California in Poem

What will you think of when people talk about California? Hollywood? Silicon Valley? Long Beach? California is a special place renowned for her richness in resources and opportunities, mostly made famous by the gold rush in the twentieth century, as well as the prominent film industry and the legend of the Silicon Valley in the 21st century. These anecdotes have attracted people from all over the world to start their lives afresh in the Golden State, thus creating a unique California immigrant culture.

Since the last century, the California dream has become a very common topic discussed worldwide, and has been mentioned on various sources including written articles, photographs and poems. There are various ideas about the California dream suggested in the book "California Dreams and Realities". The poems "Orange County Historian" by Michael J. O'Brien and "Yuba City School" by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni’s were both written based on the problems Californian immigrants encountered in this foreign land. However, the two poets have their own approach to the issue, and both have employed different tones and expressions to provide dissimilar views on the difficulties these migrants faced.

The two poems were written about California immigrants with different backgrounds. “Orange County Historian” talked about the history of California with regards to traffic problems. A significant increase of immigrants led to a huge increase of vehicles on the freeways, adding to the existing problems of traffic jam. During the early twentieth century, the Pacific Electric Trolley Company encouraged people to live in countryside and work in the city, thereby greatly increasing the number of commuters on the freeways. Moreover, the speed of building new freeways was not fast enough to reduce the effect of the largely increase of the number of vehicles. Thus, the traffic problems were very common in that period of time. Conversely, “Yuba City School” was based on the history of immigrants from South Asia and Indian. Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni and her son Neeraj came to California in hopes of realizing their dreams. However, during those times, the immigrants who came from non-European countries were being stereotyped as strangers and outcasts. In the poem, the teachers allocated Neeraj to sit at the back of the classroom with a fat boy who drools, saying that he was an idiot. This illustrated how poorly the immigrants were being treated back then.

 

The two poems recorded the difficulties immigrants faced with a sad tone. In "Orange County Historian", there was a verse “After an hour of sitting anxiously, desperate commuters self-consciously….”. It talked about the uncomfortable feeling of immigrants to have to wait in the traffic. It was not something that they were used to and definitely something that they had to learn to bear with. Furthermore, this situation was an implication to all the uncertainties in the new life that these immigrants had to bear with. In the poem "Yuba City School", it recorded the reaction of the main character: “ Neeraj came crying from school.” This directly showed how he responded to the new study environment, explained that Neeraj is not happy with what he meet and experience in the Yuba City School. In the sixth verse it said: “He bites down on his lip to keep in the crying, they are waiting for him to open his mouth, so they can steal his voice.” This verse showed the emotion of Neeraj when he was being bullied at school, He tried to be tough as he bites down his lip in attempt to stop crying. It recorded the unpleasant experience of which immigrants were being discriminated in the new country. It was also very indicative of the mistreatments immigrants received back then. In the times where society placed huge emphasis on social hierarchy, the immigrants were at the bottom of the social ladder and were often being neglected and abused as they were seen as being inferior.

The hardship immigrants faced in pursuing the California dreams was the main idea shared in these poems. The two pieces talked about different problems these migrants came across in California. The "Orange County Historian” was based on the traffic culture of California. The problem of traffic congestion might be a new challenge to overcome. As mentioned in the poem: “Like bathroom drains, on-ramps and off-ramps got plugged tight, so the thousands who sought to get to work or school slowed to a crawl, then to a stop.”, congestions in California could be something that these immigrants had never seen in their lives. It might seem like a very common social hiccup in advanced countries, but for those arriving from other nations, it might be an unconventional phenomenon. On the other hand, "Yuba City School" talked about the mistreatment of Neeraj in school. It described how he was being disrespected and stereotyped by his teachers, especially through the incident in which his teacher called him “idiot, idiot, idiot”. This showed how remarkable and hurtful that experience was to Neeraj’s. It also implied how these immigrants were often being stereotyped and discriminated in a foreign country. During those periods when society placed a huge emphasis on social hierarchy, the migrants were at the bottom of the social ladder and had to endure much pain in order to live.In addition, thee same poem reflects how speaking English was a problem on these foreigners. The poet mentions: “ Tomorrow in my blue skirt I will go to see the teacher, my tongue stiff and swollen in my unwilling mouth, my few English phrases. She will pluck them from me, nail shut my lips.“ The verse, though comprehensive, did not make much grammatical sense. It suggested how children and adults alike had to overcome the language barrier in order to thrive and chase the California dream. They had problems in communicating with the natives, but the language was something they have to tackle if they wanted to be successful in the new land. The problems discussed in the poems were common issues California immigrants needed to overcome.

Though the two poets wrote about different histories and issues, both tried to illustrate the discrepancies between the reality and the ideal California dream. The poem “Yuba City School“ brought out the problem of how pursuing the California dream came at a great cost. Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni sacrificed both her and her son’s childhood in order to come to America. As she wrote in the ” Yuba City School”: “The earth, he knows, is round, and if one can tunnel all the way through, he will end up in a Punjab, in his grandfather’s mango orchard, his grandmother’s songs lighting on his head, the old words glowing like summer fireflies.” This expressed how much Neeraj wanted to back to the past, to have the comfortable and painless life he comfortable with. It contrasted with the horrible treatment he was given in California. The California dreams were not as easy and happy as it seemed. It was about chance and opportunities, but it was also about the pain and cruelty they had to go through in hopes of achieving big. The “Orange County Historian” discussed a more physical problem of traffic jam in California. The migrants were not expecting such problems caused by technology, and it surely was a factor they did not consider when chasing the California dream. To them, California was a beautiful place with temperate climates and beautiful landscape. It must have been quite a cultural shock when they realize the real California was a state with heavy problems on traffic. There were many problems that these immigrants did not foresee when they decided to try out their chances in California, and both poets tried to point out the different between reality and dream.

Moreover, the two poets wrote about immigrant problems and experience that are still applicable in present days. The story of “Yuba City School” is very common and similar to the experiences international students now face. Though much has been done to eradicate the issues of discrimination, the problem of language barrier still exists. New immigrants/foreign students still have to overcome the obstacle of communication with Americans, and they can be very easily discouraged in the same way Neeraj was. On the other hand, “ Orange County Historian” provided a relevant situation of traffic jams prevalent across California. It is a scenario that immigrants and Californians alike may face on a daily basis. Though the poem was written in the 90s, the same problem still exist in this state, if not worse. Many Californians have adapted to life and travelling in a vehicle, and most of them cannot simply go anywhere without a car. Although the issues discussed in the two poems were rather different, they were both problems that still existing in the present world.

The poems "Orange County Historian" by Michael J. O'Brien and "Yuba City School" by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni introduced different histories of the immigrants, what difficulties they had to overcome, and how the California dream was rather different from how people imagined it to be. Both poems were written based on the themes of California dream and California immigrants, but the two took rather different approaches. They were derived from the different backgrounds: one talked about the physical circumstances in California while the other mentioned the history of South Asian immigrants. The two also discussed different problems these immigrants faced. However, both poets seemed to have a similar way of relating their view on immigrants to the California dream; both hinted that the dream was not as glamorous as it seemed and there were a lot of sacrifices made in the pursuit of success in America

Relfection 

As the second out class did not do any draft in class, I was a bit worry about my thesis statement and the supporting ideas. I found out that I am quite rely on people’s comment on my writing but not really believe in myself.

Furthermore, I think I am not creative enough on giving title to my essays. A good essay can give people some idea to know what is going about in the article, or even make a point to make the readers think. Unfortunately, I was failed to do this in the out class essay 2.

In this essay, I have changed my writing style, try to talk about the essay with some short paragraphs, I think it can keep readers clear with what and why I want to say. However, I think there can be more balance on the two poems, as I was doing the project on the poem Yuba City School; I am more familiar with the idea in it. I think the analysis on the Yuba City School poem is detailed. On the other hand, the poem Orange County Historian, I think I should have a deeper understand on the background before I analysis it. Different understanding on the background did many influences on the poem and would affect the way I construct the poem. Overall, I think it is a better essay comparing to the previous essay on writing level and style but not content wise. 

YES or NO to 30?

Politics is a very complicated science. There is no merely one solution to any single issue, and it is heavily swayed by external conditions as well as psychological bias. Analysis of political events is very similar to literature appreciation; different individuals, based on the same issue, can derive opposite stands based on their own interpretations. The California 2012 ballot propositions have stirred up numerous opinions in the nation. However, there are still plenty of those who have yet to take up a stand. In these situations, it is common for politicians to employ certain advertising campaigns to gain favor and persuade the people to support their stands. Among these propositions, Proposition 30 is one of those that have aroused much attention from the society. Those in favor and against the proposition have fervently proposed many arguments to support their own position. However, through examining the different advertisements available in the media, a few logically fallacies can be found in the reasoning of those in favor.

Earning more money does not necessary relate to extra social responsibility. Many people are inclined to vote for proposition 30 based on the notion that the state will be increasing the tax rate on wealthiest Californians earning over $250,000 annually. However, these voters have committed an appeal to ignorance fallacy. The official California Voter Guide stated that "Only highest-income earners pay more income tax: Prop. 30 asks those who earn the most to temporarily pay more income taxes. Couples earning below $500,000 a year will pay no additional income taxes." There are neither constitutions nor legislations that demand higher levels of social duties from those who are better off. It is false to justify higher taxation on the affluent just because there is little opposition to the proposition. Every member of society is subjected to identical levels of social benefits and responsibilities. Therefore, no one has the grounds to warrant additional taxes from the rich when they are not granted extra welfares from higher civil burdens. Paying extra is an act of philanthropy, not responsibility. Moreover, higher income is a reliable indication to one’s ability and profession. Many of these top earners have strived diligently to achieve their current status. Thus, the progressive tax proposed would be a punishment to their efforts. Such taxations are not healthy to the economy, as it implicitly promotes slacking work ethics. It is foolish to invest more into work just to contribute more to the state revenue, and no one is willing to labor for the fruits they will not reap. It is faulty to suggest additional social responsibilities from the wealthy, and such changes in tax policies will only discourage economic activities.

Advocates of the proposition vows that it is the sole means to ensure public safety. However, there is a slippery slope fallacy found in the argument made by California Labor Federation on the proposition. California Labor Federation publicly states: “Prop. 30 will make sure public safety is required in our state’s constitution, so that funding cannot be cut without voter approval. It will put more cops on the streets and save the state billions on future prison costs.” It looks logical, however, when we think deeper, the correlation between the numbers of police and the in prison cost is irrelevant. There are no chain relationships between the number of cops and crime rates. More officers do not mean that the criminal rate can be effectively reduced. In 1972, the police department of Kansas City, Missouri undertook the experiment “Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment“ to analyze the correlation between preventative patrols and crime rate. The experiment compared the criminal activities between three different police beats in Kansas City with varied patrol routines, and the results showed that "the experimental conditions had no significant effect on residence and non-residence burglaries, auto thefts, larcenies involving auto accessories, robberies, or vandalism…in terms of rates of reporting crime to the police, few differences and no consistent patterns of differences occurred across experimental conditions”. The increase of preventive patrol has little value in eliminating crimes. Change in levels of police does not correlate with higher levels of public security, thus, the experiment is proof that the argument made by California Labor Federation on Proposition 30 is not valid.

The campaign for Proposition 30, in attempts to gain more support, gathered momentum by recruiting politicians and various associations, hoping to stack up their odds through endorsement effect. Nevertheless, authorities are not always correct. In the argument for the proposition from The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California), it mentioned: "This tax increase is supported by Gov. Jerry Brown and would avoid deep cuts to public schools, community colleges and universities." The press committed the appeal to authority fallacy by trying to rationalize supporting the cause: Jerry Brown says yes to Prop. 30, so should the Californians. There are no direct relationship between Jerry Brown and the effect of tax on the funding on schools. The governor has his own take on the issue, so does thousands of other people. His opinion is not indicative of any moral value. It is simply his position on the proposition. There are advertisements adopting the same strategy to promote their brands through high profile endorsers. Yet, these endorsements do not guarantee the products’ qualities, and one must not neglect the commercial values and publicity in the ads. Individuals have their own standards as to what is right or wrong, good or bad. Therefore, authorities are not in a position to decide for the majority of the public. Jerry Brown’s support on proposition 30 has no business to do with opinions other than his own.

Furthermore, Proposition 30 is concentrated to gain votes by pledging funding into education. The California Teachers Association asserts that passing the proposition will guarantee investments in the younger generation, yet failure to do so will plunge these budget cuts. The California Labor Federation stated: " Prop. 3 is the only initiative that will protect school and safety funding…Schools face an additional $6 billion in cuts if Prop 30 does not pass. Instead, Prop. 30 will provide billions in new funding starting this year, which will go towards things like smaller class sizes, updated textbooks and rehiring teachers." This statement committed a false dichotomy fallacy. Additional billions of budget and an additional $6 billion cut are two extreme choices. Those in favor of the proposition are offering to solve the dilemma by providing two solutions. The sole solution to escape the reduction of resources into schools is to support Prop. 30. They have intentionally disregard the numerous other ways maintain the current resources without passing the proposition. The education system is suffering not because of an inadequate budget, but because much of these resource have not been put to good use. According to an article on Fox News, “A middle school in Southern California is spending $10,000 a year to teach Advanced Placement Spanish to 35 of its 650 students—and all but one of them are already fluent in Spanish.” Such cases are not rare, and are clearly indicative of waste resource in the sector. Through careful planning and reform, good money can be redirected to genuinely benefit students and avoid being wasted. California does not need billions of funding gone to waste; it just needs to relocate the areas worth investing. Supporters of the proposition are incorrect to suggest that Proposition 30 is the only way to maintain quality of learning. It can also be achieved through reformation.

After understanding different arguments on Proposition 30, we can easily spot several fallacies in the arguments of the supporting party. There are logical flaws in their claims in attempts to justify the proposition. We cannot predict the effects if Proposition 30 is passed, yet it is important to make clear our stand and not to be blinded by biased arguments around us.

Reflection

This is the second in class essay in the class, I did not feel good when I submit this essay, I think there can be still more development on the points. As I am an international student, I have a sense that I do not have a very deep understand to the prompt and the situation in California. It is quite hard to figure out what is the situation in California in that short period of time. This is a problem on the preparation on the essay.

After learning from the failure from the first in class essay, I understand that proofreading take a very important role in the writing process. Looking at the in class essay 2, I think I have improved, but not much. The sentence variation is still very limited. I think if I have more time to do reading on different materials such as news, novels or even watching movies, it can help me to construct sentences in a better way.