crow Laws were also still in place. These were a set of laws that were created to prevent freemen from using their new rights after the civil war. This limited them from using the same public facilities such as restaurants, parks, water fountains, schools, bathrooms, etc. as the one whites used. The famous Plessy vs Ferguson Supreme Court case stated segregation was legal as long as the facilities were equal, however the facilities were never equal. If a freeman wanted to ride the bus, they would of have to sit in the back. Brave individuals like Rosa Park stood out and was a pioneer in advocating for black rights through her resilience and strong character. She took a risk, and didn’t care about the consequences. She stood up for what she believed in, and gained support. People boycotted places such as schools and buses. Blacks refused to ride buses, which slowly began to take a toll on the economy. About 400,000 black children stopped going to school and as a result, without students, teachers weren’t able to teach, leading to a big loss of jobs. People don’t easily forget these valiant acts. I believe that the vast majority of Americans know of Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “I Have A Dream” speech, which was about the end segregation. Blacks didn’t give up until their goal was met, and the Jim Crow Laws were destroyed. The list of social activism in New York City’s history doesn’t stop there; Gay individuals were also persecuted for their sexual orientation. Essentially being gay was perceived and labeled illegal, and one could be sent to prison for it. If you were seen at the Stonewell Bar, a bar for gay people, you could automatically be sent to prison, even if you didn’t identify as gay. However, Gay people never gave up on advocating for their civil rights void of their sexual orientation being a reason for their discrimination. They fought for what they believed in, and even in present day society, gay individuals throughout America and the world are fighting for their equal rights just like the one’s heterosexuals have. The one main thing I learned during this trip was that if you truly believe in what your fighting for, and never give up, you will be able to accomplish great social change.

            The trip to the Museum of the City of New York taught me how important it is to be valiant in the face of all of the obstacles that one may face when striving for what they believe in. All the people who were mentioned above showed how determined they were to have their voices heard. The changes that took place in history didn’t simply happen over night. It took time, hard work, and a great level of bravery to fight against the social norms. No matter how long it took, these individuals never gave up on what they believed in. It’s not the individuals’ fault if they were born into a black family, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. People shouldn’t be persecuted based on social markers like race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender. It’s not one’s fault if they came from a family of Quakers. Again, one shouldn’t be persecuted based on their religious beliefs. It’s not one’s fault if they are gay, and individuals that identify as gay shouldn’t be persecuted for it. These social movements all are examples of how much our country has grown in the last hundreds of years. All individuals have the right to freedom of press, speech, and religion according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The 15^th Amendment gives the right to vote void of one’s racial background as criteria for discrimination. The 19^th Amendment gives women the right to vote. It’s important that the country learns from its mistakes, and continues to grow stronger in the right direction. In the past, one could be easily sent to jail if they tried to speak up for their rights. The Museum of the City of New York not only taught me about the historical aspect of New York’s social change, but it taught me how on an individual level, there is great importance for one to continue to be determined, and to never give up on what one hopes to achieve. It made me think about how New Yorkers always fight as one, and how they're never afraid to get their voices heard. It made me wonder what New York would be like if we didn't fight together and support one another. We get our points heard through humor, and we don't like using violence. We have such a big population, but when we work together, we fight as one. This trip gave me a new pride for being from New York. This trip made me think, know, wonder, and feel what it means to be a New Yorker.

Reading Response # 4: The Perks of Being A Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky

Yousef Abou Areda                                                                                        Class 811

         Reading Response # 4: The Perks of Being A Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky

Every parent feels a strong responsibility to some degree to protect their child from harm’s way, and do right by them by doing what’s best for them. However, what happens when parents become to overprotective of their kids? Banning books from school libraries is a very controversial topic. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky takes place in the 1990s, and is about a 15-year old boy named Charlie and his experience throughout his freshman year of high school.  With a brother who recently left home to attend college and a sister that pays more attention to her boyfriend than her brother, Charlie doesn’t really have anyone to talk to you. Chbosky creates this idea of Charlie being a “wallflower”, which is a term that describes an independent person who likes to keep to themselves. Charlie embarks on an adventure that includes awkward first dates, family issues, and new friends. Charlie faces many hardships throughout the story, such as saying yes or no to drugs and alcohol. Throughout the course of the book, the audience can see many reasons as to why parents/ teachers are so adamant about  removing these books from school libraries. Parents, teachers, and/or schools try to ban or purposefully exclude these texts from their bookshelves because of the suicide, death, violence, and drug abuse as common themes seen throughout the course of the book. However, children 13 years and older should have the right to read it because exposure to these issues are key and help frame their understanding of these topics.

To begin with the first issue, parents/teachers/schools want to keep these books from school libraries because of the death/suicide in the book. This can be conveyed in the scene where Charlie is talking about the suicide of his best friend, Michael and the great affect it had on him emotionally and psychologically. Michael was Charlie’s only friend ever since he was young boy. Charlie feels guilty about his best friend’s death. In the text, it says, “Then I started screaming at the guidance counselor that Michael could have talked to me. And I started crying even harder. I never did stop crying” (page 4). Children can easily have mixed feelings when it comes to serious issues like death/suicide. If they’ve ever had a loved one that committed suicide, they might feel a sense of blame and burden themselves with the endless questioning of how they could have prevented it or what signs they missed that could have driven that loved one to this last resort. Children of 13 years of age have matured enough to have some sort of an understanding of what suicide is. Michael obviously meant a lot to Charlie, and the death of a loved one is difficult for anyone to cope with, especially on children, which is why it’s so hard for them to understand. Another example that portrays death is when Charlie is talking about his Aunt Helen’s death. His Aunt Helen was his favorite person in the whole world. Every year, she got him two Christmas presents instead of one like the rest of his siblings. On her way to getting him his second Christmas present, she dies in a terrible car accident. Charlie feels guilty about her death because he knows if she hadn’t gone to buy him a second birthday present, she would still be alive. In the text, it says, “Despite everything my mom and doctor and dad have told me about blame, I can’t stop thinking what I know. And I know that my Aunt Helen would still be alive today if she brought me one present like everyone else” (page 92). Death is a very serious topic, and kids can’t be thinking that they are to be blamed for the loss of a loved one as death is something that we can’t control. This is why parents/teachers/schools want to ban these books. They could convey the wrong messages to children who don’t understand. A 13 year old had matured enough to understand a topic such as death, and how it’s uncontrollable.

In addition, parents/teachers/schools are trying to ban these books because of the violence throughout the book. One example of violence is portrayed in the scene where Charlie is talking about how his dad was treated as a kid. Him and his family were abused by Charlie’s father’s step-father. In the text, it says, “And finally they got married. He turned out to be a terrible person. He hit my dad and Aunt Rebecca all the time. And he really hit my grandma. All the time. And my grandma couldn’t really do anything about it, I guess, because it went on for seven years” (page 86). His father and his family had to live in hell for seven years. Violence is an austere topic that children should understand. Parents would never want their children to be exposed to any sort of violence, especially in literary texts. Children can interpret yelling as violence and it goes further than that. Violence, depending on the severity, can be illegal in many social contexts. This is why kids 13 years of age and older should be the ones reading these books. They understand violence and know that it’s a severe topic that needs to be taken with caution. This can lead kids to believe that women can’t speak up for themselves since Charlie’s grandmother didn’t report anything about the abuse. It can lead them to believe that there is no escape to a person abusing them. These are wrong messages to teach kids, which is why parents/teachers/schools want to ban these books from libraries.

Moreover, parents/teachers/schools want to ban these books because of the drug abuse discussed in the story. This can be conveyed in the scene where Charlie is talking to his best friend, Patrick. Patrick is gay, and he’s venting to Charlie about his relationship with Brad, another gay boy who doesn’t want others to know of his orientation. Brad eventually took drugs and got drunk so he can be with Patrick, and temporarily run from his problems and reality. In the text, it states, “But Monday in school, Brad kept saying the same thing over and over again. ‘I was so wasted. I don’t remember a thing”. It got to a point where Brad was getting stoned and drunk before school. It wasn’t like him and Patrick were hooking up. He just didn’t want to face his problem” (page 44). This portrays two things. One, you need drugs/alcohol to get rid of your problems, and two, it’s wrong to be gay. Brad was taking the drugs so he can forget about the fact that he was gay because he was ashamed of it. Abusing drugs in an unhealthy way doesn’t solve your problems because you’re just running away from it and not facing it head on. Drugs just temporarily let you leave this world to forget about your problem, but they certainly don’t solve anything. In fact, they make the matter worse. There was no reason for Brad to feel ashamed that he is gay because there’s nothing wrong with him being gay. Young children won’t understand this message. Putting the idea that drugs and alcohol will solve your problems is the reason why adults want to purposely ban these books from school libraries.

This text teaches me that there are a lot of social issues in our society that teenagers conform too. However, it is wrong for parents/teachers/schools to ban these books. Without learning from other people’s mistakes, how will we, as young adults, ever know that drugs, violence, and guilt from death is wrong? Little kids might misinterpret these messages because they’re not old enough to comprehend what it means. However, teenagers do understand the messages that the author is trying to convey throughout these novels, which is why authoritative figures shouldn’t ban these books from children 13 years or older. Teachers and parents should encourage students to read these books because they have the right to know about what goes on in our world, and kids should have the right to read whatever they want to read without any restrictions.