Nullifying SB1070

*Note* This paper was written about a year ago

Nullifying the Arizona Anti-Immigration Law SB1070

The unsafe environment of the Mexican-American border and the large quantities of illegal immigrants arriving in the United States is creating a wave of concern throughout the bordering states. The ruthless Mexican drug cartels constantly smuggle narcotics and people into the U.S. The impotence of the federal government pushed the state of Arizona to create its own anti-immigration law, SB1070, to combat the drug-trafficking organizations that are causing violence and chaos in the state. Many argue that this law is necessary in order to protect the state; however, this law strays away from the original purpose of diminishing the drug cartels power and instead focuses on discriminating against people of Hispanic descent. Therefore, this law should be nullified by the federal government because it encourages racial profiling and targets the wrong group of people.

One of the sections of Arizona’s anti-immigration law states, “If reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.” the law enforcement has the right to question the individual (Senate Fact Sheet). The provision, however, noticeably lacks a definition of “suspicious.” This lack of specificity allows the police to implement the law based on their own criteria, which, in some instances, can be stereotypical. Clearly, this ambiguous law can lead to racial profiling by the police. Would the system be justifiable if an individual is vulnerable to arrest based on a law enforcer’s personal biases? During a news conference, Jan Brewer, the Governor of Arizona, was asked “What does an illegal immigrant look like?” Surprisingly, the person who mandated the law allowing police to identify illegal immigrants responded, “I don’t know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I can tell you that there are people in Arizona that assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I don’t know if they know that or not” (Holub). How does the governor plan to enforce a law targeting illegal immigrants when she does not know what they look like? The governor will not bluntly describe what an illegal immigrant looks like, simply because it is impossible to tell the immigration status of an individual based on their appearance. Unless a person is seen coming into the country illegally, pointing out an illegal immigrant is really impossible.

Is it safe to say that everyone of Hispanic descent can be seen as “suspicious” since they are the vast majority of undocumented people? Arizona Senator Russell Pearce stated, "Ninety percent of the illegal aliens in Arizona come from south of the border, so [appearance] certainly may be a factor" (Thomas). In other words, because most of the illegal aliens in Arizona are Hispanic, appearance will definitely contribute in determining suspicion. It is clear, that in order for this law to be enforced, policemen would have to pass judgment of a person’s citizenship status based on their race. As defined by the American Civil Liberties Union, this act of “discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of a crime based on the individual’s race, ethnicity, religion or national origin” is considered to be racial profiling. Therefore, it can be assured that Arizona’s anti-immigration law, SB1070, is currently promoting the unconstitutional practice of racial profiling.

Not only is the law promoting unconstitutional practices, it is affecting the wrong group of people. The intended purpose for the anti-immigration law was to decrease the violence the Mexican drug cartels bring into this country. Yet, the law is not appropriate for its so-called purpose to safeguard the state against the trafficking of narcotics, firearms, and humans. The state has an insufficient amount of resources to carry out both the obligations: safeguarding the state against crime and apprehending illegal aliens. In fact, after the law came into effect, “some [Arizona] residents calling 911 in need of an emergency police response could expect to wait 16 minutes before a squad car shows up” (Friedersdorf). Therefore, if a resident of Arizona was victim to a drug related crime by the Mexican cartels, the residents would have to wait longer for help to arrive. This is because the law enforcement would be so preoccupied on detaining illegal immigrants. SB1070 is so focused on detaining the entire illegal immigrant population, most of whom are not criminals, that it completely misses its target. Then, how is this law beneficial to the residents of Arizona?

Another one of the provisions in SB1070 “makes it a state crime for any foreign resident of Arizona to fail to carry federally-issued immigration documents at all times.” Before the law came into effect, the paranoid law enforcement of Arizona was already beginning to start acting ruthlessly towards its residents. According to ABC News, in April 2010, a Hispanic American citizen named Abdon, claimed to have been arrested and racially profiled in the state of Arizona. While stopped at a weight station, Abdon was asked for proof of U.S. citizenship by an Arizona policeman. He provided the officer with his drivers license and social security number, but the police officer was relentless and asked for his birth certificate. Since he was unable to provide his birth certificate, he was handcuffed and sent to an immigration detention center. When his wife arrived at the facility, she delivered the birth certificate necessary to release Abdon. Needless to say, his story is one of many that prove that racial profiling is directed towards Hispanics. The law’s ineffectiveness is stigmatizing Americans of Hispanic descent and wasting the state’s resources of law enforcement.

As the Arizona law enforcement departments are spending time finding probable cause to detain Hispanics to determine their citizenship status, they are becoming distracted and are allowing the cartels to continue their violent and ruthless attempts in the transportation of drugs and other illegal contraband. Since this law has not been successful at affectively deterring cartels, it would be in Arizona’s best interest to nullify SB1070, and look for a new way of combating the war against drugs on America’s southern border. There needs to be a new, more efficient law to replace SB1070. This law needs to effectively minimize the activities of the drug cartels and maintain the civil rights of all individuals.

Persuasion through Speech, Visuals, and Audio in The Field of Dreams

Blind to Persuasion

In the 1989 American film, The Field of Dreams, Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) builds a baseball diamond on his cornfields in Iowa. With no one coming to the baseball field, Ray and his wife Annie (Amy Madigan) consider replanting their crops. It is here that Terence Mann (James Earl Jones) along with the ghosts of a few baseball players appear in the field, as Mann reassures Ray that, “people will come.” As all of this is going on, Ray’s brother-in-law, Mark (Timothy Busfield), is pressuring Ray into signing the papers to sell his house or he will, “lose everything.” Throughout this scene, the director of the motion picture, The Field of Dreams, successfully uses all three elements – speech, visuals, and audio – of the rhetorical triangle in order to persuade both the audience and Ray to believe Mann’s argument.

With both the cinematography and sound, Mann is depicted to the audience as the hero. The visuals involve a lot of close-up shots on Mann as he gives his speech to Ray. This effect places the audience’s attention on him and what he has to say. Once the attention of the audience has been captured, Mann remains the main figure in the clip. Also, through the use of pan shots, the director creates a sense of sympathy for the players by focusing on their eager faces and desire to play. This unique camera angle creates the illusion that the audience is standing on the field watching the players. This, in effect, connects the audience to Mann and the baseball players.

The scene’s audio is another key aspect that aids in the persuasion of the audience. Here, Mann is once again illustrated as the greater character. Every time that Mann begins to speak or is going on about “the people,” the music starts to build up in the background. On the contrary, when Mark tries to get Ray’s attention about selling the field, the music diminishes to a point where it’s barely heard. This pattern continues as Mark interjects into Mann’s speech, but never actually interrupts it. As a result, both characters get the chance to get their point across but, Mann remains dominant, even vocally. This creates a biased scene and the audience is more likely to believe Mann’s heartfelt speech instead of Mark’s “logical claim.”

Although he does not have the advantage of visuals and audio, Ray is persuaded by Mann’s speech. Throughout his speech, Mann describes to Ray how people will be coming to his baseball field, “for reasons they can't even fathom.” This quote depicts the baseball field as something that is innately attractive to people. The unknown attraction is beneficial to Ray since it will bring the baseball field to life. As Mann describes, “this field, this game, is a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and it could be again.” He is laying out the possibility that all good things aren’t gone and that if Ray keeps the baseball field, good things will exist once again. Mann makes Ray feel as if baseball is not simply a part of history, but also a part of his life, which creates an emotional attachment between the two. As the speech continues, Mann tells Ray that money won’t be the issue, “for it is money [people] have and peace they lack.” In this statement, Mann appeals to Ray’s financial needs. Since Ray made the decision to build this field on what used to be corn crops, Ray expects to profit from his decision. Mann’s speech is effective because it emotionally attaches Ray to the field and it gives Ray hope that keeping the field will be financially beneficial. Mann effectively utilizes rhetorical devices to persuade Ray by appealing to him emotionally and logically.

Evidently, persuasion is used not only in writing, but also in film. It is not something that is limited to just language. As we see in the film, The Field of Dreams, a director can incorporate rhetorical devices into picture to make a persuasive argument. By manipulating effects such as sound, images, and speech, a director can unknowingly bring out desired emotions from the audience. Although many times persuasion goes unnoticed as a result of this subtle manipulation, it is a highly effective technique.

Strength, Bravery, and Determination/Honor in both Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

Medieval Heroes

Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight are both poems that give an insight on medieval heroism during two different time periods. In both works, the ideal hero is defined within a masculine society. In the poem Beowulf, the story line takes place during the early medieval era, when men would speak proudly and praise themselves in speech. Boasting, as it was called, was a way for men to express their true worth in society, by reasserting to all others that they would uphold masculinity through their actions. However, in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, which takes place during the high medieval ages, men often speak humbly about themselves and do not brag about their great accomplishments. Instead, they do so through their actions, proving themselves worthy by doing. Now although the heroes in both works carry themselves differently, ultimately, both Beowulf and Gawain portray the ideal values the society of their time celebrated: strength, bravery, and determination/honor.

One major and important trait that had to be met by all heroes during these time periods was that of strength. Strength ruled in this world and not many possessed it. Because strength was one of the many traits that these people admired, in Beowulf, time and time again, the poem stressed how its hero, Beowulf, was the strongest of all men, and like him there was no equal for, “There was no one else like him alive. In his day, he was the mightiest man on earth, highborn and powerful” (Beowulf, 196-198). In other words, Beowulf’s strength was one of a kind—his might stood above all other men. This same notion is again seen in the poem on line 788-789, when Beowulf is depicted as, “the man who of all men was foremost and strongest in the days of his life.” Once more, the poem stresses to the reader that Beowulf was in fact the strongest man during his life time. This great strength of his was known to all people; they would describe him as, “a thane…with the strength of thirty in the grip of each hand” (Beowulf, 380-381). Here, one can say that the people’s perception of his strength was one of amazement, as the strength of thirty men is seen as the equivalent of the strength of one of his hands. Beowulf’s strength was so remarkable that even in the worst of times—when he found himself near death—he gathered the strength to speak, “in spite of his wounds, mortal wounds, he still spoke” (Beowulf, 2724-2725).

In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, strength is not mentioned as much, but it is stated as a quality of Gawain’s, the poem’s hero. However, in the beginning, Gawain denies any strength and instead modestly regards himself as being “the weakest” (Gawain, 354) when he asks for permission to step up to the challenge of the Green Knight. Here, it is evident that Gawain does not wish to glorify himself in speech; rather, he belittles himself, making himself seem lacking of the qualities of a hero. Later in the poem, Gawain’s actions prove otherwise. It would be rare if “he not met some monstrous foe, And that so fierce and forbidding that fight he must” (Gawain, 716-717). Here, one can see how unlike what Gawain claims, he does possess some strength, for if he did not, he would have lost his life to the beasts he fought, since they were “so fierce.” As it is said, “Now with serpents he wars, now with savage wolves, now with wild men of the woods…Both with bulls and with bears, and with boars besides, And giants” (Gawain, 720-723). From these lines, one can say that these creatures that Gawain is taking on are quite the challenge. The bulls, bears, and giants, would require much physical power from the hero to fight off and defeat, since they are known for being of such great size and of great strength. Serpents and savage wolves are known to be dangerous and therefore, not easy contenders for Gawain to take on, and if he was in fact weak as he claimed, he would have soon met death in those fights. Thus it is safe to say, that the knightly hero Gawain, does possess strength much like the other warrior hero Beowulf.

Along with strength comes bravery, because, after all, strength is worthless if the one who possesses such gift does not exercise his power with bravery. However, Beowulf and Gawain, the ideal medieval heroes, possessed both masculine traits. Beowulf first introduces its hero’s courage when he finds himself eager to defeat Grendel, the evil monster that had perturbed the hopeless Danish king. Beowulf takes it upon himself to “seek out that king, the famous prince who needed defenders,” (Beowulf, 200-201) and “fulfill that purpose…[to] prove [himself] with a proud deed or meet [his] death” (Beowulf, 636-638). In these lines, one can see how courage drives Beowulf to the defense of this king. Although he was well aware of the possibility of death, he was willing to risk his life to prove himself to the rest of society by taking on this challenge. When he arrives, Beowulf openly expresses his fearlessness for this deadly beast he wishes to battle as he says, “I mean to be a match for Grendel, settle the outcome in single combat” (Beowulf, 425-426) and “I hereby renounce,” my armor and sword “hand-to-hand is how it will be, a life-and-death fight with the fiend” (Beowulf, 436-440). Here, not only is he showing his willingness to fight, but he is taking it a step further by saying that he will take on the beast with his bare hands, surrendering protection from his sword and shield. In saying so, Beowulf is trying to prove himself to all others that not only is he strong, but brave enough to take on the beast that murdered and fed on many innocent people. Sure enough, Beowulf is able to kill the beast, “display[ing]…the whole of Grendel’s shoulder and arm” (Beowulf, 835). Later, when Grendel’s mom tries to avenge her son’s death, Beowulf cuts “deep into her neck bone,” with a sword “and sever[s] it entirely” (Beowulf, 1566-1567). Later in the poem, when Beowulf grows old and dies at the wrath of the dragon, Wiglaf reproaches the warriors who “turned and fled and disgraced [themselves.] A warrior would sooner die than live a life of shame” (Beowulf, 2889-2891). Here, one is shown with the contradicting ideal of courage—cowardice. Beowulf’s men abandoned their king in time of need, a shame to their honor. Wiglaf makes it clear that such behavior is unacceptable in this society, and disgraceful, as warriors would rather die than to live as cowards.

Much like Beowulf, the poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight illustrates its hero as one that is full of courage. Much like Beowulf, Gawain takes it upon himself to challenge a beast, and risk his life for that of a king. When Gawain wishes to take on the Green Knight’s challenge, he tells the king, “the loss of my life would be least of any; that I have you for uncle is my only praise; My body, but for your blood, is barren of worth” (Gawain, 355-357). In these lines, Gawain again devalues his own worth, in this case that of his life. Making his life seem of insignificant, he is serving the purpose of speaking meekly about himself, but also showing himself brave enough to give up his life for that of his uncle, the king. Later in the poem, when the hero sets out in search of the Green Knight, he states, “In destinies sad or merry, True men can but try” (Gawain, 564-565). In other words, no matter the fate, a man that values his own worth can only be brave enough and try—see what destiny has to offer. In this case, Gawain is referring to himself. He doesn’t know whether or not he will survive the Green Knight’s challenge, all that he knows is that he must try, have courage, and test fate. After the servant of the castle leads Gawain to the Green Chapel, the servant offers to never tell a soul if Gawain were to flee for his life, but Gawain replies: “if I turned back now, forsook this place for fear, and fled, as you say, I [would be]… a coward; I could not be excused” (Gawain, 2129 – 2132). Here, Gawain makes it clear that he will remain brave and encounter the Green Knight, even if he is to die, he cannot flee and be a coward because that will be the biggest dishonor of all. When Gawain finally meets the Green Knight, he says, “Bestow but one stroke, and I shall stand still” (Gawain, 2252). In this one statement, the hero knows that he is now facing death, yet he accepts it and is not afraid, for he will “stand still” and not flinch as the blade comes down his neck. It is this act of courage like others that proves Gawain’s bravery in the poem. Like Beowulf, Gawain is not afraid of death, for he is brave enough to accept it.

As if being strong and brave wasn’t fulfilling enough for a hero, both heroes possess much determination. Knowing that the reward for their actions will be honor and recognition, they must prove themselves victorious in the face of a challenge. In Beowulf, throughout the entire poem, the hero manages to take on dangerous and life threatening challenges, but always follows through with his plans and never gives up so that he can prove his worth to others. This becomes more evident towards the end of the poem, when Beowulf suffers from old age and is still as willing and open to any challenge as he was when he still possessed all of his strength. When his kingdom is tested by a dragon, Beowulf states, “I marched ahead…always there at the front of the line; and I shall fight like that for as long as I live, as long as this sword shall last” (Beowulf, 2497-2500). Here, Beowulf is reassuring his men that even though he is now timeworn, he will not give up fighting. He will fight till the very end of his life, as the warrior and hero that he is, leading the way for others. Then, Beowulf begins to recall his earlier life and says, “I risked my life often when I was young. Now I am old, but as king of the people I shall pursue this fight for the glory of winning” (Beowulf, 2511-2514). Once again, Beowulf is announcing his willingness to continue to fight for his people, because as king, it is his honorable duty to do so. This act in itself is very heroic, as he again puts himself in a position where he will risk his life for the safety and well-being of others. His determination proves him honorable.

Gawain, much like Beowulf, is very determined to fulfill his duty. He presents himself with the Green Knight’s challenge and spends an entire year in search of him, in an attempt to fulfill his debt. He wishes to meet the Green Knight again than to “gain the world’s wealth!” (Gawain, 1064) and he “would as soon sink down dead as desist from [his] errand” (Gawain, 1067). Here, Gawain is describing his desperate need to follow through with his part of the deal. Duty becomes more important than life and money, since it would be an offense to his honor if he did not finish the task at hand. The value of agreements in this masculine society then becomes evident, as a man must hold his word true, or live a life of dishonor.

Overall, it is evident that the two heroes Beowulf and Gawain valued the same ideals of valor, strength and willpower/ pride for a heroic society, although they differed in character and time setting. In both poems, the main characters, unlike most men of their time, were able to stay true to all those masculine values, and since they each represented the ideal male in their society to uphold them, they were regarded as heroes, and thus celebrated.

Religion vs State in Antigone

Religion vs. State

The classic Greek tragedy, “Antigone,” portrays the importance of family, loyalty, and obedience within the city state of Thebes. The story begins with the account of the two brothers, Eteocles and Polynices, killing each other at battle, as they were fighting for the family throne. Because both brothers result dead, Creon, the uncle, assumes all power over the city. As king, he decides that “Eteocles, who fell fighting for his city…will be buried and receive all honors,” (Antigone, lines 196-198) as for “Polynices, who…hope[d] of burning his native land…he shall be neither buried nor mourned” (Antigone, lines 201-207). Antigone, sister of Eteocles and Polynices, and niece of Creon, refuses her uncle’s decree and sets out to bury her brother properly, accepting death as a punishment for her actions. Although the conflict of the story sparks from questioning the burial rights of an enemy to Thebes’s, ultimately, the tragedy underlines the major clash between religion and the city state. As Antigone represents the argument for religion, Creon inevitably represents the argument for the state.

The character Antigone, believed that divine law was above all, and that the laws of the gods were superior to those set by mankind. When it is brought to her attention that Creon is deciding to leave her brother Polynices unburied, she is determined to carry on with the burial rights for her brother. When Ismene, Antigone’s sister, questions Antigone’s disobedience to Creon, she responds by saying, “He has no right to keep me from my own” (Antigone, line 49). In this line Antigone is not only expressing her disregard for Creon’s rule, but also her boldness to speak out against a king, being a female in a classical Greek society where “women were not true citizens of the democracy” (p 67). Later, Antigone justifies this idea when she says “I will bury him…I will lie…a holy outlaw, since I must please those below a longer time than people here, for I should lie there forever” (Antigone, line 71-76). In this line, Antigone is referring to the gods, whom she knows she will have to please for eternity, as opposed to Creon, who is mortal, and can only rule for so long. It is because of this that Antigone believes carrying on with her brothers burial, she will be known as a “holy outlaw,” holy because she is favoring the Gods, yet an outlaw for breaking the king’s law. It is evident that Antigone places religion above the state. Her faith to the gods is so great that she is willing to give up her life to satisfy them than to live and follow Creon’s rule. As the argument between Antigone and Ismene progresses, Antigone states, “I know I’ll please those I should please most” (Antigone, line 89). Again, Antigone is well aware of the punishment she will receive is she buries her brother, but she knows her actions will please the gods, whom she has the obligation to “please most.” This idea is further emphasized when Antigone is telling her sister Ismene that not participating in the burial of her brother is “dishonor[ing] the god’s commands” (Antigone, line 77). Once again, Antigone feels that not carrying on with the religious tradition of granting their brother everlasting peace will only be an act of disobedience towards the god’s. To her, “dishonoring” the god’s was simply unthinkable, for they stood above all else. Therefore, lying to rest the body of her brother was not an option, but an obligation. Later on in the tragedy, when Creon questions Antigone if she had any previous knowledge of what consequences her actions would bring, she boldly responds that she knew, but she went on with them regardless, “Because it wasn’t Zeus who pronounced these things to me” (Antigone, lines 459-460). In this line, Antigone is brave enough to stand up to Creon, the king, and remind him that although he stands as king, the gods are still greater, therefore, more important to follow. As Antigone further explains, “I would never think your pronouncements had such strength that…they could override the…ever-lasting prescriptions of the gods…” (Antigone, lines 462-465). Again, Antigone is declaring Creon’s laws as insignificant because he does not hold the power to “override” the laws set down by the gods. Not only is Antigone trying to justify her reasons for burying her brother, but she is also humiliating Creon’s unjust law.

Creon, the king of Thebes, believed that the well-being of the state was most important and that anybody who dares stand against his city state would be considered an enemy to him. As Creon states the he would not, “consider an enemy of my country a friend to myself…” (Antigone, lines 188-189). In other words, in Creon’s eyes, an enemy to the state was an enemy to him and any friend to the state was a friend of his. It is because of this idea that Creon disagrees with Antigone over the burial rights of Polynices. Because Polynices died in battle trying to take over the city of Thebes, he was nothing more than the enemy of the state, which made him an enemy to Creon. As Creon further explains, “Whoever is friendly to this city will in life and death be equally honored by me” (Antigone, line 212-213). Here, Creon makes it clear that those who live and die as friends of Thebes, will be also be honored in life and death, just as Eteocles was. One can infer that the opposite holds for Creon, as he will dishonor any enemy of Thebes in life and death—in this case, Polynices, who died enemy of Thebes, and is dishonored from his burial rights, doomed to “wander by the…entrance of the Underworld, for eternity,” or so it was believed by the Greeks (Antigone, p 67). With this idea, Creon is able to justify the denial of burial rights to Polynices. Further on into the story, Creon makes it clear that by no means will he bury Polynices, “You will not place him in a tomb, not even if Zeus’s own eagles want to snatch up the carrion and take it to the very throne of Heaven!” (Antigone, lines 1044-1047) Here, Creon’s enragement drives him to speak out against the gods. In this statement, he claims that even if Zeus, the king of the gods, was to try and take away Polynices body to bury it, Creon would not allow it. It is clear that Creon does not see any power greater than that of the state, as he is so bluntly denouncing the king of all gods. Because he is the head of the state, he seems to think of himself above all, making his laws more powerful than those of the gods. From this, one can see why Creon feels so infuriated that someone would go so far as to break the law of his state. When Antigone is brought to Creon for burying her brother, he states, “Since, I caught her, alone of all entire people in open rebellion, I will not make myself a liar to the city, but kill her” (Antigone, lines 665-668). The fact that Antigone disregarded the law of the state condemns her to death, as the law holds more valuable to that of human life. The “rebellion” of Antigone’s by breaking state law made her an enemy to Creon. Creon finds himself forced to kill Antigone because he will not be a laughing matter to the state by allowing a woman to openly disobey his kingdom, “No woman will rule while I live” (Antigone, line 541). The fact that Antigone is a woman gives her no right to speak out against Creon, let alone to break state law. From this one can see that Creon is an extremist in matters of the state. The state is above all and those who go against it, dishonor it and deserve to die.

Overall, it is evident that “Antigone” effectively conveys the conflict between religion and state in classical Greece. Antigone holds religion so highly that she disregards the state law and Creon believes the state to be above all and disregards the laws set forth by the gods. These two extreme cases express the dilemma that brought about this great tragedy, two rights that resulted in death.

Alienation from Language Barriers in Elena

"Elena" by Pat Mora

Throughout human history language has evolved. From early cavemen to ancient Romans up to present time, there have been countless languages spoken. Despite its evolution, the purpose of language has never changed: communication. Language is the means for two or more people who share a similar culture to relate to one another. Even though language facilitates communication for those of a similar culture, it can become a barrier for two people who are from different parts of the world, who speak different languages. For many immigrants arriving in the United States, assimilating to the new surroundings and culture could be difficult already but learning the language is an even bigger challenge. In the poem "Elena" by Pat Mora, the speaker--a Mexican mother--is portrayed as feeling lonely in America; her biggest obstacle is the disconnection from her family, for she can no longer communicate with her children in her native language. Through the use of setting and language, the theme of alienation that results from language barriers, becomes evident in the poem, "Elena".

Pat Mora uses the setting and language to contrast the tone and further emphasize the theme of the poem. The poem starts off with a joyful memory of Mexico and then shifts off into the speaker’s miserable reality in the United States. Lines two through six, focus on this pleasing memory of what used to be the speaker’s home in Mexico, “I remember how I’d smile / listening to my little ones, / understanding every word they’d say, / their jokes, their songs, their plots. / Vamos a pedirle dulces a mama. Vamos.” From the second line, it is pointed out that this is in fact just a memory, as the speaker can only “remember” these times she had with her children. The use of words such as “smile,” “little ones,” “jokes,” “songs,” and “dulces,” (candy) emphasize feelings of happiness and delight, as the speaker is seen in a comforting and pleasing setting. The speaker recalls herself smiling, which inevitably suggests that she felt some sort of contentment. This feeling of contentment carries on when she speaks of her children, as she describes them as, “my little ones.” This choice of wording is not only affectionate, but also very nurturing and maternal. Ultimately, the diction points towards the speaker’s close and loving relationship she had with her children in Mexico. It was in this setting where she was able to “understand” everything her children said because they spoke her native language, Spanish—“Vamos a pedirle dulces a mama. Vamos” (Line 6). Spanish was the speaker’s language to communicate with her children; Spanish was the speaker’s connection to her children, “But that was in Mexico” (Line 7). This line is pointing out the shift of tone in the poem, as it “was” then, in Mexico that this happiness held true, “but” the setting has changed, and so does the tone, respectively.

The speaker no longer finds herself in Mexico where she was able to bond and speak with her own children. Now she finds herself in a new place—The United States—where she is not nearly as happy as she was before. In fact, the tone of the poem suggests quite the opposite. This part of the poem portrays feelings of loneliness, as the speaker is now feeling estranged from her own family. Before, when she was living in Mexico, she was able to speak to her children in her native tongue and was able to hold a close relationship with them. But, “Now [her] children…speak English,” a language that she is not familiar with (Lines 7-8). It is because of this language barrier that the speaker finds herself incapable of communicating with her own children. From the first line one of the poem, “My Spanish isn’t good enough,” one can picture this woman that feels as though her language is insufficient, for it is no longer useful to her. In hopes of regaining that lost connection with her family, the speaker buys a “book to learn English” (line 12). She knows that she must first learn to speak English to reestablish that connection with her “little ones” that she has been yearning for (line 3).

Although the speaker makes the effort to learn to speak English, she still feels solitary and excluded around her family. As her family sits around the kitchen table to talk, she “stand[s] by the stove and feel[s] dumb, alone” (Line 11). Here, one finds the speaker demeaning herself. The fact that she feels “dumb” even around her own family, suggests that she is no longer in a comforting setting. And even though she is surrounded by her family, she still feels “alone.” The reason the speaker might feel this is way is because she is no longer able to connect or relate to her own children. The speaker feels, “embarrassed at mispronouncing words, embarrassed at the laughter of [her] children, the grocer, the mailman” (Lines 16-18). She keeps herself away because she knows that if she were to make an effort to speak English she would be laughed at for her thick accent. This laughter only brings down her confidence and self-esteem. Because of this that she “takes [her] English book and lock[s] [herself] in the bathroom” and “[says] the thick words softly” to herself (Lines 18-20). Here, she describes words as being “thick,” noting her thick accent that others seem to point out. In these lines, one gets the image of a mother who is secluding herself from her family because she does not want to be made fun of. The fact that the speaker has to practically hide from her family to avoid humiliation is almost revolting. The speaker does not find herself confident in her ability to speak English due to the humiliation she suffers from her children. Because of this possibility for humiliation she does not feel comfortable practicing her English around them.

It is evident that the speaker does not feel comfortable within the confines of her own home, around her own family. The speaker’s inability to speak English has caused her to feel distant from her family, and has stripped her from the close relationship she once shared with her children. The depressing tone, which only briefly changes to joyful during a short memory, and the contrast between the past in Mexico and the present in America are two tools the author, Pat Mora, uses to bring about the theme of alienation in “Elena”. This poem shows how vital language is in terms of communication between people, but more importantly, it shows how significantly it can affect even the closest relationships between a mother and child.

Oppression and Need for Escape in The Yellow Wallpaper

The Yellow Wallpaper

History has shown that women were considered second-class citizens for much of the nineteenth century, oppressed by the opposite sex for being “weak”. This oppression is not uncommon to literature; in fact, it has become usual to read about many of the societal obstacles that women had to surpass in order to advance to freedom. In the story, “The Yellow Wallpaper”, Charlotte Perkins Gilman uses the protagonist—also the narrator—to portray the repression of women during this time period. The anonymous narrator begins the story by telling of her husband and their summer home. Initially all seems well, however the reader comes to find that the entire story is a compilation of writings that were written in secret; the reader finds that the narrator’s husband is also her physician, who is attempting to cure her alleged illness—a nervous disorder—by restricting her to all-day rest. Although the narrator struggles to fight her nervous disorder, ultimately, she finds herself trying to break free from her husband’s control; Gilman uses the symbol of the oppressive yellow wallpaper to illustrate the narrator’s emotional subjugation and ultimate need for escape from her husband.

The narrators lack of freedom and subjugated identity, are symbolized through the yellow wallpaper. When the wallpaper is introduced toward the beginning of the story, its color is described as “repellant, almost revolting; a smouldering unclean yellow, strangely faded by the slow-turning sunlight” (p 317). Here, the narrator is very descriptive for the dislike of this wallpaper. This is especially pointed out through the analogy of cacophony, as it gives off a harsh and bothered tone. The use of the words such as, “repellant” and “revolting,” used to describe the wallpaper, give off a feeling for the wallpaper that is almost sickening; this in a sense can be representative of the narrator’s illness. Since this wallpaper surrounds her at all times to remind her of her illness, it infuriates her, and forces her to “hate it” (p 317). Much of the narrator’s suffering results from her husband’s despotism. As his wife’s physician, John, puts his wife under the rest cure; a cure that prohibits the patient from doing any form of work. The inability of the narrator to exercise her mind only seems to make her more ill. Unlike her husband, the narrator believes that “congenial work, with excitement and change, would do [her] good” (p 316). Though the narrator differs in thought with the suggested treatment from her husband and brother, who is also a doctor, she isn’t willing to question them. “Personally, I disagree with their ideas…but what is one to do?” (p 316) From this line, one can see that the narrator doesn’t find it fit to speak up to either her brother or her husband. When the narrator tells herself “what is one to do?” she is indicating that she has no control over her own health or life. She gives off the image of a powerless individual who has no dominion, no identity. This stresses the belief of the inferior role of women as second class citizens in society and also as submissive wives in marriages.

However, even though the narrator is forbidden to write, she finds writing to be her only outlet for her thoughts and emotions, “I think sometimes that…it would relieve the press of ideas and rest me” (p 318). From this, the reader can see how the narrator finds the necessity to express herself, since she is essentially forbidden to do anything. This need of hers is so great that she goes through the trouble of constantly hiding her writings from her husband, “There comes John, and I must put this away—he hates to have me write a word” (p 317). The fact that the narrator cannot express herself even through writing highlights the image of this controlling and overpowering husband. The inability to exercise one’s mind seems to be the worst form of oppression. John only creates this engulfing train of trapped thoughts within his wife’s mind, forcing her to find some form of escape.

Being a victim to her husband’s dominance, it is only expected of her to feel a need for escape, “she is all the time trying to climb through. But nobody could climb through that pattern—it strangles so; I think that is why it has so many heads” (p 325). Once again, the wallpaper is paralleled with the narrators need for escape, but unlike the woman behind the wallpaper, the narrator wishes to “climb through” the control of her husband. Yet, she knows that to overcome her husband is almost impossible, much like the deadly escape from the pattern. The “many heads” can be seen as the countless number of women who have fallen victims to their husband’s control, and wasted their lives trying to escape from this social “pattern.” The image of the woman shaking the bars shows the narrators desperate need for freedom. The narrator expresses in her secret journal, “I don’t like our room a bit. I wanted one downstairs that opened the piazza and had roses all over the window, and such pretty old-fashioned chintz hangings!” (p 316) Here, the narrator is describing her desire for another room, one that is perhaps more alive with roses and one that feels more free. The narrator’s need for an open room suggests her feeling of entrapment. John's insistence to put his wife in this room where “the windows are barred…and there are rings and things in the walls,” seems to show he perhaps wanted his wife to feel captive to his rule (p 317). The “barred windows,” portray confinement, in this case for the narrator—her confinement to the four walls of the room. Also, the narrator’s obsession for the wallpaper only makes her feel trapped within her own home. This feeling is portrayed more clearly as she describes the woman she fancies behind the yellow wallpaper who, “in the very shady spots she just takes hold of the bars and shakes them hard” (p 325). Much like the woman behind the wallpaper, the narrator is living trapped in a room surrounded by barred windows.

Not only is the narrator being controlled by her husband, the fact that the narrator remains unnamed, only emphasizes the narrator’s need for a voice. When she tries to tell her husband how she feels about the home, he disregards her comment and comes up with his own explanation, simply just ignoring her expressed opinion. “There is something strange about the house…I even said so to John…but he said what I felt was a draught, and shut the window” (p 316). Surprisingly, here, the narrator finds it within herself to actually state her opinions to her husband, only to be quickly shut down by him. It is almost as if she was hoping for some sort of understanding from her husband, only to realize that she was still not being heard. In regards to the husband, it is obvious to the reader that John doesn’t take his wife’s opinions into consideration; he doesn’t value her thoughts. Later in the story, when the narrator brings up the idea of moving downstairs into another room, John manages to keep her quiet by hugging her and calling her “a blessed little goose” (p 318). In this one case, one can see how the husband treats his wife like she was a “little” child; he dismisses her requests and instead babies her by calling her names. This again highlights the fact that John does not take his wife sincerely, something that dwelled heavily on the narrator as she finds herself trying to find a voice for herself. In the process of finding her own voice, the narrator finds the wallpaper speaking to her. She begins to recognize herself as the woman behind the yellow wallpaper. “It is the same woman, I know, for she is always creeping, and most women do not creep by daylight…I always lock the door when I creep by daylight, I can’t do it at night…” (p 325) Here, the narrator blatantly identifies herself as this trapped woman. She first begins by describing the woman as “she,” but then progresses to use the word “I,” almost as if she finally realized that she had been seeing herself all along. The wallpaper speaks for her.

Evidently, Gilman portrayed the narrator’s difficult and unhappy situation through the use of symbolism. The wallpaper was used to represent the narrator’s oppressed feelings and emotions, as well as her need for escape. The dominance and neglect from her husband only forced the narrator to fancy herself as this woman trapped behind the wallpaper. Although she managed to escape, unlike other women, the cost was too high—her sanity.

He Didnt Love Her

He was her life, but he didn’t love her.
She was the ideal woman, but he didn’t love her.
He meant the world to her, but he didn’t love her.
She was gorgeous inside and out and he didn’t love her.
Heads turned full round 360 when she walked past, and he still didn’t love her.
She was the envy of all women, but he didn’t love her.
Any man would bow down to her command, yet he didn’t love her.
Her brains and beauty were unmatched, and he still didn’t love her.
No matter what she said or did, he didn’t care one least bit.
Whether or not she existed, was a matter of no importance.
At one point in time, he did love her and he did care.
But she fell into the world of temptation and it all changed.
She left him for another, hoping to find happiness.
Not realizing she had been living it all along by his side.
She took his love for granted, one too many.
At this instant she finds herself in tears as she writes this poem.
And now
As she is hoping to retain what she once had
She realizes that…
HE DOES NOT LOVE HER.