Othello

Othello was written by William Shakespeare in 1604. The work very much resembles that of a Greek tragedy; it too, contains well-to-do characters that possess a “tragic flaw”, which dooms them to an unpleasant fate. While the tragic flaws we saw in Antigone were pride and stubbornness, the tragic flaws that arise in Othello are jealousy and envy. In class we learned the difference in the two. Jealousy is suspicion of what one’s partner does when they are not together. Envy, on the other hand, wants what someone else has. The two characters that display these tragic flaws are Othello and Iago.

Iago is the mastermind of the play. He is a manipulator. The audience knows this from the very beginning when Iago has a conversation with Rodrigo. Rodrigo states, “Thou toldst me thou didst hold him in thy hate” (Shakespeare 706). Iago explains how he wished to be the general’s lieutenant but how, instead, the Moor gave the position to Cassio (whom Iago felt was undeserving). “He, in good time, must his lieutenant be, and I…his Moorship’s ancient” (Shakespeare 707). This displays the envy Iago has of Cassio’s fortune. Therefore, he wants to destroy the man who got his position, and the man who gave it to him.

Othello has recently married Desdemona, who is much in love with him, but also much younger than him. Iago saw this as his opportunity to manipulate the Moor and drive him mad. He knew that the Moor thought himself undeserving: “Her eye must be fed; and what delight shall she have to look on the devil? When the blood is made dull with the act of sport, there should be, again to inflame it and to give satiety a fresh appetite, loveliness in favor, sympathy in years, manners, and beauties; all which the Moor is defective in” (Shakespeare 730). Iago preys on these hidden insecurities of Othello and plots to turn him into a jealous rage against the one thing he loves most.

We can see Othello’s transformation into jealousy throughout the text. First, Iago had to whisper words into Othello’s ear that would make him doubt, for example, “In Venice the do let God see the pranks they dare not show their husbands; their best conscience is not to leave’t undone, but keep’t unknown” (Shakespeare 749). He also states, “She did deceive her father, marrying you…” (Shakespeare 749). With these words, Iago starts to convince Othello that maybe Desdemona is not so worthy as he once thought. We find that Othello has truly turned to jealousy when he is hidden and watching Iago and Cassio converse. His suspicions drive him to put words into Cassio’s mouth and see things that are not really happening: “Now he tells how she plucked him into my chamber. O, I see that nose of yours, but not that dog I shall throw it to” (Shakespeare 766).

In the end, Othello’s jealousy drives him to believe in the “proof” Iago presents him with. If he had had a clear mind he might have not been so quick to accept the flakey evidence, but Iago’s artfulness deceived him. Othello’s jealousy resulted in him suffocating Desdemona to death, not believing her pleas of innocence, and Iago’s envy resulted in him killing his wife as well, and put him in Cassio’s hands to be dealt with. Just like in a Greek tragedy, noble characters fall due to their fatal flaws.

Antigone

We have all, most likely, had a time when we have disregarded some rule or regulation. This may or may not have resulted in a consequence. Thank goodness none of us live in a Greek tragedy, where it is custom that every wrong doer sees the hand of justice. The play “Antigone”, written by Sophocles in 441 B.C., fits the description of a Greek tragedy in that it contains characters of noble blood that also possess a “fatal flaw”, or “tragic flaw” that ultimately leads to their downfall. In this particular play, the tragic flaw/flaws are pride, and stubbornness.

Antigone was the niece of Creon, and sister to Eteocles and Polynices. She was determined to bury her brother, Polynices, although it had been forbidden by Creon who proclaimed Polynices a traitor. Although one might see her act of burying her brother so that he may be taken by the gods a generous deed, one may question if her motives were entirely selfless. “I’ll bury him myself. And even if I die in the act, that death will be a glory” (Sophocles 1278). One might wonder if Antigone simply wanted to do some glorious deed simply to satisfy her own pride. This is an appropriate question because, in the text, we notice that she was not as inconspicuous about her intentions as she could have been. The Sentry that brought her in explained the story to Creon, “…the hours dragged by until the sun stood dead above our heads…there we saw the girl...she burst into a long shattering wail…and she scoops up dry dust…soon as we saw we rushed her…” (Sophocles 1287-88). Not only was she out in broad daylight, but she was not quiet either.

Antigone, however, is not the only character in the play that displays these flaws; her uncle, Creon, does as well. We see a display of pride and stubbornness from Creon when he resolves that she must die because “…she overrode the edicts we made public. But once she’d done it – the insolence twice over – to glory in it, laughing, mocking us to our face with what she’d done” (Sophocles 1289). His pride causes him to move to make an example out of her, so that no one would think they could challenge his authority and get away with it, even though his orders to not bury Polynices defiled the gods. His pride told him that his will was above the gods, and his stubbornness led to tragedy.

Antigone was walled up, and left to die in this tomb. Her fiancé, Creon’s son found her dead, and took his own life. When Creon found this out he cried, “Ohhh, so senseless, so insane…my crimes, my stubborn, deadly – look at us, the killer, the killed, father and son, the same blood – the misery!” (Sophocles 1311-12). Not only did his son die, but upon hearing of her son’s death, Creon’s wife took her own life as well. Creon then admitted, “And the guilt is all mine…I killed you, I, god help me, I admit it all!” (Sophocles 1313).

The pride and stubbornness (the tragic flaws) of these characters led to their ultimate demise. The chorus echoes this in the closing lines of the play: “The mighty words of the proud are paid in full with mighty blows of fate, and at long last those blows will teach us wisdom” (Sophocles 1314).

A Doll House

Henrick Ibsen’s “A Doll House” includes a family whose feelings are left up to interpretation of the reader. One of the questions readers often ask themselves about the play is if Torvald is in love with Nora, and if Nora is in love with Torvald.

To gain the answers to these questions, one must first identify what their ideas of love in a marriage are. My own ideals include respect, thoughtfulness, and appreciation.

Based on my ideas about love and marriage, I have come to the conclusion that Nora was in love with Torvald in the 1^st Act, but not in the 3^rd, and he was never in love with her. What led me to these opinions was an examination of the text and the actions of the characters.

 In act 1, Torvald is observed to treat Nora like a child. “Surely my sweet tooth (Nora) hasn’t been running riot in town today, has she (Ibsen, 861)?” “My sweet tooth really didn’t make a little detour through the confectioners (Ibsen, 861)?” The fact that Torvald monitors Nora’s intake of sweets presents us with the idea that he does not expect her to be able to make decisions for herself – that she needs him to guide her. This situation, to me, shows a lack of respect on Torvald’s part.

In a later conversation with Mrs. Linde, Nora also states “You’re just like the others. You all think I’m incapable of anything serious” (Ibsen, 865). Again, pointing out that there is a lack of respect. In this conversation, though, Nora also sheds light on her love for Torvald. She convinces Mrs. Linde that she is capable of handling serious matters when she confesses that she had borrowed money in order for her and her husband to move south to save his life. “Papa didn’t give us a pin. I was the one who raised the money” (Ibsen, 866). We find out that she borrowed the money from Krogstad with a forged signature from her father, who had died two days prior to her signing the paper. The fact that Nora was willing to enter into such a dangerous venture on behalf of her husband so that he might live is proof of her love for him.

While Nora may have loved her husband, it is clear in the 3^rd act that he does not truly love her. When Torvald thought Krogstad was going to expose the situation he was infuriated with Nora. “Now you’ve wrecked all my happiness – ruined my whole future… can you see now what you’ve done to me?!” (Ibsen, 904). He doesn’t acknowledge, or appreciate Nora’s attempt to save his life, he only reprimands her. He even threatens that she will never see her children again that they may not be inflicted with her lying nature. It is not until he reads the end of the letter and realizes that Krogstad was taking no such action that he changes his mind and compliments Nora for loving him so.

The series of events that occur in the play reveal the differences in feelings that Nora and Torvald have for one another. While Nora cares for, admires, and respects Torvald, Torvald seems to view Nora as incompetent, and a form of entertainment. When the time came for Nora to prove her love, she did. But, when the time came for Torvald to prove his devotion to Nora, he failed. This absence of true love, or a “real marriage” resulted in Nora’s departure.

Wild Nights -- Wild Nights!

If one has ever experienced complete and utter infatuation, this poem, by Emily Dickinson is relatable indeed. Her form of expressing herself through metaphors is extraordinary. Through the metaphors in the poem, we can gather that the underlying theme is that once this special person is discovered, there is nothing more satisfying than being with them.

                “Wild Nights – Wild Nights!/Were I with thee/Wild Nights should be/Our luxury! (Dickinson, lines 1-4). This first group of lines introduces a love affair between two people. We assume the speaker is Emily Dickinson; however, the identity of her love interest is unknown. From these lines we can gather two things: First that Dickinson clearly has a desire to make love to this person, second, that it is impossible to do so because they are not together in the same place. In other words, these lines mean, “If you were only here, our nights together would be amazing”. She wants nothing else but to spend time with this person.

                “Futile – the Winds --/To a Heart in port --/Done with the Compass --/Done with the Chart!” (Dickinson, lines 5-8). There is so much meaning packed into these four lines. It is one continuous metaphor. Note that she replaces the word “ship” with “heart”. This is referred to as “metonymy”, which is a type of metaphor. She says, “Futile the winds to a heart in port”. If we break this down, we realize that she is saying that a storm will not sink a ship in port. She, in other words, is sturdy in her love for this person; her love is secure, and cannot be shaken. “Done with the compass, done with the chart” has symbolic significance as well. Where would one need a compass and a chart? They would need it if they were voyaging out at sea. We can translate this to mean that Dickinson is happy in this port, or with this person, and she does not need to go “out to sea” and look for anyone else. She is perfectly content and happy with this person, and she is determined that nothing can change that, not even distance.

                “Rowing in Eden --/Ah, the Sea!/Might I but moor – Tonight --/In Thee” (Dickinson, lines 9-12). Another metaphor, this group of lines represents the beginning of a relationship. When she refers to it as “Eden”, which we know, biblically, was the perfect place, we notice that she is referring to the beginning of a relationship; how it is all butterflies, and flowers, and perfect. She can see nothing wrong with this person. Most likely, according to her, they are perfect for each other in every way. She probably wouldn’t change a thing about them. But they have not experienced conflict yet. The last part of the stanza seems to suggest, again, sexual desires. But, the significant fact to remember is that this can never take place because distance separates them.

                This poem is very descriptive of what, I believe, a lot of young people have felt. And that is Infatuation. When we are infatuated with someone, nothing is better than being with that person. I believe she “hits the nail on the head” when she describes her feelings for this person. She feels that they are perfect, and that there is no one else that has ever, or can ever, make her feel this way. Unfortunately, this beginning stage fades, and couples have to deal with conflict and disagreement. If they stay together through these hard times and still find favor with the other person, then they can truly call it love.

Those Winter Sundays

I think it’s safe to say that children do not always appreciate their parents. I, for one, am certain I took mine for granted, sometimes, as a child. Ungratefulness is a condition that none of us are immune to. This is the primary focus of “Those Winter Sundays”, by Robert Hayden. “Those Winter Sundays” tells a story of a regretful son, while incorporating vivid imagery to capture the attention of the reader.

                There are many clues that unveil the regretful and somber tone of this poem. For example the poem is in past tense, so we know that the speaker is reminiscing about something in the past. The word choice drops some hints to the nature of the poem as well. The first sentence, for example, states “Sundays too my father got up early and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold” (Hayden, lines 1-2). “Sundays too” implies that the father got up early every day, and was probably absent most of the time; “blueblack cold” gives off a sense of seriousness. The sentence stating, “No one ever thanked him” (Hayden, line 5) reveals a feeling of regret as well, because the speaker knows that his father should have been thanked for his efforts.

                In lines 10-12, the speaker tells of “Speaking indifferently to him,/who had driven out the cold/and polished my good shoes as well” (Hayden 10-12). Why would the child speak to his father with indifference? Most likely the child was un-appreciative and felt as if that was what the father was supposed to do; it was expected. We can tell that the speaker feels differently now, and knows that he was wrong to speak in that way because he addresses the good things his father did for him (i.e., making the house warm, and polishing his shoes), proving that he sees a new significance in these actions that he had previously overlooked.

                This observation is further solidified with the following lines, which state, “What did I know, what did I know/of love’s austere and lonely offices?” (Hayden, lines 13-14). This sentence contains a lot of meaning. It sums up the theme of the entire poem, which is that the speaker was un-grateful as a child, and didn’t understand that different people show love, or affection, in different ways. From this sentence, we gain the understanding that the speaker must have felt un-loved as a child because he did not receive his idea of affection, but he now realizes that by making sure the house was warm when he got up, and polishing his shoes, his father was displaying a love for his child.

                Aside from simply telling a story, “Those Winter Sundays” contains multiple examples of imagery, which capture the attention of the reader. Imagery is the language of the five senses, in other words, language that describes either, sight, hearing, taste, touch, or smell. Some examples of imagery in the poem are “blueblack cold”, “…fires blaze”, “I’d…hear the cold splintering, breaking” etc. (Hayden 255). These examples incorporate some of our senses such as sight, hearing, and touch, and serve to draw the reader further into the poem so that they are not only reading the words, but feeling them too.

Song No. 3

“Can’t nobody tell me any different/I’m ugly and you know it too” (Sanchez, lines 1-2). The sad subject matter of the poem is introduced in the very beginning. The sadness lies in the fact that this young girl has such low self-esteem and such negative things to say about herself. But the question is why does she feel this way? Did she simply wake up one morning and come to this conclusion? No. I think it stems from her economic status, her location, and what behaviors she has observed from other people.

                Sanchez was born in Alabama, but was moved, at the young age of three, to New York City where the book mentions she attended public school. We can tell from the descriptions in the poem that she was not well off as a child economically speaking. For example, “…my clothes have holes that run right through to you” (Sanchez, line 7). Apparently, her family did not have enough money for nice, or even decent, clothes. This could easily make an impression on any child that they are somehow less important, or less valuable, because they don’t look like the other kids do.

                These feelings of inadequacy were most likely only magnified by the fact that this girl, assuming that Sanchez is the speaker, probably went to an integrated school where it was mostly white and she was a minority. The book mentions that “One feature of stereotypes is that the dominant group often becomes the norm and minorities are seen as other, as less than” (Making Literature Matter 975). I think that is exactly the case in this poem. If I could put myself in this girl’s shoes, if I was put into a position where I was the minority, and I was looked down on for being different by everyone around me, I think it would take a severe toll on my self-esteem as well, and probably be very lonely. She writes that she “sits alone all day by herself”. This is not because there is nobody around. She obviously sees people passing by because she mentions that they “smile to make her feel better”, but it doesn’t sound like anyone talks to her.

                 The speaker’s observations of other people, and her experiences with her district, have taught her that the reason why people don’t want to talk to her, or associate with her, is that she is black. So, as a result, it gives her the impression that black is ugly, and undesirable. However, the tone of the poem is not one laced with self-pity, or complaint, but rather, acceptance and an innocent want of a friend. I say that it has a tone of acceptance because the speaker makes no effort to change who she is, or to try to blend in. She even writes words to match exactly how she would say them; for example, she uses the words “fo it wuz ‘posed to” and “knowing I cain’t fall”. By doing this she is accepting who she is. And yet, it does not cancel out the need for someone else to accept her too, “…one day I hope somebody will stop me and say/looka here, a pretty little black girl lookin’ just like me” (Sanchez, lines 15-16).

Today Was a Bad Day Like TB

It is important to understand that the poem “Today Was a Bad Day Like TB” was written from a Native American perspective. The author, Chrystos, had a Lithuanian/Alsace-Lorraine mother, and a Native American father of the Menominee tribe. The authors roots account for the bitter tone of the poem, which we pick up on through not only the wording, but also through the grammar; or rather, lack thereof.  

                For a small poem, “Today Was a Bad Day…” is packed with meaning. Chrystos tells a story about seeing white people clap during one of their sacred dances, and mentions a white boy with a red stone pipe, and how this angered her. She also mentions a bookstore that has taken the sacred design of an Indian tribe and is selling merchandise with the symbol on it for profit, and a medicine bundle with a card next to it that says the name of a white family claiming to “own it”. “Own it” she does put in quotation marks to signify that the white people do not really own it; that it is a piece of a history that is not theirs.

All of these situations give way to Chrystos’s angry and bitter tone in the poem. She is angry that white people are clapping to a sacred Indian dance, and infuriated with the boy with the red stone pipe, and the store, and the white family with the medicine bag, because they are invading in a culture that doesn’t belong to them. The white people that she mentions don’t give much consideration to the fact that their ancestors are the ones who took land that wasn’t theirs and forced the Indians to assimilate into the American culture, and that the Indians have kept these traditions alive despite much hatred and prejudice towards them. So, according to Chrystos, who are these people to be enjoying a tradition and a culture they have only sought to destroy? And how do they have the nerve to take something Native American and call it their own, when they did not share in the struggle to preserve it? She makes a comment about the “hippie boy” with the red stone pipe, and how he was “…friendly & liberal as only/those with no pain can be” (Chrystos, lines 7-8), to show that he did not share her pain, and should not be sharing her culture.

We can see that Chrystos is angry with white people not only from her words, but also from the fact that she ignores the rules of English grammar. The explanation is not that she is too ignorant to know these rules. In truth, she chooses to ignore them in order to further distance herself from the American culture and distinguish the fact that she is different. She does this by using indentations, italics, and symbols, in place of words and punctuation. For example, instead of the word “and”, she uses the symbol “&”, and instead of using quotes, she italicizes.

The wording of the poem, which states her opinions about white people, and her defiance against using proper English grammar, display Chrystos’s bitterness, or even hatred, toward white people who try to participate in Indian culture. After studying the poem, her title seams very fitting; comparing that day, for her, to tuberculosis, the number one killer of Native Americans. “Today was a day like TB/you cough & cough trying to get it out/all that comes/is blood & spit” (Chrystos, lines 23-26).

Trifles

                Susan Glaspell lived from 1876 to 1948. In this time she wrote many plays and other works, but she is most recognized for her play called “Trifles”. “Trifles” is a play that is based on a murder in which a wife has killed her husband, and the men in the play are in search of evidence against her. Although much of the play is about this woman, she remains offstage; which provokes the argument that Glaspell is not simply telling a story, but rather has other intentions that go much deeper. Through the irony and the character’s words and actions in the play, Glaspell speaks out against a patriarchal society.

                Much of the irony in “Trifles” can be related back to the title itself. In the play, a famer by the name of Hale made a comment, “Well. Women are used to worrying over trifles” (Glaspell 915): Thus introducing the meaning of the title, and the irony, into the play. The great irony in the play is the fact that what these men call “trifles” turn out to be most important. While the men were upstairs looking at the crime scene itself, the women were downstairs in the kitchen “where they belonged”, and although the men saw them as useless, unintelligent, and incapable, they were anything but. The women found and took into consideration things such as the broken bird cage, and the helter-skelter stitching of the quilt, and the dead bird they found in a pretty box. And from these pieces of information, they deduced the motive for the murder. Therefore, the irony in the play was that “trifles” were not really “trifles” at all.

                Along with the presentation of irony, Glaspell also uses the characters words and actions to point out the differences in the worlds of men and women in this kind of patriarchal society. We can gather from what the characters say and do/what they say about other characters, that the society was male dominated. Henderson’s comments about the towels being dirty and that Mrs. Wright must not be much of a homemaker are proof to back up that men and women had specific and different duties. The men were the major laborers, who did chores such as tend to the cattle and larger animals and fences and such. Meanwhile, the women took on the role of “homemaker”. Their job was to keep a clean house and preoccupy themselves with mundane activities such as quilting, or things that didn’t require much intelligence.

                The fact that Glaspell made the women out to be the more intelligent of the characters implies that she, most likely, disapproved of the patriarchal social structure, and thought that women were equal, if not surpassing in intelligence to men. Today, she might be called a Feminist. She also, through the actions of the women in the play, seems to encourage other women to bond together and support each other. For example, Mrs. Hale expresses her guilt in the poem when she states, “I could’ve come. I stayed away because it weren’t cheerful – and that’s why I ought to have come” (Glaspell 919). This statement seems to be Glaspell’s way of sending a message to women that it was their duty to be there for each other and stick together in a time when their gender was portrayed as second to men.

               

Snake

In recent class discussions, we have addressed various literary tools. Some of the tools we discussed that I picked up on in the poem “Snake”, by D.H. Lawrence, were sound effects, and figure of speech. The sound effects included both repetition, and alliteration, and the main figure of speech that I picked up on was personification. There was also a great deal of irony in the poem, and underlying references to Culture and Society.

                Repetition and Alliteration are tools that are used in literature in order to draw the reader’s attention. I noticed alliteration in line four: “In the deep, strange-scented shade…” (Lawrence 827). The definition of Alliteration is, “Words that have the same initial sound several times in a row”. In line four, the words strange, scented, and shade, all start with the same consonant “s” sound, therefore, drawing attention to this particular line.

 The element of Repetition was referenced in various lines throughout the poem as well, for instance, in the second line, he referred to the weather: “On a hot, hot day, and I in pyjamas for the heat” (Lawrence 827). The speaker referenced heat three times in a single line. This drew a lot of attention to the fact that it was, indeed, hot; which made sense out of the fact that the snake was drinking from his water-trough. Another case that Repetition was infused into Lawrence’s writing was in line 47: “And slowly, very slowly, as if thrice adream”, and again in lines six, and seven, where he stated, “(I) must wait, must stand and wait, for there he was at the trough before me” (Lawrence 828). The way that Repetition was consistently used proved to be an adequate attention-getter for me, the reader, and, so, served its purpose.

This same line (“…must wait, must stand and wait, for he was at the trough before me”) not only applied the tool of Repetition, but also introduced a new tool: Personification. Personification is defined as giving human qualities to something that is not human. In the line I mentioned before, the focus should be on the word “he”. We can make and educated guess that the speaker did not actually know the specific gender of the snake, therefore, we can gather that referring to the snake in terms of “he”, “his”, and “him” throughout the poem served the purpose of “personifying” the snake, or making the snake appear to be more like a human friend, rather than an animalistic foe.

The irony in this poem revealed itself to me when the speaker threw a log at the snake. “I looked around, I put down my pitcher, I picked up a clumsy log, and threw it at the water-trough…” (Lawrence 829). Why would the speaker, after admiring the snake for the entire duration of the poem, up to this point, (i.e. “…I must confess how I liked him, How glad I was he had come like a guest…to drink at my water-trough” [Lawrence 828]) decide to throw a log at the creature? The answer to this irony, in my opinion, can be found in the underlying themes of culture, and society.

Americans, for the most part, are cultured to believe that snakes have an evil connotation about them, and that we should either avoid them, or kill them, if we have the means. “The voice of my education said to me, He must be killed” (Lawrence 828). In the poem, the speaker was going against a cultural norm when he found he was, not cringing at the snake, but rather, admiring it. “For he seemed to me again like a king” (Lawrence 829). Culture upbringing is a strong part of every individual human being. Thus, the speaker wrote of the voices in his head, which represent cultural society, telling him to kill the snake. It was because of these societal pressures that the speaker threw the log at the snake. However, he instantly regretted his decision: “I have something to expiate; a pettiness” (Lawrence 829). The fact that he regretted his actions places a challenge on people to think about our cultural norms and, perhaps, re-evaluate some of them. Should we go through with an act that we think is wrong, or destroy something we think is beautiful, merely to appease society?

So Mexicans Are Taking Jobs from Americans

“So Mexican Are Taking Jobs from Americans” is a poem written by Jimmy Santiago Baca. From the way the poem is written, we can infer that the author, himself, is the speaker, and the White, American population is his audience. We can gather this information because of his wording, for example, within the first few lines when he writes, “And do you, gringo, take off your ring, drop your wallet into a blanket spread over the ground, and walk away?” The words "you", "your", and "gringo" imlpy that he is speaking to White Americans.

                The tone of this particular poem seems, to me, to be very bitter in nature. Words and phrases that gave me this impression of bitterness can be found in lines 24-29 when he exclaims, “I see the poor marching for a little work, I see small white farmers selling out to clean-suited famers (referring to businessman) living in New York, who’ve never been on a farm, don’t know the look of a hoof of the smell of a woman’s body bending all day long in fields”. What I took from these lines is that he is of the opinion that the Mexican immigrants work just as hard as, if not harder than, White Americans, yet they reap little benefit from their efforts. This is different from the American mentality that we should be entitiled to a reward for our hard work.

 Other phrases that contribute to this association with bitterness are available in lines 20-23, which read, “The rifles I hear sound in the night are white farmers shooting blacks and browns whose ribs I see jutting out and starving children”. I think these lines reflect the bitterness he has toward Americans because of the violence that occurs with patrolling the border. What happens is that small farmers that live in that area will shoot people that trespass on their lands, so Mexicans trying to jump the border by that route are inevitably risking their lives (as with any route, really). The author also made reference to their ribs jutting out, and starving children. This could be intended to give the reader a mental picture of where a lot of immigrants are coming from, and give an understanding as to why they would choose to risk their lives coming to America.  

                Just because some people successfully sneak across the border, does not mean they will be successful once they get here. In the poem, Baca uses a metaphor to describe the situation of poverty that currently exists in our country: “Below that cool green sea of money, millions and millions of people fight to live”. This line spoke to me, and gave me the image that the sea of money represents our economy, and that the surface is the poverty line; meaning that many people underneath the poverty line are drowning, and/or struggling, to stay alive before they are crushed by the pressures of the economy.

                In the poem, Baca challenges Americans with the question “Are Mexicans really taking your jobs away?” He asks if “…they come on horses with rifles, and say “Ese, gringo, gimmee your job?””. The answer, in my mind, is “No”. In fact, for the most part, Mexican immigrants take jobs that Americans won’t. Most people that are jumping the border do so because they have a lower standard of living than we do. So, as a result, they will take labor intensive jobs and work for pennies, while the rest of the poor, White American population would rather choose to be on welfare. Should we be concerned with illegal immigration? Yes. But not for the reason of Mexican Immigrants taking our jobs away. That logic, to me, is absurd.