American Dream- Cruz

According to Cruz, the American Dream is not ‘be successful’ but ‘don’t lose’. Being successful, according to him, means getting what you want in life. Don’t lose means that you have to get to the top, no matter what stands in your way or what you have to sacrifice to get there. His problem is that when you get to the top, or near it, you forget who helped you to get there and where you came from. In other words, the Dream is all about you, you, you. He thinks that’s wrong.

I agree with him, somewhat. If you do get to the top, if you manage to overcome the obstacles the wrong way, I think it might be possible to remember to feel thankful for those who sacrificed for you. Cruz got really far and still remembered. Of course, then he dropped out to be a farmer because he thought he couldn’t still manage to be both who he was and who the in-power people wanted him to be. But that’s just him. Near the end, he mentions people who told him that he should stay where he was, influentially, because it helps break the stereotype that the minorities are useless. His response was that he didn’t think the minorities at the top were represented as the rest of people and that he couldn’t ethically stay where he was.

Class Distinctions

Yes, Mantsios’s essay does say that the wealthy are exploiting the poor. He says the false idea that ‘one is not rich because the other is poor’ is wrong. Therefore, according to him, one class is rich because the other is poor. Since we can assume from his argument that the poor are not poor because they caused themselves to be like that, we can assume that he means that the wealthy do exploit the poor. However, that point isn’t obvious.

I personally don’t have another interpretation of the data/a position on the argument. I don’t think that Mantsios makes a good argument- the way he presents his facts, for example is skewed towards his point of view. The people profiles seem to be deliberately made up, especially the last one, to fit his interpretation of the facts. He rushes into some things, like the gender/race inequality thing, without mentioning it before or presenting a lot of thought. Because I only have his version of the data to go on, and a little knowledge of my own, I feel like I agree with him that America’s rich and poor are very divided the way he states it. However, like I said, his argument seems a little shaky, so I’m really not sure if he’s accurate, though he doesn’t seem to be blatantly twisting things around.

EDIT: After our class discussions on this, I changed my mind a little on the subject. But I forgot what I changed my mind about so I won't edit my orginal thing. :)

Argument Evaluation

The middle argument- the one about the pornography law in Minnesota was the best. It set out by setting the scene, then describing the effects and then the Ordinance. It had language that flowed well and was easy to understand. The end thesis- that the law was morally sound but too broad to be put into use- is presented very efficiently. When the author first introduces us to her point of view, it comes as a bit of a shock, because she had been somewhat sympathetic to the opposite point of view up until then, in a sort of implied way. However, the author’s thesis is well-explained and the argument as a whole is pretty strong. The examples she cites are strong as well. They have to be, because the way she presents the argument, it’s almost as if she’s re-explaining herself. She states and explains the horrors of the case, then she argues against a law made to protect the victims. However, she’s either smart enough (on purpose or not) to say that she supports the idea behind the law, just not the way it is presented. In other words, she agrees with the warrant that such a law is needed. However, she disagrees that the exact law proposed is the one necessary.