Autobiography of Malcolm X vs. Superman and Me

Both Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie wrote Autobiography of Malcolm X and Superman and Me, respectively, for similar audiences. These stories are both directed at the white people that discriminated and degraded the colored people in the authors’ respective time periods. The white people believed colored people, both Native Americans and blacks, were stupid and could not be educated.  Malcolm X and Alexie directed their stories to similar audiences and likewise, their stories displayed similar purposes. Both Malcolm X and Alexie wrote their stories of how they became literate through self-education to refute and protest against the white people’s claim that colored people couldn’t be educated. While Malcolm X and Alexie’s stories have similar purposes and are directed at similar audiences, they wrote their stories with different voices. Malcolm X describes what he read in more detail than Alexie. For example, Malcolm X recites the events of Nat Turner’s rebellion and how the British white men took control of and colonized India, while Alexie only recites the genres he read. Malcolm X and Alexie also have a different tone behind their voices. Because Malcolm X recites all the diverse history he learned after he self-taught himself, one senses a boastful tone in his voice. In contrast, Alexie doesn’t recite all the interesting facts he learned from reading  in his story, which, compared to Malcolm X, doesn’t seem boastful. Alexie even says that he writes his stories in third person to make him and his personal achievement seem more modest. While Alexie and Malcolm X have similar purposes and audiences for their stories, they possess different voices in their writing.

Op-ed Review

In the article, Men, Who Needs Them?, the author, Greg Hampikian, informs his audience about the scientific breakthroughs of the possibility of a female becoming pregnant without a male. To do this, a “fresh or frozen” sperm from a “living or dead” donor is required.  But Hampikian uses this purpose to also make an underlying argument that the human population could technically continue without males with these breakthroughs and with the huge frozen sperm supply that could support the human population for generations. Hampikian’s intended audience is the everyday people that have an interest in science, but not the people rooted in the scientific community, as one may assume. This is because people very active in the scientific community would have probably heard about this advancement already or contributed to the research and development of this advancement themselves. This article is also not intended for the scientific community because the article was published in the New York Times, not a medical or science journal.  In the introduction, Hampikian has a serious tone because of the background information he dictates on the traits of the human and mammalian species. Later in the article, Hampikian’s tone can be seen as serious but underneath it is exaggerated. This is because Hampikian describes the process in detail of how a child is nourished only by a female from the child’s grandmother giving birth to the child’s mother to the mother giving birth to the child. In the description of the process, he mentions how little males contribute to child development compared to how much females scientifically contribute, both before and after the child’s birth. The article has an informative personality, yet a playful one since he tries to exaggerate how much females contribute to child development compared to males. There is also an unintended feminist personality because he states, “men [have] become less relevant to reproduction and parenting.”  The argument that the human population could technically survive without men due to the breakthroughs in science is effective and convincing because he uses scientific evidence and processes to support his claim. I believe that the article would convince the target audience, because the sociologists and the child development specialists in the scientific community that the article is not directed towards would disagree with Hampikian’s claim.

Hampikian, Greg. "Men, Who Needs Them?" New York Times 25 Aug. 2012: A19. New York Times. 24 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 Aug. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>.

What do I value and how will I live?

I value hard work, friendship and knowledge and I will live wholeheartedly. I value hard work because it almost always leads to success. For example, I worked hard all throughout high school, balancing school work with extracurricular activities. Although the hard work in high school was just one step along the way, as will be college, it led me to VT, which will lead me to a successful career (hopefully). I also value hard work because it can bring both valuable knowledge and friendship. I value knowledge because I gain knowledge from experience and I make decisions based on past experience. For example, in my junior of high school, I took a challenging AP chemistry course because I wanted to major in a science field in college. But I didn’t do as well as I had liked to in the class. Because chemistry is a difficult subject and I felt like I hadn’t truly mastered the basic material yet, I made the decision to take chemistry again this semester to better solidify my knowledge of chemistry. I value knowledge as I do friendship. Friends are important in everyday life because they are people that are dependable, talk to you, laugh with you, and get you through the day. For example, the friends I made at VT help me get through the day because I can tell them how my day went as we go to dinner. I will live wholeheartedly because I will do my best and work hard in all of my endeavors. These endeavors can even include knowledge and friendship. I will work hard at VT to gain the knowledge that I need to succeed in a future career, while supporting and listening to my friends to maintain the friendship.