outline to presentation

- How will you begin, in order to catch our attention and introduce us to your topic?
I plan on using alot of images and doing a power point.

- What is the central argument you make in your essay and how will you present it to us?
That imperialism leads to failure of an economy because at the end of the day the country that is imperializing is taking from the less fortunate country and looking out for their own interests.`

- What are a few key pieces of evidence that support your argument, and how will you describe and present them?
my main evidence is showing the discrimination Puerto Ricans faced and how Americans judged them and publicly humiliated them in News Papers. I have also heard there were advertisements and posters promoting the birth control Puerto Rican woman had to take which was unsafe so they were messing with them genetically as well treating them like lab rats.

- What is your visual element, and how will you work it into your presentation? Remember that you'll want to do more than just show us something - you want to talk about what it shows us.
I want to show the article from the NewYork Times and try to find the advertisments on the birthcontrol and maybe some pictures of the bario and how they lived before and then the low class neighborhoods they moved into.

- What do you think makes for an effective oral presentation? What makes you want to listen? What can you do to achieve these qualities?
Making the information interesting and getting alot of pictures and evidence to back it up. I can spend alot of time working on my presentation to make sure it is the full time limit and is engaging to the listeners.

essay #2

Images of war can change a nation’s point of view of war.  Knowing your country is in a war is different from actually seeing your people die and get hurt, that might change the minds of a lot of people; especially family and friends of our soldiers. Imagine seeing your brother or father being brutally killed. That would change everything and how the whole society views war. There are pro and anti-war images but to be honest its hard to tell the difference. Two sources I've seen to study this ideology of how war images can be pro and anti war is the trailer to Iwo Jima and the film hearts and minds. These were perfect examples to show pro war and antiwar                                                                  

Watching the film “hearts and minds” honestly broke my heart.  To see the effects of war and the graphic images the film shows of death and sometimes even worst than death, being barely alive and practically dead. Seeing families destroyed by their losses, one part that truly touched me was seeing a mother driving into her son’s grave. I could almost feel her pain and grief. This film came as a shock to me because I had never seen footage this raw, everyone knows we are in a war but its almost as if Americans have become blind to what war really is and the damage it causes to people just like us. Then I start to think to myself, why we are shielded from these harsh images when in reality that’s what is really going on.  It is clear this film was made to promote anti-war emotions.

On the other hand I saw a trailer of the film “Iwo Jima” which practically promoted war and glorified it. The directors of this film made it seem like war was a traditional congratulatory thing. It gave you an illusion of the classic case of a wife waiting at home for you and showed no brutality. In fact in this film you only saw Americans and it did not even show the other side. The background music while they were dropping bombs in this film was made to be heroic, patriotic, and exciting. In reality there should be nothing patriotic heroic or exciting about dropping bombs and killing innocent people just like you and me.

Although both films are about war they are completely different.  You can tell after watching both, both directors wanted you to feel a certain type of way about war. Whether it be pro or anti feelings. One focused on the damage, wrong doing and negative effects of course making anyone feel terrible about war. The other movie illustrating the excitement of it all and the pride that comes with war. Another thing I noticed was one movie focused more on the civilians and who it affected and the other concentrated more on a young soldier’s point of view.

My professor tells me everything were seeing has been shown on the news and I cannot believe it! I have never seen anything that graphic on the news, people living surrounded by death, beyond doubt I know NBC CBS NY1 CNN or ABC would not show the things I saw in the film. I understand completely why they wouldn’t show this these days on television; Americans would go crazy just like they did during the Vietnam War. I believe the anti-war movement would be even more powerful now than the one at that time. This is the opposite of what the government wants obviously so they hide what is really going on. I see this film and no longer wonder why soldiers come home with mental illnesses, who wouldn’t? I feel scared from just watching it on a screen in my classroom; imagine what it must feel like to live through it.

These films were extremely powerful and I suppose did serve there purpose. Before this I had a complete different image in my head of war. I pictured a bunch of good soldiers put somewhere to fight and only hurt the bad guys, this is what we are taught to believe. After seeing the film “hearts and minds” I will never think that way ever again. We also have to think about the time period “Iwo Jima” was made in; showing gory blood scenes and death was not expectable at that time. Funny how it’s almost as if we are going backwards in time and things that weren’t expectable in society before have changed. Things are less liberal again, the perfect example being what media is able to expose about war now at days. I’m waiting for a hearts and minds to come out about the war in Iraq to see how powerful a movie like that can change the mentality of people involved and observing the war.

The next thing I want to look into is the leaders that helped the Puerto Ricans assimilate and helped turn around the racism, I want to write about the changing point

Research Paper -draft

Have you ever heard the phrase Newyorican? Its a term many New yorkers use to address Puerto Ricans that live in Newyork but still hold their culture from Puerto Rico. Puerto Ricans were the first of immigrants to come to the states by plane, and by the end of the 1940's tens of thousands Puerto Ricans had come to the United States in search of work and starting a new life with a better economic living. Instead they were judged and discriminated against and still are till this day. Because Puerto Rico is not technically a state Americans saw Puerto Ricans as outsiders coming in a taking their work and "uncivilized people" they complained that Ricans took up money from the government on welfare. The level of prejudiceness became such an issue between the city and the island that they even gave the situation a name ... "The Puerto Rican Problem". It truley makes you wonder what this country is about when immigrants come to the United States to work and escape poverty and they are greeted with this hate just because they came from different backgrounds. Puerto Ricans went through so much racism for years,  its clear if americans had the ability to put down a whole race of people who basically had no choice but to assimilate to the U.S. for economic restoration for their island; Americans are the ones who have complete power and control in this situation.

PuertoRicans were first "welcomed" to the states after World War II . Islanders were living in poverty, their economy was not doing well at all so this was a perfect chance to improve situations. Being there were plenty of jobs available after the war the United States was a hegemon in the world. This again shows who had the upper hand over all.

papers were even written about them claiming the Puerto Rican government had to regulate the amount of islanders moving to the states.

The Puerto Rican Journey was a "survey" about Puerto Rican migrants during 1947. It was one of the first efforts by the Puerto Rican government to stop rascism going on in the U.S. towards Puerto Ricans. It was called the "Puerto Rican Problem". The article was written by  C.Wright Mills, he later became one of the best writers in the 1960's. This was just a small step to improve how they were treated. It deffended the Puerto Ricans being in the U.S.

Annotated Bibliography

Derek Green, Puerto Rican Americans http://www.everyculture.com/multi/pa-sp/puerto-rican-americans.html

This a great source, it provides so much information. This is truly an ideal scholarly source. It provides information about everything such as its history, modern era, immigration waves, early mainlanders etc.

Edgardo Melendez Velez, The Puerto Rican Journey revisited: Politics and the study of PuertoRican migration

This source is about the Puerto Rican struggle assimilating into the United States, it argues political goals are more important than scholarly ones in launching this project.


These two sources are perfect for my research paper because I have information about PuertoRicos past and current events and also have information of what my argument is going to be about how PuertoRicans were treated when we migrated to the United States.




http://palante.org/History.htm

I was only able to find one source, it was about aspects of puertorican migration to the united states. It was difficult for me to find good articles today because I am not used to using google scholar and don't know how to work it. Although when I searched my topic allot of articles would pop up when I would click on them it would say its a book and wouldn't be able to find the link to actually read it. I am clear on what I want to focus on in my essay. I'm looking for information on the U.S. after WWII and why they welcomed puerto ricans to New york and how puerto rican culture assimilated into the United States, now i just need a way to find more sources.