Targeting the people

Che's Last Letter probably grasped the attention of America's youth because he relates to them. He writes, "My thoughts turn to the young people struggling for a chance at life in the bowels of plastic America cut off from the lifeline of human existence" Che' writes that just like the youth of America, he is in a similiar situation. He takes the place of "hero" though because instead of being "cynical," Che is fighting for his beliefs. He implys that he is superior because he is not afraid to die; it is better than going back to being "a respected professional in a system I detested." So, what's the message here? Don't act like you believe something, don't conform to societal standards, but prove yourself moral and worthy by joining the fight for a revolution. As Che implies, the fight will not be easy but well worth it. In order for success, Che calls for a "world revolution," and if he can do it, can't everyone?.... His message is effective because it targets emotion, and credibility, and allows the youth of America to question their own actions.

Reflection - "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol"

The intorductory material for this poem immediately hit home for me. My book has the story of Carrol's death already highlighted so my eyes went right there. I thought instantly of my own family because I am one of nine kids; and Carrol had ten kids. There is a line that reads, "Hattie Carroll was the mother of ten children." It mentions nothing else but that one line has so much meaning attached to it that nothing else needs to be said.

As far as the actual poem goes, I found myself questioning why Dylan repeated, "But you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,/ take the rag away from your face./Now aint the time for your tears." However ,when I got to the end of the poem and read "For now's the time for your tears" I was able to draw a conclusion. Dylan was sending the message that there's no point in wasting your time crying over murder/crime because these things happen every day. The real issue is that there is no justice for these crimes. Instead of crying over what is happening, cry over what is NOT happening. Dylan is implying a call for action.

Why we Think the Things we do

Edward Sanders' poem, Yeats in the Gas, reminds me of something I can personally relate. Sanders mentions how in the midst of brutality, Ochs thought of Yeats. Sanders analyzes what Ochs meant by this, and reaches the conclusion that he must have been referring to the line "a terrible beauty is born." I like the way Sanders incorporates this line into his own writing because it makes sense and fits appropriately. On the other hand, Ochs might not have been thinking about a specific Yeat's poem or quote.

I know when I'm in times of stress, frustration, or fear, I find that the weirdest thoughts come to my mind. Especially during times of high stress, I find myself humming songs to myself. Random things come to my mind as a way to help me get through situations. It is also a way to take yourself out of situation, or relate your situation to something else as a way to feel not so alone. Maybe Ochs was thinking of specific quotes from Keats, or maybe he was like me and escaping a frightening situation by a stream of random thoughts.

Reflections on Alexie

For my Lit300 class I had to write a reflective essay that compared an aspect of an Indian captivity narative to a modern example. After reading Alexie's text, "Because my Father Always Said he was the Only Indian who saw Jimmi Hendrixs Play The Star Spangled Banner," I came across an interesting connection.

Many of the texts I read in Lit 300 were written from the perspective of Europeans (members of the dominant culture) interacting with Natie Americans (members of the subordinate culture). Alexie's text gave me opportunity to read the perspective of a Native American and his take on American culture.

One of the things that I wrote about in my essay is Alexie's use of the words "war paint." He writes, “my father is dressed in bell-bottoms and flowered shirt, his hair in braids, with red peace signs splashed across his face like war paint” (Alexie 317). It is interesting that Alexie refers to the peace signs as “war paint” because doing so probably makes sense to not only him because of his Native background, but also to members of dominant society because Indians have been represented as “warriors” throughout history. This idea is reinforced by Alexie because he writes that newspaper and magazine headlines described a picture of his father as “One Warrior Against War.” It is cliché that Alexie’s Native American father is labeled “warrior” but texts such as the captivity narratives have shaped these beliefs.

My LIT 300 professor thinks it is just ironic that Alexie uses the term "war paint," but I still stand my belief that he also does so as a way to represent his story in a way that people already understand.

“From the Free Speech Movement” by David Lance Goines caught my attention for a number of reasons. Right away I noticed that Goines subtitled his book “Coming Of Age in the 1960s.” I already know from what I’ve learned in class that coming of age in the sixties was totally different than coming of age in previous and later time periods. Teens today are expected and encouraged to develop an identity, and to take pride in ones-self no matter what that may embody. It was different in the sixties because it was the first time that teens were developing ideologies that went again mainstream society. If Goines had simply entitled his book “Coming of Age” it would not have had that immediate effect that it did in introducing a unique coming of age story. Goines’ arrest story lives up to the expectations I had assumed. The text signaled unity amongst teens, and his style of writing targets the audience in a welcoming way.


I first saw the theme of unity appear when the speaker in Goines’ story tells everyone that if they’ve got a dime, make sure they call Arrest Central to let everyone involved in the movement keep track of one another. This made me laugh because I usually think of most teens calling their parents if they’re thrown in jail, but then again a lot of teens had broke free from their parents during the sixties. The fact that the speaker wanted to “keep track of everyone” signaled the love and unity that characterized the rebellious teens of the time.


I also think it’s significant that Goines includes little clips of songs. It made me of the reader feel closer to the movement… in a way like I was there. Specifically this is true for the part where the speaker is singing while the cops are walking towards him/her. I could feel the anticipation building and almost imaged the song being sung by a nervous voice. These little song clips were effective because they help the audience get a little glimpse of the thoughts that are racing through the mind of the speaker.

"I Walked Out in Berkeley"- Reflection

This poem by Schmorleitz and Paik caught my interest because I think it was thoughtfully put together. The beginning seems like it stars out from an objective viewpoint; the writer notices and observes an old man whom happens to be the "traditionalist" Chancellor of Berkeley. The writer makes note of the mans physical features and condition: shaking, upset, "sad and dejected." The writer (a boy student) sits down with the man and hears him out which signal to me that he is a little unsure of himself. He must have no real "place" at this time of extreme separation between radicalists and traditionalists. He probably fell somewhere in between the middle of the two-- so each group, the man representing the traditionalists and the freedom speakers representing the radicals, had equal opportunity to sway this neutral student. The boy never gives lead to which side he's on because he leaves opinion out of the matter. He's more objective; describing the scene of his day. However, the "freedom speakers" seem to have won him over, and I think I might know why.


The old man is full of complaints and fears. He needs to insult and dismiss the freedom speakers in order to gain his credibility. When I put myself in the position of the student boy, I think that although the old man was clearly on a side (of the traditionalists) he was not confident. He was physically and mentally terrified that he had lost his power-- and to the students. On the other hand, the student makes no mention of WHAT the freedom speakers had said. He just implies that he was touched by it because he had "learned something at Berkeley that day." This implies a real part of the radical attitudes during the 60's. They did not CARE about the traditionalists; they were confident because they had nothing to lose. The spirit of hippies/radicals/freedom speakers out shined and over powered the conservatives in many ways. I can see how a teenager would be drawn into the movement-- things just appeared better on the radical side-- regardless of whether or not that was the case.

Silent Spring- commentary

It’s no wonder Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring sparked the environmental movement. After reading the first chapter, A Fable for Tomorrow, I can see why people became extremists on the issue. Their beautiful environment, which they enjoyed and used, was being destroyed by the very same enjoyment and use of the people. The chapter has kind of a dark sarcasm to it because Carson explains the situation by writing, “some evil spell had settled on the community.” But then on the next page, Carson contradicts herself by writing, “No witchcraft, no enemy action had silenced the rebirth of new life in this stricken world. The people had done it to themselves.”
This juxtaposition is very accusing and confronting. The chapter made me feeling that nature is beautiful, and it’s a beautiful thing that people can enjoy it and benefit from it. However, the chapter takes a turn when it addresses the “strange blight” that fell over the land. I as a reader immediately thought, “It’s the people that caused this destruction because nature doesn’t just destroy itself…” Suddenly the playful, happy use and enjoyment of land didn’t seem so innocent. However, I don’t think that is the point that Carson was trying to get across. I think her chapter and book serve more as a warning for what can and will happen if people don’t limit themselves and the ways they commodify the land. I think that innocent interaction with nature does exist but so does harmful interaction. The two are both realities, but Carson implies that the two physically cannot exist at the same time.