The Chinese People Have Stood Up Rhetorical Outline

Rhetorical Analysis Outline of Mao Zedong’s

“The Chinese People Have Stood Up” Speech

Purpose: the purpose was to unify the Chinese people and persuade them that supporting his rule would be the best for China.

Audience: The chinese population particularly the working class

Context: the era is the Cultural Revolution. On October 1. 1949 he officially establishes the People’s Republic of China. This is the opening address at the First Plenary Session of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference on September 21, 1949

Section 1: Setting Up:
Purpose: Introduces the People’s Political Consultative Conference and comparing the progress made so far with Kuomintang
Appeals: Establishes ethos; Pathos
Techniques:
Anaphora: “In a little more than three years..” uses this to show how much progress they made in such little time. Makes him look very hardworking, dedicated.
Diction: “nothing in the interest of the people” “no avail” “absolutely no room for compromise”
Word choice makes Kuomintang seem impossible to work with. Gives impression that he won’t cooperate so there’s no choice but to act against him
Imagery: “running dog of imperialism” degrades imperialism and supports the idea that it is weak and easily controlled
Hyperbole: “overthrow these enemies or be oppressed and slaughtered by them” this is not necessarily true and is exaggerated to create some fear of the enemy among the people
Connotation: “backed by the U.S. imperialism” indirectly saying the U.S. is an enemy too and also stating that they’re also the cause of the grief in China
Effectiveness: Very effective. He brings in the idea that everyone is united and highlights the progress made by his party. By putting Kuomintang right after successes he shows how harmful Kuomintang is .  

Section 2: His Goals
Purpose: Inform the people what he plans on doing and why they must take action
Techniques:
Anaphora- “It will” goes in a pattern of listing what they will achieve, makes it seem like they’re really organized and have everything all thought out
“Chinese’s People Political Consultative Conference” uses this many times to sell the idea that they’re united and everything they do is for the people
“Domestic and foreign oppressors” “Forefathers” makes the cause seem more important
Oxymoron/Juxtaposition: “democratic dictatorship” democratic is usually thought of as equal
Weak parts: says they must get allies and make friend with Soviet Union and New Democracies which contradicts his earlier statement about foreign oppressors. also used democratic dictatorship in a positive sense which is confusing.
Effectiveness: Effective. the part about making allies, having friends all over the world , and winning sympathy is questionable. The statements aren’t backed up very well.

Section 3: Building up Nationalism and Pride
Purpose: To convince the people that their hard work will make China into a wonderful country and how beneficial his new party is
Appeals: Pathos
Techniques:
Rhetorical Question- “If our forefathers, and we also, could weather long years of extreme difficulty and defeat powerful domestic and foreign reactionaries, why can’t we now, after victory, build a prosperous flourishing country?”
“keep to our style of plain living and hard struggle”- appealing to working class
“no imperialist will ever again be allowed to invade our land” “tremble before us!”
builds up momentum about how powerful China will become esp. idea that they will beat the foreigners
Anaphora- “Hail the..” has the people salute the ‘New China’
Effectiveness: very effective. makes the people feel like they’re important and that their hard work will eventually contribute to a greater China. Rallies the people up with the chant of hail the... Based mainly on pathos but is used well.

General Evaluation:
Mao is a master of manipulation people using pathos. He knows how the people are dissatisfied and is able to convince them that he’s the right leader that will lead them out of their struggle. Consistently brings up the idea of being united and together throughout the whole speech. Very similar to Goebbel’s. He establishes some pathos first and breaks the enemy down to make him more trustworthy. Then he primarily uses pathos afterwards. The section about needing allies is weak. He may need to add somes facts of examples of why it will be beneficial to strengthen that argument. Overall it’s a very persuasive speech.

Hirohito and Goebbel-- Similar Yet Different

When reading Goebbels and Emperor Hirohito’s speech they come off as complete opposites. One is trying to persuade the people to quietly surrender while the other rallies the nation up and encourages them to continue their fight. Emperor Hirohito and Joseph both had very different speeches but used similar rhetorical devices in achieving their goal.

 As Japan had recently been bombed by the nuclear bomb Emperor Hirohito has the tough job of telling his nation that they will be surrendering. Considering how proud and loyal the Japanese are to their Emperor it becomes even more difficult to do so. One of the things Hirohito does is use the feelings of nationalism to convince the Japanese that surrendering is the best thing to do. In the statement “Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of our military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of out servants of the State and the devoted service of our 100,000,000 people..” Hirohito is very clever in his diction. Words such as gallant fighting, diligence and assiduity, and devoted service are used to show that the Japanese people gave it their all. He then says the “war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan’s advantage”. By using such an understatement he softens the blow of losing the war. In fact, he turns the situation around by claiming that their surrender is the ultimate sacrifice. They are essentially saving the world from the “total extinction of human civilization” and paving the way for the future of Japan. Rather than delivering a speech about merely surrendering, Hirohito turns it around to make it seem as if they are still fighting.

Though Goebbel has a different goal his speech uses techniques similar to the ones used by Hirohito. Goebbels states how the German people are “raised, educated and disciplined by National Socialism” and is “armed against weakness and uncertainty”.  Here Goebbels uses the sense of nationalism in the German people to get them to agree and support him. He also makes a heavy claim that the survival of the whole world depends on them. “This is a threat to the Reich and to the European continent that casts all previous dangers into the shadows. If we fail, we will have failed our historic mission “.  Goebbel continuously says throughout his speech the German people are the only one capable of saving the world from the evils of Bolshevism. In that sense, both speeches are similar in ways of using the people’s sense of pride to agree that surrendering or fighting is the best for their country.

However there are obvious differences in the two speeches as well. Goebbel uses guilt to make his audience agree with him. He refers back to the “heroic sacrifices of heroism“ at Stalingrad multiples times implying that they must live up to that. Rather than directly addressing the loss at Stalingrad he makes use of soldiers to set remodels of the German people. Goebbel also instills fear to insure that everyone complies with him.  He conjures an image of the Jewish as the “incarnation of evil, as the plastic demon of decay and the bearer of an international culture-destroying chaos”. And if that isn’t frightening enough, he makes very ominous threats such as when he says “we will respond appropriately.”

Both speeches were successful in persuading the nation to do what they wanted. While nationalism is effective for both what sets them apart is the writer’s way of delivering them. Though Hirohito makes understatement and some exaggerations like the "obliteration of Japan"  most of his content is agreeable  Hirohito has more faith in his people while Goebbel seems to have none considering that the speech is based mainly lies, prejudice, fear, and guilt. One thing that can be known for sure is that when you convince the people that they are the hero that will save the fate of man kind from impending doom-- like worldwide destruction from the deadly bomb or enslavement by the Communist Jews-- they are more likely to comply. 

Machiavelli vs. Thoreau- Who's right?

After reading both Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” and Machiavelli’s The Prince it’s hard to determine which philosophy is truly the best. Thoreau is more idealistic and difficult to execute in life whereas Machiavelli’s is a lot more applicable but not as moral. Although both authors write to encourage a more proper government their philosophies comes from different ends of the spectrum.

One of the points that Thoreau and Machiavelli spend a great amount of time on is the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Machiavelli stresses that a prince must do what is necessary to remain powerful. “A wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others.”  He believes that a prince should constantly be in control even if it means being feared by the people. Meanwhile Thoreau shows a different idea; that “government is best which governs least.” In this perspective the interventions of the government only succeed in holding back the state from becoming a more “prefect and glorious state”. When the people comply with the government’s law’s they are no longer individuals but ‘machines’.  Not only are Thoreau’s ideas different, they completely reject Machiavelli’s views on government. Machiavelli is writing on the assumption that the people aren’t competent to make their own choices and need to be governed to and protected from new states. This significantly differs from Thoreau’s notion that the government is unjust and that the people have the duty to act on their morals in correcting the corrupted government. Their philosophies on governing also reflect their value of the individual. Machiavelli’s rational but less compassionate ways shows that the state itself and its prosperity is a higher priority than the individual needs of the people. “Thus no prince should mind being called cruel for what he does to keep his subjects united and loyal.” Thoreau on the other hand, says many times throughout his story that one should be able to live contently by following their principles regardless of the higher authority. As someone who spends a night in jail because he refused to pay taxes he disagreed with, Thoreau is very concerned with the mental state of the individual people. Considering the idea that a government does not exist without the people it is interesting to see how the two regard the subjects in such contradicting way especially Machiavelli with his text The Prince that continuously says the ends justify the means.

At a quick glance Machiavelli does seem more logical but if taken seriously both philosophies can become extremely dangerous. Thoreau may be read as a cry for action by overzealous readers to take extreme action while Machiavelli could be taken as favoring a tyrannical rule. Neither is completely right. Rather than sticking to one side it would be beneficial to incorporate elements of both.  Maybe then we will have an ideal state that doesn’t act in extremities. 

Shut Those Slaughter Houses Down and Set the Turkeys Free

On Turkey Massacre Day—formerly known as Thanksgiving—turkeys nationwide are being killed to satisfy the obese hunger of greedy Americans. But is this right? Should these turkeys really be slaughtered to cater to our vision of a perfect Thanksgiving dinner? No! This is evil! This is unjust! From now on Thanksgiving should be spent honoring the lives of the murdered-but very delicious, turkeys. In fact a golden turkey shrine shall be built in the capitol of each state and on that day everyone—and I mean everyone will go on a pilgrimage to the beautiful turkey shrine of their state and pay their respect. There will be a grand dance in which everyone gets on the ground, bob their heads up and down, and flap their wings as they make realistic turkey noises. Towards the end of the dance a king and queen will be chosen; the chosen ones will then have the honor of choosing a young, tender, plump being from the mass of dancers. The chosen hero will be offered to the Gods of the shrine; much like how a turkey is plucked from a farm and sent to the slaughterhouse—expect this is much more fun and meaningful. Imagine the delight of the Turkey Gods to see a nice roasted human being offered to them! But don’t think of this as murder. For years we have been mercilessly hunting down turkeys that it’s only right that we redeem ourselves in this fashion. Besides, there’s always that one annoying useless kid that does nothing but complain and waste oxygen. Well now’s the chance to benefit society! Strange, you may say; but is it really?  However those who decide not to participate on this festive day will be punished. Dragged out of their homes and strung by the neck, these evil-doers will find themselves.  Together the nation will watch as the wretched bodies are soaked in Worcestershire sauce and parade throughout. Behold, the new Thanksgiving! 

New Thesis

In The Reluctant Fundamentalist Changez is expresses Hamid's admiration of America as well as his anti-American sentiment as he tries to find peace between between the tense relationships of America and Pakistan. 

Hamid As He See Himself in Changez

Karen Zheung

11/11/12

The Reluctant Fundamenlist

Topic One

Hamid As He See Himself in Changez

                When we want to know more about a person we usually look for a biography on that person. Interestingly enough there are not many biographies on Hamid and the ones that do exist are very brief and lack details. But rather than a short biography that tells us his date of birth and education Hamid’s writing reveals much more about his life and values. In The Reluctant Fundamentalist Hamid creates a character very similar to him not only to express his thoughts but to help him find peace between the tense relationship of America and Pakistan.

                According to Hamid’s biography he grew up in Lahore then attended Princeton and Harvard. Hamid spent most of his childhood in America adopting its culture before being familiar with his own Pakistan background. In the article “Why Do They Hate Us?” Hamid stated “I learned to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" years before I could sing the Pakistani national anthem, played baseball before I could play cricket and wrote in English before I could write in Urdu.“ This is similar to how Changez became accustomed to the New York life as he continued to succeed in Underwood Samson. Both the author and the protagonist share an obvious love for the American and Pakistan culture. However as the novel progresses Changez becomes aware of how he has become a janissary begins to associate with his Pakistan background more. When Changez sees one of the World Trade Center tower collapses he smiles and says that his initial reaction was pleased. “I was not at war with America. Far from it: I was the product of an American university; I was earning a lucrative American salary; I was infatuated with an American woman. So why did a part of me desire to see America harmed?” (73) Although Changez was more pleased about the 9/11 attacks Hamid clearly states in his interview that he was worried. In this sense the two are different. After the terrorist attacks Changez’s American life becomes even more difficult with Erica slipping away from him and the racism he must face. As Changez becomes more concerned about the situation Lahore he grows his bread out adding to his suspicious appearance that keeps him from completely assimilating. Hamid shared similar experiences as well with his Muslim friends being harassed in the U.S. and his unpleasant experiences traveling with a Pakistani passport. (My Reluctant Fundamentalist Essay) In The Reluctant Fundamentalist Changez clearly emulates Hamid life and struggles as he tries to find comfort despite being split between America and Pakistan. By understanding Hamid’s history the reader is able to gain greater understanding in Changez’s character. Without reading Hamid’s biography a reader may incorrectly assume that Changez’s decision to stay in Lahore is the end. Rather than reading this novel and interpreting it as Hamid’s failure to belong to a culture it should be praised for how Hamid was able to remain connect with both cultures. 

toulmin

Toulmin Analysis of Gay Marriage: A Rogerian Argument

Step One: Outlining the Argument

Claim: Gay marriage should be legalized

Reasons:

-because gay couples should get the same marriage rights

-because it’ll make America a more equal country

-because it’s can be a positive change

-because it would boost the economy

-because it encourages tolerance

Evidence:

“because gay couples should get the same marriage rights”- gay couples have to file taxes separately, they can’t make any decisions or see their loved one if he/she is in a critical medical condition

“because it’ll make America a more equal country”- people in America don’t have equal rights eg. Unequal paychecks because of gender

“because it’s a positive change”- women’s suffrage, freeing the slaves, they’re considered as positive changes even though people were reluctant at first

“because it would boost the economy”-   when people get marry they have to spend money, renting wedding halls, marriage license, etc

“because it encourages tolerance”- people are sometimes very intolerant towards things they don’t understand. Legalizing gay marriage would show that gay couples are equal to heterosexual ones and may change people’s opinion.

Warrants:

“because gay couples should get the same marriage rights”-

a.       People should be able to be a part of their loved one’s life

b.      It’s a basic civil right

“because it’ll make America a more equal country”

a.       America is a country based on equality

b.      Equality is a good

“because it’s a positive change”-

a.       civil rights is a worthy goal

“because it would boost the economy”-  

a.       We want a good economy

b.      A good economy will benefit America and its citizens

“because it encourages tolerance”-

a.       People should be tolerant

b.      Tolerance makes society better

Backing:

“People should be able to be a part of their loved one’s life”-being involved is important. If you have a say in your loved one’s life then it gives you more control and makes you feel more comfortable.

“It’s a basic civil right”-You should be able to marry the person you love.

“America is a country based on equality”- Our constitution is based off the Declaration which states that all men are created equal, ergo equality is important.

“Equality is a good”-Everybody has value therefor they should be treated with respect.

“civil rights is a worthy goal”- Civil rights are good, we enjoy having civil rights because without them our voices wouldn’t be heard.

“We want a good economy”- having a good economy means more jobs, which good for the people because they need jobs to make a living.

“A good economy will benefit America and its citizens”-Americans want jobs so they can support themselves.

“People should be tolerant”- being tolerant builds a better character and makes other people more comfortable. Being uncomfortable is bad because it prevents them from showing their full potential.

“Tolerance makes society better”- Tolerance encourages us to be open-minded and willing to accept different views. Having different perspectives makes a society unique and makes people more productive and willing to be involved.

Step 2:

The reason that gay couples should get same rights as heterosexual needs a better warrant. It’s more of an emotional argument than logical. The reason that it’s a positive change also needs more evidence and the warrant needs more backing up. The audience wont readily agree with that reason. Saying that it’ll boost the economy doesn’t need too much reasoning. Tolerance and equality being good is pretty self explanatory. The audience will most likely agree on that. Saying that people deserve civil rights doesn’t need as much convincing on how legalizing gay marriage will achieve that. 

Rogerian Arguement

                   
                Thomas Jefferson once wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.  Hundred of years later Abraham Lincoln,who considered the Declaration as the foundation of his political philosophy, freed the slaves in the south with the Emancipation Proclamation. The phrase, all men are created equal continues to be quoted by significant American figures in politics and social life. And as Americans living in a world superpower nation we pride ourselves in being superior to other nations economically and socially. Yet, as great and advanced as we think we are, we still struggle over civil rights issue like gay marriage. Should two gay men be able to marry? Both the sides opposing gay marriage and the      
supporting it each have their own valid reasons.

               There are a number of reasons why a good portion of Americans are against gay marriage. The main argument is religion. Many people are taught by the bible that marriage is to be between man and women, hence Adam and Eve.  Religious people have certain morals that they must follow and for many that means homosexuals are sinners. To insult their religion and the god(s) that they pray to is comparable to someone badmouthing your role model and neither are justified. Aside from religious reasons,  there are also people that claim a fatherly and motherly  figure is key in marriage and family.  When the time to raise children comes it may be more convenient  for both the child and the parents that there is a mother and father figure.
           At the same time there are also valid arguments for why gay marriage should be legalized. Most people will agree that love shouldn't be restricted. Well in that sense,  gay marriage should be the same. Every human being should be able to marry who they love and receive the same benefits that heterosexual married couples get. Can you imagine being told that you will never be able to marry who you love? Can you
imagine your spouse in the hospital with some critical condition, yet you can't visit them or make any decisions on their behalf? Gay marriage may not be traditional and it's a big change. But change isn't always bad. Civil rights for African Americans, women's suffrage, the change in labor laws, those huge changes had a positive impact on our nation. In fact it's changes like those that makes America such a great country.
            There are benefits in legalizing gay marriage. For one it would boast the economy. Getting married cost money, and quite a lot too. As more couples obtain marriage license, rent out wedding halls and hire services, the state and business will make a profit. It also encourages a more tolerant society. People have insecurity and passing something like gay marriage can show not only America, but the whole world that we can live together without bringing others down.  Legalizing gay marriage to another step closer to true equality.

Gay Marriage- A Civil Problem Too

Gay marriage is a sensitive topic to many people. Though people are more accepting towards gay couples the idea of them getting married is a completely different issue. Some believe that marriage is a sacred ceremony that should be kept traditional as man and woman while others believe that gay couples deserve equal rights. In a 2012 poll 48% of Americans oppose gay marriage. Though that number sounds pretty good there are still 39 states that ban same-sex marriage.

Same sex marriage isn’t just a gay rights issue; it’s also a civil rights problem going back to the constitution. The constitution was created to achieve equality such that a rich person won’t get more votes than someone who makes $30,000 a year, a Hispanic and Caucasian that committed the same crime would receive the same punishment, Christianity and Judaism will be treated the same, etc. However same sex couples are left out of the loop. They are denied hundred of constitutional rights given to married heterosexual couples. They are unable to make decisions about their partner’s life in a medical emergency, denied social security benefits, and can’t file taxes together and so on. According to the New York Times the lifetime cost of being in a long term gay relationship versus a married relationship can go as high as $467,526. In no way is that equal or just. 

America prides itself on being a country of freedom and equality, but that is evidently not true.  While it’s understandable for American’s to want to uphold traditional marriage there are also many pros to legalizing same sex marriage. It would boast the economy, promote good morals like acceptance and tolerance, and encourage family values as well. It’s time for gay couples to receive their own emancipation proclamation.  

Love and Marriage: As Defined By Gender

Remember that guy on the news? The one who was beaten as he stood up for the right to be able to marry someone of the same gender—yes, I am talking about gay marriage. Well maybe that story just flew by your head, or maybe you thought that he deserved it; I mean he is gay.

Homosexuals are abnormal. Homosexuals aren’t welcomed.  The Bible taught us that homosexuality is a sin; that you’ll go to hell; that it’s wrong. But wasn’t God all about love? Well none of that matters because you’re a normal, sexually attracted to the opposite gender person. But then your friend comes out; they’re gay. She doesn’t find that blonde, blue-eyed football player cute and he doesn’t think that brunette c cup cheerleader is sexy. Your friend needs you. Your son or daughter is looking to you for help. That person is praying for mercy. The shopping trips to the mall, the break ups she helped you through, the time she stood up for you, are they all meaningless now that she’s a lesbian? Does the bonding over games, the time he backed you up in a fight, the shenanigans you both pulled, and the scolding received afterward disappear because he’s gay? Is your daughter/son any different from when you raised him/her as a little child? No. That person is the same. Are you going to be the friend that denies any relation because you’re afraid of being unpopular or that you’ll become gay—I mean everyone knows that gay is a very contagious disease? Or will you be a true friend that says ‘who cares’ to the fact that they’re gay. You don’t. Will you be the parent that throws their own child away because of their sexual preference? Or will you choose to love them as they are?

This is America, the land of freedom. But how can America call itself America when its people don’t even have the freedom to love regardless of gender without beimg discriminated against? It can’t.

Sentence Blog

     "As it turns out, the mere fact of having a unit to myself makes me an aristocrat within the Blue Haven community. The other long-term residents, whom I encounter at the communal laundry shed, are blue-collar people with uniforms and overalls to wash, and generally quiet at night. Mostly they are couples with children, much like the white working-class people occasionally glimpsed on sitcoms, only unlike their TV counterparts, m y neighbors are crowded three or four into an efficiency, or at most a one-bedroom, apartment. One young guy asks which unit I'm in and then tells me he used to live in tat very same one himself--along with two friends. A middle-aged woman with a three-year-old granddaughter in tow tells me, in a comforting tone, that it is always hard at the beginning, living in a motel, especially if you're used to a house, but you adjust after a while, you put it out of your mind. She, for example, has been at the Blue Haven for eleven years now. "
 Credits to Barbara Ehrenreich from  Nickel and Dimed (70)

     According to society's rules, a male must not be attracted to another male and a female must not be attracted to another female. Majority of so-called Christians, who are constantly at the church praying nonstop, say evil-doers must be gays and bisexuals, therefore they deserve no rights. But homosexuals are just like us, those statements from the bible-loving homophones have no actual evidence, we have nothing to fear, the main difference being that homosexuals prefer the same gender, they pose no world-ending, threats. We shouldn't be denying the right to love or marriage when the ones who try to protect it abuse it as well—consider all the divorces. As freedom-loving American citizens the I-hate-gays doesn't suit the American values, in fact it’s contradictory, America believes in equal rights is false, when in reality, anything is that different from the norm, is just another hindrance to society, a crime that we are guilty of. Discrimination, the reason, why America will never be what be what it stands for.

Note: I have nothing against Christians expect for the hard-core ones who believe that eradicating "sinners" is completely acceptable. 
 

Don't Hug Me I'm Scared

Just Stop It, Please--I Can Feel the Stupidity

Just some social changes I would like to see in my life time to know that the world is moving forwards, not backwards. 

School/CGS

• Get rid of the 10/10 rule. Taking a bathroom break is more of a distraction in the middle of class when content is being taught. 
• Crowded hallways- it's hard to get from one side of the building to another in 4 short minutes when the hall is flooded with people
• Use funding to provide laptops for students in CGS. We can save a lot more paper and ink if everything was done digitally. 
• Stop posting flyers everywhere. Nobody looks at them and they're just going to get thrown out. 
• Don't give homework that doesn't benefit students. More papers for the teachers to grade and more time it takes away from students. Besides you're not the only teacher who gives out work!

National

• Make gay marriage legal in states. Spread the love!
• Allow incestuous marriages between consenting adults 
• Lower the drinking age 
• Legalize euthanasia 
• Insanity and mental disorders shouldn't be an excuse to not go to jail for a crime 

Political/Govt

• Oil is important, but if you're going to middle east or Africa try to do some good, not create more problems or hatred towards America. 
• (On going to war over religion:) "You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend." -- Rich Jeni

Media

• Stop the reality shows, it's not reality.
• Stop paying reality show actors/actresses so much money. Snooki doesn't need $150,000 every show to convince the youth that the Jersey Shore life is the only life. 
• More educational shows
• Stop publishing celebrity gossip in magazines. No more nonsense
• Stop the fast food commercials. Smoking is bad enough. We don't need to add obesity. 
• Pass a laws preventing ridiculously gory, snuff like films from being produce. It's bad 
• When celebrities get caught with drugs send them to jail like the rest the society, not rehab so they can gain more publicity
• No more foam puppets in kids show. They scare me. (Just search "Don't Hug Me I'm Scared" on YouTube) 

Online

• Censor the web more. Kids and psychopaths can easily get access to many disturbing files, images, videos are various other things online. 
• TAKE DOWN MOTHERLESS
• Make the internet less scary so i don't feel like I'm going to have a heart attack whenever i click on a link

SWAG & YOLO

• Stop using the word swag. What is that suppose to even mean?! There's hell of a lot more adjectives in the English language
• You cannot trade your education so no more "Who needs school when you got swag?" photos. 
• "Personality gets nothing, swag gets everything" just no
• YOLO yes, i dont know that i only live once. thanks for reminding constantly that i'm constantly getting closer and closer to death. shall we create a YODO too? You only die once. 

My Contradictory Name

Greetings to my fellow readers!

 I will be straightforward and tell you that I was not named after some fancy politician or well known celebrity. The first part Karen is Danish word for Katherine which means pure in Greek. But my friends would all agree that I am far from pure. I see the world in a dim light for all its violence and corruption. And honestly, I question whether they’ll be taken down and replace with someone of not-so-evil intentions.

Now my surname is somewhat unique in several ways. One being that my dad actually misspelled the last name on several forms changing it from Cheung to Zheung. A one letter mistake, no big deal except that it puts me at the end of attendance list instead of the beginning.  The other feature making it somewhat unique is that you don’t often see another last name similar to Zheung at least in school and in my social circle. Why? Simple reason, Asians are minorities in this environment. There’s no China town in Connecticut and there most likely won’t be building one too. (Thank God for that.) But among the Chinese my surname is as common Smith and considering the huge population and the fact that there are only 100 surnames it’s not surprising to see Zheung as the third most common surname.

Having a Chinese surname obviously makes me Chinese and as a Chinese person what should my concerns be? Well for starters my obsessive love for Japan is not okay. It’s a sin! A taboo! So whenever an adult hears that I’m studying both Chinese and Japanese their immediate reaction is to go into a long story. “Remember all those thing they did to you in WWII?” I was not part of WWII, I wasn’t even born yet. I’ve even came across little elementary children who say “I hate the Japanese. They should die.” You’re just a kid! There’s no need for this amount of hate. Another issue, does being Chinese really mean I have to excel in every academic subject and be viewed as an over-achiever by my peers? Sorry to disappoint you, but I wasn’t raised in China nor do I live there so I would really appreciate if the “In China when I was your age…” stories would stop.

I’m certainly not pure or as girly as Karen suggests and neither am I as stereotypical and my last name hints. The on-going political grudge between China and Japan, stereotypes and racism that follows my name is very irksome. But a name is a name so I’ll just enjoy all the perks and pain that it brings me.