Barn Burning | Analysis

Barn Burning | Analysis The story Barn Burning is an example of coming of age story because the coming of age story entails the initiation of an individual into an enhanced level of self awareness (Coming of Age,29); in other words, coming of age story means that a person realizes something is wrong an tries to change it . By the end of the story Sarty feels loss and rebirth by loosing his family but gaining manhood, this is where he enters the level of self awareness. Sartys attitude changes because he starts growing apart from his father and his family; he also comprehends the big difference between what is right and wrong, and this realization brings Sarty to a higher sense of self awareness. There are accounts in this story where Sarty does not agree with his fathers actions, but he does not allow himself to think about them. Sarty seems tired of his family moving cities each time his father does something bad; Sarty says to himself, maybe hes done satisfied now, now that he hasà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ stopping himself, not to say it aloud even to himself(Faulkner 1957). Sarty still believes that his father will stop burning barns; he wants his father to really know what he is doing and that is wrong. Sarty has faith that his father would mature into a more reasonable person by thinking before acting. Abners actions make Sarty react and realize his father is doing wrong and he is not doing much about it because he is too close to his family and needs to be loyal to them. Sarty starts to mature when he realize that his father is doing wrong, and he decides he wants to do the right thing. For example when he decides to escape, he goes against his father by warning the Negro about h is father wanting to burn the barn, despite what might happen to his father and brother. We see Sarty running, knowing it was too late yet still running even after he heard the shot and, an instant later, two shots, pausing now without knowing he had ceased to run, crying Pap! Pap (Faulkner 1967). Sarty starts to mature and grow up by getting a sense of what his father was doing, he was tired of all his fathers actions and he decided to do something about it, Sarty knew that going against his family was wrong but he decided to do the right thing. Sarty does everything his father tells him to do without saying a word because if he doesnt Abner might beat him. Sartys father says, You got to learn to stick to your blood or you aint going to have any blood to stick to you (Faulkner 1958). These words were stuck into Sartys naive mind many times; that might be the reason why he always defends his father and does not betray him. He knows that lying is wrong, but he has not yet separated from his father, and knows that being silent in the courtroom would help his father. For example, while in the courtroom Sarty has to keep quiet in order to save his father because Sarty knows what his father has done, in the story his father says You were fixing to tell them à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ .He didnt answer. His father struck him with the flat of his hand on the side of the head, hard but without heat à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦.(Faulkner 1958). At this point where most children would hesitate and tell everything, Sarty didnt. He face the trial like a man rat her than a boy by the way he behaved in the courtroom and taking things like a real man should. Throughout the story we see Sartys loyalty to be debatable. For example, outside the courtroom when Sarty hears some boys calling his father a barn burner, Sarty goes into his fathers defense, getting into a fight in which he sheds his own blood to protect his fathers good name . Sarty also provides the oil to burn the de Spains barn after the little rug incident; Sarty says, he wont get no the bushels neither. He wont get one (Faulkner 1964). These two examples show how Sartys loyalty towards his father seems to change because of his naive little mind; and he does not know what to do. Sarty is not sure if he should stick to his blood or not. In the end he decides to do the right thing and ends up betraying his father and family and runs away. This coming of age story shows us how an individual, in this case young Sarty, develops an enhanced level of self awareness that is either an end in itself or the psychological and emotional orientation necessary for indoctrination into the su rroundings (Coming of Age 29). In simple words, Sarty has courage and betrays the ones he love in order to do what is right, despite what his father says. This is a thing that not too many people do because of fear. Sarty overcomes that he went against his own blood, and do what is right; this makes the story a coming of age story. Work Cited Faulkner, William. Barn Burning The Norton Anthology: American Literature. Ed. Nina Baym. 7th ed. New York. 1955-1967. Print. The Coming-of-Age Story. Short Story Criticism. Ed. Jelena Krostovic. Vol. 130. Detroit: Gale, Cengage Learning,2010. 29-146. Print.

The Plastic Pink Flamingo

The Plastic Pink Flamingo America has existed for many centuries and it has always revolved around popularity and wealth. Jennifer Price wrote the essay â€Å"The Plastic Pink Flamingo: A Natural History† in order to reveal the truth about American people’s obsessions and passions for their cravings by two main factors: a flamingo and pink. â€Å"First, it was a flamingo. † When analyzing this essay and focusing on the topic of flamingo, the words Ironic, Hypocritical, Exaggerative, Popularity, and Attention come to ones mind. This was a little ironic, since Americans had hunted flamingos to extinction in Florida in the late 1800’s, for plumes and meat. † This quote plays a big role in the irony of the popular flamingo because these creatures were once viewed as prey and now they are the names of hotels and in people’s lawns. From the 1800’s to the present, the flamingo’s status has changed so much that they can be viewed as an i dol now. The exaggeration comes into play when describing the color. Not one real flamingo is that bright of a pink and yet every plastic lawn-ornament is florescent pink. â€Å"A flamingo stands out in a desert even more strikingly than on a lawn. † Price says that there is not purpose of the flamingo except appearance. When people see that bright pink animal in the grass of their neighbor’s front yard they automatically think different so those neighbors are always going to stand out to everyone else. They bring attention which is what everyone wants. â€Å"And the flamingo was pink. Karal Ann Marling once wrote â€Å"sassy pinks† were â€Å"the hottest color of the decade. † In 1956 when Elvis Presley had signed his first recording contract, he purchased a pink Cadillac. Once everyone knew â€Å"The King† had a pink car everyone wanted it. Pink at that time was a very trendy color and to be honest it still is. One of the most popular â€Å"In† trends is the Breast-Cancer epidemic. The icon is a little â₠¬Å"Pink† ribbon and everyone around the world is aware of this disease and pink is overflowing the Earth. The NFL recently spent more than a thousand dollars on pink cleats, head-bands, wrist-bands, and other products. The â€Å"in† color will always change over time but pink will always be that one exception, the one color that everyone can relate to in some way. This entire country is based on appearance, what does everyone else think of us? Price, by the end of the excerpt, has now fully explained to the audience that she believes the United States is just shallow and is obsessed with its manifestation.

Marxism

  The United States prides itself on being the epitome of a successful free market society, with its democratic ideals working in perfect conjunction with its capitalist economy.   Additionally, it also bases much of its existence on the freedom of religion, though government leaders still take many measures to ensure that their particular religious beliefs take precedence over secularism.   However, like few other countries on the planet, the U.S. could succeed as a communist nation if it were to adopt a few of Karl Marx’s simple precepts and abandon some of its current practices.With its increasingly secular population and views, as well as its democratic ideals that lend themselves well to the collectivization encouraged by communism, the United States could completely remove God from consideration in the country’s legislation and create a strong social welfare system that protects workers and the poor far better than current standards allow.While religion is f irmly protected in the Constitution, the freedom from religion is just as important, though often ignored.   Politicians often rely on their religious beliefs and voting populace to propose religiously-oriented legislation, most of the time despite the widespread secular ideals of most Americans.   A current example of this is stem cell research, which is firmly opposed by President Bush and many religious factions and politicians who foist their views of morality on the rest of the country that believes stem cell research is in the best interests of human progress.While morality has its place in society, reason can lead to just laws that most can agree upon, and religious sentiment should not be involved in legislation or its opposition whatsoever.   For Marx, religion is a type of illusion, used to control the populace, as well as to retain the power structure of those at the highest levels of society.   In America, this can be seen in the powerful sway that religious fact ions have on politicians, even in spite of an increasing secularization.Marx was a fervent supporter of social criticism, and he believed that the criticism of religion was foundation of all social criticism.   In his view, he found it to be a type of illusion.   Marx believed that man makes religion, not vice-versa, and in creating God in his own image, man had â€Å"alienated himself from himself† (Marx, 1978/1848, p. 53).   This means that man has created a greater being in contrast to himself, reducing himself to a despicable creature that needs both the dogma of the church and the laws of government to guide and control him.Marx described religion as the, â€Å"sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions,† adding that religion was â€Å"the opium of the people† (1978/1848, p. 54).   In the United States, religion is afforded all kinds of special protections, including tax breaks that surely cos t the country billions of dollars a year.   Religious institutions receive donations from their constituents and are not required to pay anything to the federal government.In a Marxist America, provided that religion is still protected by law, the first step would be to tax religious organizations as any other company.   Perhaps once religions are taxed the same as any other organization that makes money and owns property, the next natural step will be that they no longer have the power sustain themselves and people will be free to pursue a life free of religion, and therefore free of illusion.To Marx, religion prohibits man from realizing himself as the center of his existence, an in place, creates an environment in which religious belief dictates his action.   Men can never be free, as long as they accept their existence as subservient beings, indebted to an omnipotent Supreme Being or organization dedicated to perpetuating belief in such a thing.   Marx believed that if r eligion were abolished human beings would overcome their self-inflicted alienation.   The abandonment of this illusion, in Marx’s view, could be one of many crucial steps mankind towards advancement.After religious sentiment and the power the religious factions hold over the populace has been displaced, America will be more receptive to other aspects of Marx’s communist philosophy.   While it may be a difficult task to ask those with great wealth and influence to sacrifice either, including corporations that virtually run the country, but it is necessary to create the kind of equality promised by democracy, and guaranteed by communism and withheld by the inequality of capitalism.   Marx claimed that in a capitalist society the struggle between the working class, or proletariat, and the ruling business class, or bourgeoisie, would eventually end in the formation of a new society, a classless society: â€Å"Society can no longer live under this bourgoeisie, in oth er words, its existence is no longer compatible with society† (1978/1848, p. 483).Corporations and individuals with immense wealth would be required to sacrifice a significant portion of their wealth to contribute to the overall health of the proletariat.   Even if someone like Bill Gates was required to hand over ninety percent of his wealth, he would still have hundreds of millions of dollars left.   When one considers that a salary of fifty thousand dollars a year is considered not only adequate to live in the United States, but decent, it signifies that the disparity in wealth created by unchecked capitalism.   The situation created by the immense disparity of wealth also contributes to what Marx sees as an increased alienation between the people of the nation, and in the U.S., this situation has become apparent in recent years as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.This contributes to the classes become hostile towards each other in Marx’s estimation: â€Å"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes† (1978/1848, p. 483).   Though class struggle in America has largely been relegated to race struggle, which is almost the same considering that most racial riots center around impoverished people looting, the potential exists for further complications if the wealthy in America are not willing to compromise and share the wealth.   Alienation even exists in America between men and women, where women are notorious for making significantly less money than men.   In a communist society, women would no longer be relegated to quasi-second class status.A communist America would not only provide more opportunities for workers, but would also help relations between different races and genders.   Amongst the many little-known facts about the philosophies of Karl Marx, was his support for women’s liberation in a time when they did not share the privileges of men.   He believed that this would encourage greater equality within societies, therefore making life better for the society as a whole.   More than a century ago, many years before women were allowed to vote in the United States, Marx wrote of his views towards women’s rights.In the modern bourgeoisie society, Marx explained in so many words, that women in a capitalist system were nothing more to men than another instrument of production.   Men, who controlled the world as wells as it’s productive forces, also controlled women.   Because the instruments of production are to be exploited, women are exploited.   With the abolition of the bourgeoisie society, women would be free from every form of prostitution, public or private.   For the Communists, there was, â€Å"no need to introduce community of women; it has always existed almost from time immemorial† (1978/1848, p. 488).But traditional capitalistic values make this fact all but impossible to notice, and in the United States, the quiet discrimination against women, largely inspired by the centuries of dogmatic religious misogyny, would be eliminated, and along with it, the alienation felt between people.   Otherwise, further alienation between people will take place.Marx applied this idea of alienation to private property, which he said causes humans to work only for themselves, not for the good of their species.   Because capitalism has its roots in private ownership, he felt that it created an environment, ripe for greed and avarice to develop: â€Å"The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property† (1978/1848, p. 483).   Ã ‚  The control imposed upon the proletariat by the bourgeoisie in the United States reflects many of Marx’s fears, as people fall under the sway of Walmart, utility monopolies, and media confusion.   This state prevents man from focusing on cooperating, and maximizing their potential, whereas a Marxist society would be one that would provide for all.A communist United States is a highly unlike, but possible if certain segments of the population are willing to listen to reason and make certain sacrifices.   Religion is a key in building the foundation for a communist society, as the religious organizations that enjoy tax protection must be treated equal to other companies.   Corporations and individuals must be willing to make sacrifices concerning individual income and pay a significant amount of taxes to help those less fortunate.After all, it makes little sense to keep one’s neighbors hungry.   And, though communism has been considered revolutionary for over a hundred years, a communist revolution in America can begin only with the conscientious objections of the working class.   Anyone with ample reason would be able to see the benefits of helping their fellow man, and the benefits of pooling the nation’s collective talents towards a common goal.   In the end, it relies on those that are currently oppressed to make their voice be heard and heed the clarion call of Karl Marx: â€Å"WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!† (1978/1848, p. 500).Works Cited:Marx, K. (1978/1848). Communist Manifesto. The Marx-Engels Reader. Trans. Tucker, R.C., Second Edition. New York: W. W. Norton.

The Media And The Issue Of Illegal Immigration - 777 Words

Paper #1: Discuss how the different media outlets frame the issue of illegal immigration? It is commonly known that media coverage of anything controversial can be faulty, and biased. ABC News and CCN News could cover the same story, in different ways. This is amplified in cases that affect different audiences (as in age, race, financial class), because certain stations are aimed towards a certain audience. A great example of this is FOX and FOX Latino. The two stations, though sister stations, have very different approaches on certain topics, one being illegal immigration. FOX tends to be very biased, while FOX Latino gives direct facts. Most people would assume that FOX and FOX Latino, sister stations, would have rather similar†¦show more content†¦They covered the controversy very differently. FOX Latino has an audience that is concerned about this problem of illegal immigration, and the problems the immigrants themselves are having. This is obvious by looking at the articles they have. These articles and news clips gives statistics of the hardships that the immigrants are facing, and discuss solutions to said difficulties. For example, On September 22nd, 2015 they posted an article titled Number of immigrant families, children arrested at border jumps more than 50%. Unlike some of their previous articles (IE - What Happens to US-Born Kids of Deported Undocumented Immigrants?) which was very involved and emotional, this one is rather detached. However, it does discuss theories on why this is a continuing problem, and why it changes throughout the year. FOX Latino is there to give information on illegal immigration, possible solutions, etc. They give the unbiased facts. FOX news has very different coverage on the subject. They are clearly fixated on discussing the problems that illegal immigration causes to them (middle class (white) America). For example, on September 14th, 2015 FOX reporter Kimberly Guilfoyle went viral for allegedly comparing immigrants to a brain tumor. In the next few days (September 16th, 2015) they publish an article Elusive crime wave data shows frightening toll of illegal immigrant criminals. This article was very negative towards the idea