The article "Please Stop Misspelling Our Name!" from the Upfront Magazine is about how many people are spelling Colombia "Columbia." It's unfair to Colombians that people are misspelling their name. Colombians are now fighting back. "It's Colombia, NOT Columbia" is a campaign made to shame people who use the misspelling. The author wants the reader to know that misspelling the name of a country is bad and unfair to countries.
Throughout the article it talks about how many people use the misspelling. Even famous people such as Paris Hilton, Richard Nixon, and Justin Bieber, have misspelled it on social media. The article even says that after the misspelling was tweeted within minutes dozens of people tweeted back, "It's Colombia, NOT Columbia." People should care to correctly spell names of countries. If not your disrespecting the country and all the people in it. Especially if your always using the misspelling. When famous people tweet something many people read it and they might think that's how you spell it. It could get even more people to use the misspelling.
The article also mentions that part of the reason why many people misspell Colombia is because people don't really care about the country. The article also says, "To many Colombians, the error isn't just a typo, it shows that people aren't paying attention to Colombia beyond it's reputation for poverty and drug cartels." I think it's unfair for people to judge a country based on poverty. Even if you do judge them on that, it doesn't you mean you should misspell the name of the country. If you really knew something about the country you would know how to spell their name.
In conclusion, people shouldn't judge countries based on reputation. Also small countries that aren't talked about often. If you want to mention a country in a tweet or any other social media websites, check the spelling! Otherwise your disrespecting Colombians and other countries.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Book Club Response
In "The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian" by Sherman Alexie, there's a lot of violence. Violence that has led to parents fighting against this book being in middle schools. This has caused many middle schools to ban the book. I think that the violence in this book wasn't extreme. Even if it was it shows an important message. It teaches readers about how bad racism is, and how it affects the people you say stuff to. Although this book has violence, it still has an important message.
One example of violence in the book is when Junior told his best friend Rowdy that he was switching schools, "I was the kind of idiot that got punched hard in the face by his best friend. Bang! Rowdy punched me." This is violence because he is getting punched in the face. Although it don't teach a good message it only shows what some kids actually do. Nothing was unrealistic, and I still don't think that's violent enough for someone to want to ban the book. Even though he got punched in the face their wasn't any details or anything to give you a very violent image in your head.
Another example of violence is when Junior had felt that Roger (kid from his new school, Rearden) was making fun of him and Indians he says, "So I punched Roger in the face...he wasn't laughing when his nose bled like red fireworks." Although this doesn't show a good message he only did it to protect him and Indians. He could've handled it other ways but he still had a reason for what he did. He didn't just try to get in any random fight. He also thought they, they would follow the fighting rules of the Rez. Although there was more violence in that quote it still wasn't that descriptive to put a very violent image in your head.
One last example of violence is, when Junior was upset about getting an old book he said, "I wanted to hit something with that ancient book. But I didn't want to hit someone, and I certainly didn't plan on breaking the nose of a mafioso math teacher." That shows violence because he threw a book and hit someone. He didn't even mean to hit someone. That teaches kids a lesson that you shouldn't throw something no matter what you want to throw it at because it might hit something else. Although that was violence, once again it wasn't very violent.
In conclusion, although this book shows some violence it's not in every single part of the book. Wherever there was violence it wasn't detailed. Yes, there was violence in this book but there wasn't enough for middle schools to ban it or want to ban it.
One example of violence in the book is when Junior told his best friend Rowdy that he was switching schools, "I was the kind of idiot that got punched hard in the face by his best friend. Bang! Rowdy punched me." This is violence because he is getting punched in the face. Although it don't teach a good message it only shows what some kids actually do. Nothing was unrealistic, and I still don't think that's violent enough for someone to want to ban the book. Even though he got punched in the face their wasn't any details or anything to give you a very violent image in your head.
Another example of violence is when Junior had felt that Roger (kid from his new school, Rearden) was making fun of him and Indians he says, "So I punched Roger in the face...he wasn't laughing when his nose bled like red fireworks." Although this doesn't show a good message he only did it to protect him and Indians. He could've handled it other ways but he still had a reason for what he did. He didn't just try to get in any random fight. He also thought they, they would follow the fighting rules of the Rez. Although there was more violence in that quote it still wasn't that descriptive to put a very violent image in your head.
One last example of violence is, when Junior was upset about getting an old book he said, "I wanted to hit something with that ancient book. But I didn't want to hit someone, and I certainly didn't plan on breaking the nose of a mafioso math teacher." That shows violence because he threw a book and hit someone. He didn't even mean to hit someone. That teaches kids a lesson that you shouldn't throw something no matter what you want to throw it at because it might hit something else. Although that was violence, once again it wasn't very violent.
In conclusion, although this book shows some violence it's not in every single part of the book. Wherever there was violence it wasn't detailed. Yes, there was violence in this book but there wasn't enough for middle schools to ban it or want to ban it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)