In recent years, popular books like the Harry Potter series, The Giver, and To Kill a Mockingbird have recently been challenged of banning. Some people propose the idea to ban books that contain inappropriate content. They claim that these books should not be accessible to students and youth. Despite, the “inappropriate” content the government should not restrict the freedom of its citizens. Banned books should be accessible to students.
334)”, this is explaining that Americans are not being properly educated. They have to teach themselves what is right and wrong when it comes to the English language. They are unable to look up to older authorities to help them therefor they cannot broaden their horizons when it comes to the English language and culture. In “Lost In America” McGray says, “ The president’s language may promise $24 million to promote foreign-language instructions in K-12 schools, but that seems pretty paltry compared to the $206 million he requested to fund abstinence-only sex education”(McGray Pg. 356), this proves that our priorities are focused elsewhere and not on our language and culture.
Hirsch’s list does not imply the words of the Secret War nor the General’s name as signified as a cultural literacy of a set of words Americans should “already” know. We can defy this set of rules because we should conclude—the Secret War and General Vang Pao—the history behind this word and name is equally important to other historical wars and names in past centuries. Inedibility, the Secret War was a time that still ponders in the hearts of the Hmong community, “…described them as a tiny force of desperate people clinging to the hope that the CIA would come back to rescue them (Thompson),” describes George. The Hmong community did hope, and still is hoping. As this is something that is worth to be mentioned, and culturally literate for a well-rounded individual to learn something about our history—the Hmong community, the Secret War, and General Vang Pao.
But, with Helvidius, clearly George Washington was not acting like a president in this instance, but more so a king. He does not hold the authority to proclaim such a thing, and what does that say for the American word? As you can see, both sides have very strong cases and there are key points from both sides which makes it very hard to decide. If I had to decide I would agree more with Helvidius. George Washington believed that proclaiming neutrality was the way to go, which is completely fine, but there were other ways to go about doing it.
The tone wasn’t exactly meant to draw in a younger audience but it shouldn’t discourage them from reading it. The piece itself calls out to those who aren’t aware or those who want to nourish their minds. It’s context is eloquently presented and the explanations are a bit circuitous but still informative none the less. But the true audience is the one’s who disregard other forms of English created within the circumstances that they themselves have created for the creation of this form of English. To be more specific, the whites who deny the existence of black English, stating that there is only one way to speak proper English.
In conclusion, the thought of censoring in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is plainly idiotic. It suppresses the message Mark Twain is trying to send by, as Hetert-Qebu Walters says, “changes are another form of censorship, seeking to gloss over the complexities of life during a horrific period in American history.” therefore destroying the meaning of the novel. Children will not be tainted by the words used because they know why the words are used, because of education and the fact that they plainly won’t bat and eye at the words. People such as publishers who wish to reprint the book with censored words have no respect for literature and just care about printing more copies for more money. With all of this said I cannot help but to agree with Walters when she says, “choose an edition of Huckleberry Finn that respects the words of Twain as he wrote them & his critique of our nation 's history”.
But he argues that these people lose their culture by adapting to new culture and only thing left is discrimination. He states that languages are in center of this argument. Then he claimed “should immigrants be required to learn English, or should accommodations be made so they can continue to use their native language.” The author explained opinion from people who support immigrants should learn English that immigrants should do like American people do. The author disagrees to this opinion because
When they are in The United States they stay with those of one culture, people from the same country. When Taylor, who is not of that culture, ventures into an area “reserved” for, Taylor claims it “felt it was off limits” (kingsolver 153) to her because people not related to that particular culture never dared to venture in because of the stereotype that they hold. This makes the people who are different culturally think they will not fit in unless they either stick with people of the same cultural or manage to blend in with the Americans. Esperanza had to start speaking English more to blend in (Kingsolver 221). This was because she had just travelled to the Cherokee reservation and needed to create a false identity and “the life history [she] had invented for [herself].
For example, the past tense for the word ‘send’ is ‘sent’. While it can be quite confusing for the second language learner to learn about English past tense, there is no such thing in Malay language. In order to show an action in the past, you can just use the word ‘sudah’. For example, the word ‘sudah’ in “Saya sudah makan,” shows that I have already