Sutro Review 2020
Sf State Journal for Undergraduate Composition
Sf State Journal for Undergraduate Composition

Dear Readers,
Even sequestered at home, in the midst of an unprecedented Stay-at-Home order, we are delighted to present the fourth annual volume of Sutro Review: SF State Journal for Undergraduate Composition, an academic journal produced by SF State students, featuring the work of some of our most promising undergraduates.
Sutro Review celebrates the diverse and talented voices among undergraduates at SF State and aims to share those voices with the broader community. Our fourth issue includes nine student essays, representing a variety of disciplines and academic styles. From the personal to the political, from literary analysis to social commentary, these essays include a range of provocative topics. This is just a peek into the variety of work produced by our talented undergraduate community at SF State.
Special thanks to Director of Composition, Jennifer Trainor for her compassionate guidance, Christy Shick for her spot-on tactical advice, as well as Erin Macke, Ross Van Velsor and Todd Walker in the English Department for their technical and organizational help.
And last but never least, we’d like to thank the SF State University Instructionally Related Activities Fund for making this project possible. We hope you enjoy reading!
Sincerely,
Sutro Review Editors
Faculty Supervisor:
Robin Meyerowitz
Editors:
Danny Benson
Nina Henry
Luka M.
CONTENTS
Writing
Anthony Abuan, Odious Din of War: How Milton’s War in Heaven Sounds
Gerardo (Jay) Arellano, How to Drive to SF
Stephanie Blaine, Hinojosa-Ojeda Had Immigration Reform Right
Ashante J. Ford, A Comparative Political Essay: The U.S. Constitution versus The Chinese Constitution
Edmund Huang, Responsibility to Improve Patient-Provider Communication
Ze Lei, gRAMmaR pOLICE
McKenzie O'Connor, Change the Gun Epidemic
Karina Patel, The Truth About Undocumented Citizens' Taxes
Yesenia Zuniga, Discourse in Broadcast Journalism
Photography
Omar F. Urbina, J. Paul Leonard Library, Williams (color), Freedom, Gandhi, Humanities
Miles Wayne, Sur Le Cher (cover photo), Cliff House, Musee d'Orsay, Powell Street Station
Writing
Anthony Abuan, Odious Din of War: How Milton’s War in Heaven Sounds
Gerardo (Jay) Arellano, How to Drive to SF
Stephanie Blaine, Hinojosa-Ojeda Had Immigration Reform Right
Ashante J. Ford, A Comparative Political Essay: The U.S. Constitution versus The Chinese Constitution
Edmund Huang, Responsibility to Improve Patient-Provider Communication
Ze Lei, gRAMmaR pOLICE
McKenzie O'Connor, Change the Gun Epidemic
Karina Patel, The Truth About Undocumented Citizens' Taxes
Yesenia Zuniga, Discourse in Broadcast Journalism
Photography
Omar F. Urbina, J. Paul Leonard Library, Williams (color), Freedom, Gandhi, Humanities
Miles Wayne, Sur Le Cher (cover photo), Cliff House, Musee d'Orsay, Powell Street Station

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Anthony Abuan is a senior, double majoring in English Literature and Modern Jewish Studies. He will graduate in Spring 2020 and begin the English Literature M.A. Program at SFSU in the fall. Anthony was the recipient of the 2018 Linda Mazursky Kurtz Scholarship and a 2018-19 University Research Fellow at San Francisco’s JFCS Holocaust Center. Anthony’s work ranges from narratives of diaspora, persecution, and exile to Kabbalistic and Jewish Mystical traditions in literature. Anthony also focuses on English Literature of the 19th Century with a profound love of George Eliot’s works. The following essay was written for Dr. Mylander’s Milton Seminar.
Anthony Abuan
Odious Din of War: How Milton’s War in Heaven Sounds
Odious Din of War: How Milton’s War in Heaven Sounds
John Milton constructs a sonic landscape of the War in Heaven in Book 6 of Paradise Lost. The chief thrust of imagery within the war’s description is accomplished through sound. This has considerable implications when taking into account Milton’s blindness during the composition of the poem and his thematic skepticism of the visuals that run throughout it. Sound, as Milton employs it in describing the war, is dominant as a feature of imagery and serves as a medium of war in several distinct functions; it conveys the musicality of war, captures the innovations of war, offers a vocabulary of war, and evokes celestial imagery that is comprehensible to the human mind.
Milton uses sound as a medium of imagery in conveying the musicality of war which resonates with the descriptions and pageantry of warfare from traditional epics. Raphael’s descriptions of the War in Heaven rely on a literal musicality of war that is established through the presence of instruments and songs throughout the act of conflict. Milton formally and audibly opens the war through “the loud / Ethereal Trumpet from on high” (6.59–60). The Angelic formations are regimented by depictions of sound (or lack thereof) as Raphael describes their movements “In silence thir bright Legions [moved], to the sound / Of instrumental Harmonie” (6.64–5). Milton establishes a theatricality to war through the use of sound and music. Milton’s employment of “Harmonie” (6.65) suggests multiple ways in which to read the description within this passage. Milton combines almost contradictory meanings into his choice of diction here; harmony is not simply defined by the musical qualities it initially denotes. Milton is cited, not once but twice among the examples which the Oxford English Dictionary provides in defining harmony in discretely different ways.
Milton uses sound as a medium of imagery in conveying the musicality of war which resonates with the descriptions and pageantry of warfare from traditional epics. Raphael’s descriptions of the War in Heaven rely on a literal musicality of war that is established through the presence of instruments and songs throughout the act of conflict. Milton formally and audibly opens the war through “the loud / Ethereal Trumpet from on high” (6.59–60). The Angelic formations are regimented by depictions of sound (or lack thereof) as Raphael describes their movements “In silence thir bright Legions [moved], to the sound / Of instrumental Harmonie” (6.64–5). Milton establishes a theatricality to war through the use of sound and music. Milton’s employment of “Harmonie” (6.65) suggests multiple ways in which to read the description within this passage. Milton combines almost contradictory meanings into his choice of diction here; harmony is not simply defined by the musical qualities it initially denotes. Milton is cited, not once but twice among the examples which the Oxford English Dictionary provides in defining harmony in discretely different ways.
Sound, as Milton employs it in describing the war, is dominant as a feature of imagery and serves as a medium of war in several distinct functions...
Harmony does denote a clear sense of musicality in the “simultaneous or successive” production of sound or melody ("harmony, n.4.a."). Yet there is also an aspect of an “agreement of feeling or sentiment” and “peaceableness [or] concord” ("harmony, n.2.a."). These definitions call for a significant reassessment of how Milton employs harmony in the prior passage. It is almost contradictory to consider that these Angelic forces are unified instruments of peaceableness as they approach the markedly violent and chaotic field of battle––yet I do not think Milton would have had a problem with this contradiction. Considering Satan and his Rebel Angel forces, Milton evokes this form of harmony as a requirement for these Angels to be a part of God’s Angelic forces and to be arbiters of his justice. While the trumpet initiates the war, the fighting between angels begins with battle-cries as Raphael relates that “the shout / Of Battel now began, and rushing sound / Of onset ended soon each milder thought” (6.96–8). This passage links the action and the sound of battle; it also suggests that sound evokes a single-mindedness of combat. Raphael reaffirms this in recounting Abdiel’s blow to Satan where the act of the blow is narrated by Abdiel’s proclamation of “this greeting on thy impious Crest receive” (6.188). This passage conveys the theatricality of the act through the declaration of it while also unifying the sound and action. The musicality of war resurges as the Angelic forces rally; Raphael describes “ours joy filld, and shout” and “whereat Michael bid sound / Th' Arch-Angel trumpet; through the vast of Heaven /It sounded, and the faithful Armies rung / Hosanna to the Highest” (6.200–5). Milton’s employment of sound, here, is entrenched in every action described. Milton uses sound to orient his reader to the textual world he creates in lines such as these. In such rapid succession, each audible description of this passage is almost disorienting. This is a significant effect Milton creates and resonates with his blindness; over the course of the composition of Paradise Lost, Milton’s sight diminished to the point of blindness which resulted in the poet relying upon sound as a means of orienting himself and negotiating the world around him. Textual moments such as this gesture toward the effects Milton’s blindness had on the style of his writing.
Milton’s continued employment and manipulation of sound escalates as the conflict itself escalates. Raphael remarks that “all Heav'n / Resounded [with conflict], and had Earth bin then, all Earth / Had to her Center shook” (6.217–9). This passage draws a distinction between the corporeal and celestial worlds through sound while also conveying the magnitude and loudness of the warfare. Milton constructs Satan as a militaristic leader through the use of sound; Satan is “heard Commanding loud” (6.557) as he addresses his forces, and Satan refers to their rally as “Our overture” (6.562). Milton, again, collapses a great deal into a deceivingly simple word. “Overture” (6.562) denotes orchestral music; yet in a very Miltonic, very multi-balanced employment of diction, the word further denotes the formalities of negotiations and also the overthrowing power dynamics (“overture, n.”). These denotations illuminate how Milton constructs Satan to be a deftly capable rhetorician. Milton punctuates the Son of God’s role within the conflict with sound as Raphael describes his chariot as having “rush'd [forth] with whirl-wind sound” (6.749) and “his fierce Chariot rowld, as with the sound / Of torrent Floods, or of a numerous Host” (6.829–30). Milton constructs the Son of God to wield power and ferocity with a sonic aspect as these passages evidence; these sounds also resonate with a tradition of describing war that is steeped in antiquity. The sounds of chariots tearing across battlefields are evocative of scenes from Homer’s Iliad. Song, as a fixture of war, establishes a connection between Milton’s epic and its traditional epic predecessors; Milton evokes song’s role within war through Raphael’s descriptions numerous times as evidenced by passages such as “The matin Trumpet Sung” (6.525) and “Sung Triumph, and him sung Victorious King” (6.886). While it should be noted that the employment of sound and music as imagery does run throughout the text as a whole, these passages reflect the specific ways in which Milton, in the confines of Book 6, employs sound to convey the musicality of war and establishes a sort of framework of traditional epic form through how war sounds.
Milton’s employment of sound as a medium of war is fully realized in the text as he captures and conveys the innovations of war. Raphael offers audible descriptions to Adam in the form of phrases such as “Dreadful combustion warring”(6.225) and “the odious dinn of Warr” (6.408). These descriptions depart from the earlier described musicality of war into a realm of the audible nature of war during Milton’s time. The phrase “dinn” is fascinating to unpack in that it connotes a certain level of trauma embedded within the sound itself (“din, n.1.”). This connection between sound and trauma is an immensely fertile interpretive ground within the poem. To discuss Milton’s utilization of sound in depicting the War in Heaven, one must reckon with cannons. Milton anachronistically attributes the invention of the cannon to Satan according to Raphael’s oral history; cannons are first described as “hallow Engins long and round / Thick-rammd” (6.484–5); Milton embeds sound in the function of cannons as the text relates that upon ignition the cannon “shall send forth [projectiles] / From far with thundring noise” (6.485–6). Milton ascribes the devastation of cannon warfare to a remarkably demonic origin in this passage while also reflecting Satan’s aspirations and the underpinnings of his fall; Satan claims, in this speech, that the Angelic forces “shall fear we have disarmd / The Thunderer of his only dreaded bolt” (6.490–91). This suggests that the sound issuing forth from the cannons would be audibly similar to God’s thundering bolt and potentially mistaken for it. Prior to the first cannon volley, Milton ascribes a level of almost arrogance to Satan in his proclamation that his previously described overture will be “loud that all may hear” (6.567). This passage gestures towards Satan having an understanding of the sonic power of his novel invention. The cannons will not only be destructive in terms of warfare; Satan prides himself in his creation of cannons as an unignorable sonic force against the Angelic army. Milton relies on sound as a means of describing the firing of the cannons themselves; according to Raphael “those deep throated Engins belcht, whose roar / Emboweld with outragious noise... [of] chaind Thunderbolts and Hail / Of Iron Globes” (6.585–90). Sound, particularly violent sound, becomes a definitive feature of the cannon according to this passage. The nature of Satan’s fall also resonates with the aural description entrenched within the sound of the cannon. This is suggested by the “outragious noise” (6.586) which issues forth the nature of the outrage is not simply violence or excessive force. It gestures towards the larger issues of Satan’s pride and how the action of emulating the noise of God’s thundering bolt profoundly epitomizes Satan’s apostasy to the Angelic forces. The implications of this are substantial as it leads to questioning whether Milton’s construction of the cannon as a demonic force would also equate to his condemnation of (specifically cannon) warfare during his own time. Whether drawing upon personal experience of hearing cannons or being familiar with accounts of it, Milton establishes a linkage between the methods of war contemporary in his time and his textual War in Heaven through sound.
Milton uses sound to create a vocabulary of war in depicting the War in Heaven. Raphael’s description notes the unprecedented sounds of conflict in detailing that “clamour such as heard in Heav'n till now / Was never, Arms on Armour clashing bray'd / Horrible discord” (6.208–10). This passage establishes the unprecedented noise of conflict while detailing how the battle actually sounds and is audibly perceived. Milton juxtaposes and contextualizes these sounds of war as Raphael relates that both sides “fought in dismal shade; / Infernal noise; Warr seem'd a civil Game / To this uproar” (6.666–v8). There is almost a tone of condescension in the wildly dramatic, highly Miltonic sentence: “Infernal noise” (6.667). The tone of this passage may be read as Raphael casting dispersions on the Rebel Angel forces, yet the statement immediately following implies a level of escalation. In reducing the description down to the essential elements, it could be read as a more distilled, more accurate depiction of this conflict’s sound. Milton returns to a connection between the sound of warfare and trauma as evidenced by Raphael’s declaration: “dire was the noise / Of conflict” (6.211–2). Alongside the “dinn” (6.408) of battle, Milton appears to be sketching out a level of trauma-induced not only by war but sound itself. The type of trauma inducing sound Milton evokes here is suggestive of and analogous to shell-shock. Milton may be one of the early framers to the discussion of the lasting trauma war causes within English literature; the implications of this are vast as post-traumatic stress would not enter public discourse in a meaningful way for centuries after the writing of Paradise Lost. Milton’s vocabulary of war through sound continues to resonate in our contemporary representations of war in art. Raphael recounts “over head the dismal hiss / Of fiery Darts” (6.212–3) and “many a dolorous groan” (6.658) upon the battlefield; these examples are echoed in the moans of wounded soldiers and bullets whizzing overhead as found in nearly all films depicting modern warfare. Milton constructs interactions between physical places and the sound of war; similar to how Heaven is described as hearing this conflict. Raphael indicates that towards the end of the battle “Hell heard th' unsufferable noise”(6.867) and further that “Hell at last / Yawning receavd them whole, and on them clos'd” (6.874–5). Milton bookends the War in Heaven from origin to conclusion with imagery chiefly conveyed through sound, and the poet is keen to, in a recursive manner, return the reader to the beginning of the poem through the sounds of Satan’s fall.
Milton offers narrative reasoning to the use of sound within this history through Raphael’s dialogue with Adam. Raphael indicates that this history has been related by “measuring things in Heav'n by things on Earth” (6.893). This points towards a process of describing the celestial world through images and sounds a human could understand. In other words, this passage suggests that Raphael has been filtering the oral history of the War in Heaven through sensory details that humans would be capable of understanding. This illuminates some of the reasoning behind the heavy reliance on sound as a means of imagery. Raphael, in speaking to Adam, offers insight to the larger questions at hand; Raphael’s description gestures towards a limit of human understanding. The passage relates that the forces “ended parle, and both addresst for fight / Unspeakable” (6.296–7). It is puzzling that Raphael chooses this moment to draw a line to indicate the limit of human understanding, yet Raphael continues by declaring “for who, though with the tongue / Of Angels, can relate, or to what things / Liken on Earth conspicuous, that may lift / Human imagination to such highth / of Godlike Power” (6.297–301). This passage indicates an interesting relationship between the sound and vision through the phrase “Liken on Earth conspicuous” (6.299). Considering that conspicuous can be read as indicating the visual or being visually evident, this passage suggests that all of Raphael’s oral history to Adam has been filtered through the human senses (“conspicuous, adj.”). Milton offers an explanation in the middle of detailing the limit of human understanding; Raphael is asking if this is possible while also indicating that human understanding would need to be lifted to “Godlike Power” (6.301) in order for it to be comprehensible. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that nearly all of Book 6 is dialogue of Raphael to Adam, yet this extreme use of sound as imagery makes more sense if read as Raphael’s way of communicating with Adam in a way that would be comprehensible to him.
The most dominant feature of imagery in Milton’s War in Heaven is sound, and his employment of it serves as a medium of the war itself. Using sound, Milton conveys the musicality of war, captures the contemporary war innovations, offers a sonic vocabulary of war, and filters celestial imagery into descriptions comprehensible to humans. Milton’s employment of sound within Book 6 becomes more compelling to consider when compared to other moments in the text of sonic or aural significance. Adam hears this instructive and didactic history of the War in Heaven from Raphael while the rhetoric of Eve’s temptation is dominated by the corporeal and visual; it is ultimately a temptation that is heard. Perhaps it is this key difference that underwrites Satan’s punishment as described in Book 10. Domination, calamity, and undifferentiation are aspects of the punishment God exacts upon Satan and his Rebel Angels in their “dire” (10.543) and “exploding hiss” (10.546). These descriptions resonate with the sonic landscape of the War in Heaven and Satan’s invention of the cannon. While this punishment of transfiguration into serpents is wildly visual, sound plays a terrifyingly crucial role in conveying this punishment. It is the antithesis of the silent harmony of God’s Angelic forces marching into battle. Seeing is not simply believing in the Miltonic logic examined here. There is a pernicious corruptibility to it which Milton appears to be reacting to; sound conveys a more immutable truth which Milton harnesses in his descriptions of the War in Heaven and throughout Paradise Lost.
Milton’s continued employment and manipulation of sound escalates as the conflict itself escalates. Raphael remarks that “all Heav'n / Resounded [with conflict], and had Earth bin then, all Earth / Had to her Center shook” (6.217–9). This passage draws a distinction between the corporeal and celestial worlds through sound while also conveying the magnitude and loudness of the warfare. Milton constructs Satan as a militaristic leader through the use of sound; Satan is “heard Commanding loud” (6.557) as he addresses his forces, and Satan refers to their rally as “Our overture” (6.562). Milton, again, collapses a great deal into a deceivingly simple word. “Overture” (6.562) denotes orchestral music; yet in a very Miltonic, very multi-balanced employment of diction, the word further denotes the formalities of negotiations and also the overthrowing power dynamics (“overture, n.”). These denotations illuminate how Milton constructs Satan to be a deftly capable rhetorician. Milton punctuates the Son of God’s role within the conflict with sound as Raphael describes his chariot as having “rush'd [forth] with whirl-wind sound” (6.749) and “his fierce Chariot rowld, as with the sound / Of torrent Floods, or of a numerous Host” (6.829–30). Milton constructs the Son of God to wield power and ferocity with a sonic aspect as these passages evidence; these sounds also resonate with a tradition of describing war that is steeped in antiquity. The sounds of chariots tearing across battlefields are evocative of scenes from Homer’s Iliad. Song, as a fixture of war, establishes a connection between Milton’s epic and its traditional epic predecessors; Milton evokes song’s role within war through Raphael’s descriptions numerous times as evidenced by passages such as “The matin Trumpet Sung” (6.525) and “Sung Triumph, and him sung Victorious King” (6.886). While it should be noted that the employment of sound and music as imagery does run throughout the text as a whole, these passages reflect the specific ways in which Milton, in the confines of Book 6, employs sound to convey the musicality of war and establishes a sort of framework of traditional epic form through how war sounds.
Milton’s employment of sound as a medium of war is fully realized in the text as he captures and conveys the innovations of war. Raphael offers audible descriptions to Adam in the form of phrases such as “Dreadful combustion warring”(6.225) and “the odious dinn of Warr” (6.408). These descriptions depart from the earlier described musicality of war into a realm of the audible nature of war during Milton’s time. The phrase “dinn” is fascinating to unpack in that it connotes a certain level of trauma embedded within the sound itself (“din, n.1.”). This connection between sound and trauma is an immensely fertile interpretive ground within the poem. To discuss Milton’s utilization of sound in depicting the War in Heaven, one must reckon with cannons. Milton anachronistically attributes the invention of the cannon to Satan according to Raphael’s oral history; cannons are first described as “hallow Engins long and round / Thick-rammd” (6.484–5); Milton embeds sound in the function of cannons as the text relates that upon ignition the cannon “shall send forth [projectiles] / From far with thundring noise” (6.485–6). Milton ascribes the devastation of cannon warfare to a remarkably demonic origin in this passage while also reflecting Satan’s aspirations and the underpinnings of his fall; Satan claims, in this speech, that the Angelic forces “shall fear we have disarmd / The Thunderer of his only dreaded bolt” (6.490–91). This suggests that the sound issuing forth from the cannons would be audibly similar to God’s thundering bolt and potentially mistaken for it. Prior to the first cannon volley, Milton ascribes a level of almost arrogance to Satan in his proclamation that his previously described overture will be “loud that all may hear” (6.567). This passage gestures towards Satan having an understanding of the sonic power of his novel invention. The cannons will not only be destructive in terms of warfare; Satan prides himself in his creation of cannons as an unignorable sonic force against the Angelic army. Milton relies on sound as a means of describing the firing of the cannons themselves; according to Raphael “those deep throated Engins belcht, whose roar / Emboweld with outragious noise... [of] chaind Thunderbolts and Hail / Of Iron Globes” (6.585–90). Sound, particularly violent sound, becomes a definitive feature of the cannon according to this passage. The nature of Satan’s fall also resonates with the aural description entrenched within the sound of the cannon. This is suggested by the “outragious noise” (6.586) which issues forth the nature of the outrage is not simply violence or excessive force. It gestures towards the larger issues of Satan’s pride and how the action of emulating the noise of God’s thundering bolt profoundly epitomizes Satan’s apostasy to the Angelic forces. The implications of this are substantial as it leads to questioning whether Milton’s construction of the cannon as a demonic force would also equate to his condemnation of (specifically cannon) warfare during his own time. Whether drawing upon personal experience of hearing cannons or being familiar with accounts of it, Milton establishes a linkage between the methods of war contemporary in his time and his textual War in Heaven through sound.
Milton uses sound to create a vocabulary of war in depicting the War in Heaven. Raphael’s description notes the unprecedented sounds of conflict in detailing that “clamour such as heard in Heav'n till now / Was never, Arms on Armour clashing bray'd / Horrible discord” (6.208–10). This passage establishes the unprecedented noise of conflict while detailing how the battle actually sounds and is audibly perceived. Milton juxtaposes and contextualizes these sounds of war as Raphael relates that both sides “fought in dismal shade; / Infernal noise; Warr seem'd a civil Game / To this uproar” (6.666–v8). There is almost a tone of condescension in the wildly dramatic, highly Miltonic sentence: “Infernal noise” (6.667). The tone of this passage may be read as Raphael casting dispersions on the Rebel Angel forces, yet the statement immediately following implies a level of escalation. In reducing the description down to the essential elements, it could be read as a more distilled, more accurate depiction of this conflict’s sound. Milton returns to a connection between the sound of warfare and trauma as evidenced by Raphael’s declaration: “dire was the noise / Of conflict” (6.211–2). Alongside the “dinn” (6.408) of battle, Milton appears to be sketching out a level of trauma-induced not only by war but sound itself. The type of trauma inducing sound Milton evokes here is suggestive of and analogous to shell-shock. Milton may be one of the early framers to the discussion of the lasting trauma war causes within English literature; the implications of this are vast as post-traumatic stress would not enter public discourse in a meaningful way for centuries after the writing of Paradise Lost. Milton’s vocabulary of war through sound continues to resonate in our contemporary representations of war in art. Raphael recounts “over head the dismal hiss / Of fiery Darts” (6.212–3) and “many a dolorous groan” (6.658) upon the battlefield; these examples are echoed in the moans of wounded soldiers and bullets whizzing overhead as found in nearly all films depicting modern warfare. Milton constructs interactions between physical places and the sound of war; similar to how Heaven is described as hearing this conflict. Raphael indicates that towards the end of the battle “Hell heard th' unsufferable noise”(6.867) and further that “Hell at last / Yawning receavd them whole, and on them clos'd” (6.874–5). Milton bookends the War in Heaven from origin to conclusion with imagery chiefly conveyed through sound, and the poet is keen to, in a recursive manner, return the reader to the beginning of the poem through the sounds of Satan’s fall.
Milton offers narrative reasoning to the use of sound within this history through Raphael’s dialogue with Adam. Raphael indicates that this history has been related by “measuring things in Heav'n by things on Earth” (6.893). This points towards a process of describing the celestial world through images and sounds a human could understand. In other words, this passage suggests that Raphael has been filtering the oral history of the War in Heaven through sensory details that humans would be capable of understanding. This illuminates some of the reasoning behind the heavy reliance on sound as a means of imagery. Raphael, in speaking to Adam, offers insight to the larger questions at hand; Raphael’s description gestures towards a limit of human understanding. The passage relates that the forces “ended parle, and both addresst for fight / Unspeakable” (6.296–7). It is puzzling that Raphael chooses this moment to draw a line to indicate the limit of human understanding, yet Raphael continues by declaring “for who, though with the tongue / Of Angels, can relate, or to what things / Liken on Earth conspicuous, that may lift / Human imagination to such highth / of Godlike Power” (6.297–301). This passage indicates an interesting relationship between the sound and vision through the phrase “Liken on Earth conspicuous” (6.299). Considering that conspicuous can be read as indicating the visual or being visually evident, this passage suggests that all of Raphael’s oral history to Adam has been filtered through the human senses (“conspicuous, adj.”). Milton offers an explanation in the middle of detailing the limit of human understanding; Raphael is asking if this is possible while also indicating that human understanding would need to be lifted to “Godlike Power” (6.301) in order for it to be comprehensible. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that nearly all of Book 6 is dialogue of Raphael to Adam, yet this extreme use of sound as imagery makes more sense if read as Raphael’s way of communicating with Adam in a way that would be comprehensible to him.
The most dominant feature of imagery in Milton’s War in Heaven is sound, and his employment of it serves as a medium of the war itself. Using sound, Milton conveys the musicality of war, captures the contemporary war innovations, offers a sonic vocabulary of war, and filters celestial imagery into descriptions comprehensible to humans. Milton’s employment of sound within Book 6 becomes more compelling to consider when compared to other moments in the text of sonic or aural significance. Adam hears this instructive and didactic history of the War in Heaven from Raphael while the rhetoric of Eve’s temptation is dominated by the corporeal and visual; it is ultimately a temptation that is heard. Perhaps it is this key difference that underwrites Satan’s punishment as described in Book 10. Domination, calamity, and undifferentiation are aspects of the punishment God exacts upon Satan and his Rebel Angels in their “dire” (10.543) and “exploding hiss” (10.546). These descriptions resonate with the sonic landscape of the War in Heaven and Satan’s invention of the cannon. While this punishment of transfiguration into serpents is wildly visual, sound plays a terrifyingly crucial role in conveying this punishment. It is the antithesis of the silent harmony of God’s Angelic forces marching into battle. Seeing is not simply believing in the Miltonic logic examined here. There is a pernicious corruptibility to it which Milton appears to be reacting to; sound conveys a more immutable truth which Milton harnesses in his descriptions of the War in Heaven and throughout Paradise Lost.
Works Cited
“conspicuous, adj.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, December 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/39762. Accessed 15 December 2019.
“din, n.1.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, September 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/52968. Accessed 09 November 2019.
“harmony, n.2.a.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, December 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/84303. Accessed 14 December 2019.
“harmony, n.4.a.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, December 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/84303. Accessed 14 December 2019.
“overture, n.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, September 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/135281. Accessed 09 November 2019.
Milton, John, and Dennis Danielson. Paradise Lost. Parallel Prose Edition. / Dennis Danielson. editor., Broadview Press., 2012. Print.

ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER:
Omar Francisco Urbina is a junior working towards a major in Communications. Born and raised in the Bay Area, he picked up his first camera a few years ago as a way to motivate himself to get out and experience the world firsthand. In his free time he studied more about photography and gained inspiration from many great artists including Vivian Maier, Saul Leiter and Fan Ho. He hopes to continue his journey with photography and influence other artists.
J. Paul Leonard Library
Omar F. Urbina
Omar F. Urbina

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Gerardo (Jay) Arellano is a transplant from Los Angeles. He’s been in San Francisco for almost two years and is a graduating senior with a degree in Creative Writing. He received the prompt that started this story in his CW 520 Writers on Writing class in Spring 2019. He uses writing not only as a creative outlet but for its therapeutic properties as well. He will be starting graduate school in fall 2020.
Gerardo (Jay) Arellano
How to Drive to SF
How to Drive to SF
You load up your car, you’re on the road. It’s 6:31 a.m. You’re late. The sun is rising. But close enough. Because the drive to SF is a long one. 5 and a half hours if there’s no traffic. 6 hours if there’s a little and it just goes up from there depending on road closures, cops, and rush hour. That’s why you want to leave any time before 7 a.m. to miss the going to work traffic in LA cause until you get to Castaic, you’re in Los Angeles county and you’re in the danger zone.
Once you get past that you can stop gunning it and go down to a respectable 80 mph. You get to that mountain area before Tejon ranch near the grapevine and you notice a guy going like 65 in the fast lane. Why the hell is he going so slow? You speed up and drive up next to him to pass him only to see he’s right behind a cop. You put your foot on the brake and match his speed. This goes on for five minutes until you see a White BMW speeding up to the guy in the fast lane. You see him have the same outburst you had earlier, and he goes behind you and speeds up to the third lane and puts his foot on the brake when he sees the cop. So here we are, these three cars in three different lanes behind a cop. But the White BMW can’t take it and I’m sure he’s thinking, maybe if I speed up ever so slowly, I can get away with going faster than the cop. So, he breaks rank. He inches and he gets closer to the cop. And now he’s going the same speed as the cop. Maybe he can do it? He goes a little faster now. He’s a hair past the cop and and… the cop turns on his lights. They pull over to the side. You thank him for taking the bullet as everyone starts to speed up.
Once you get past that you can stop gunning it and go down to a respectable 80 mph. You get to that mountain area before Tejon ranch near the grapevine and you notice a guy going like 65 in the fast lane. Why the hell is he going so slow? You speed up and drive up next to him to pass him only to see he’s right behind a cop. You put your foot on the brake and match his speed. This goes on for five minutes until you see a White BMW speeding up to the guy in the fast lane. You see him have the same outburst you had earlier, and he goes behind you and speeds up to the third lane and puts his foot on the brake when he sees the cop. So here we are, these three cars in three different lanes behind a cop. But the White BMW can’t take it and I’m sure he’s thinking, maybe if I speed up ever so slowly, I can get away with going faster than the cop. So, he breaks rank. He inches and he gets closer to the cop. And now he’s going the same speed as the cop. Maybe he can do it? He goes a little faster now. He’s a hair past the cop and and… the cop turns on his lights. They pull over to the side. You thank him for taking the bullet as everyone starts to speed up.
He’s a hair past the cop and and… the cop turns on his lights. They pull over to the side. You thank him for taking the bullet as everyone starts to speed up.
You’re picking up speed, going, going, going and what do you see. Orchards. Sometimes. Desert. Yeah. Power Plants. Incorporated communities. That one cowboy town that you’re always tempted to stop in. Then you see a sign that says “Vote to Make America Great Again” so you keep driving. It’s 8:43 a.m. and the monotony outside is starting to get to you. You start to get a little hungry even though you just had your sister's breakfast sandwich that is always perfectly toasted on top, the egg pops in just the way you like. You wish you had the patience to make them like that. You try Spotify once again even though you know that after that first month it stopped knowing what you like. It kills a few hours but even for all your planning, you always run out of content.
There’s something to this drive. You wouldn’t call it particularly calming or tiring. Somewhere in between. You start to wonder what your sister is up to. You were both a little sad as you backed out of the driveway but you both know that you’ll be back. The mid-morning sun combined with your air conditioner is keeping you comfortable. You zone out just long enough to notice a trailer truck cut you off and go into the fast lane. Asshole. He switches back to the slow lane. What the hell. You keep driving and you notice there was a cop on the shoulder. He saved you. Saint. You slow down and drive next to him to give him a thumbs up. He keeps driving while looking straight ahead and takes the on ramp for another freeway. Heroes don’t do it for the applause.
It’s noon. You’re a little past San Jose and the end is in sight. You’re trying not to white knuckle it the rest of the way. You had to stop for gas, and you had to get something at the gas station because you wouldn’t think so, but you get hungry driving 350 something miles. Then the sunshine stops. The fog rolls in. The 90-degree weather you were just in goes down to 65. It’s dark and it’s gloomy and you welcome it more than the sun because you’ve had your full of it.
This isn’t your first trip there and back and you’re wondering if you’ll ever go back to living in just one town. Because even though Los Angeles has always been your home, your new apartment right on the edge of State’s campus is starting to become your second home, the one you always wanted and more importantly the one you always needed.
There’s something to this drive. You wouldn’t call it particularly calming or tiring. Somewhere in between. You start to wonder what your sister is up to. You were both a little sad as you backed out of the driveway but you both know that you’ll be back. The mid-morning sun combined with your air conditioner is keeping you comfortable. You zone out just long enough to notice a trailer truck cut you off and go into the fast lane. Asshole. He switches back to the slow lane. What the hell. You keep driving and you notice there was a cop on the shoulder. He saved you. Saint. You slow down and drive next to him to give him a thumbs up. He keeps driving while looking straight ahead and takes the on ramp for another freeway. Heroes don’t do it for the applause.
It’s noon. You’re a little past San Jose and the end is in sight. You’re trying not to white knuckle it the rest of the way. You had to stop for gas, and you had to get something at the gas station because you wouldn’t think so, but you get hungry driving 350 something miles. Then the sunshine stops. The fog rolls in. The 90-degree weather you were just in goes down to 65. It’s dark and it’s gloomy and you welcome it more than the sun because you’ve had your full of it.
This isn’t your first trip there and back and you’re wondering if you’ll ever go back to living in just one town. Because even though Los Angeles has always been your home, your new apartment right on the edge of State’s campus is starting to become your second home, the one you always wanted and more importantly the one you always needed.
Williams (color)
Photography by Omar F. Urbina
Photography by Omar F. Urbina

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Stephanie Blaine is currently a second-year at SFSU. She wrote this piece for her sophomore English class with Jennifer Beach, where she was encouraged to write an editorial piece on a social issue. As a daughter of an immigrant, and during a time when the President does not shy away from verbally attacking immigrants, she was inspired to write a piece rejecting the now common belief that immigrants are a threat to the country's economy.
Stephanie Blaine
Hinojosa-Ojeda Had Immigration Reform Right
Hinojosa-Ojeda Had Immigration Reform Right
“We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in—and we’re stopping a lot of them—but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before.” — Donald Trump, 2018
The Trump administration has painted immigrants as a danger to our society and a drain to the economy, which has directly influenced public perceptions. The administration has made it a point to use an enforcement-only approach when dealing with immigration as they believe using punishment would prevent others from illegally crossing the border. This approach has separated families, turned away asylum seekers, and detrimentally hurt the U.S economy. However, when immigrants gain citizenship it not only assists those in search of a better life in America but also benefits the U.S economy by diminishing the costs of enforcement-only border policies. Associate Professor at UCLA and author, Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, outlines in the article, “The Economic Benefit of Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” the increased benefits that the U.S economy will receive with immigration reform that legalizes undocumented immigrants currently residing in America and creates flexible limits for future immigration.
The Trump administration has painted immigrants as a danger to our society and a drain to the economy, which has directly influenced public perceptions. The administration has made it a point to use an enforcement-only approach when dealing with immigration as they believe using punishment would prevent others from illegally crossing the border. This approach has separated families, turned away asylum seekers, and detrimentally hurt the U.S economy. However, when immigrants gain citizenship it not only assists those in search of a better life in America but also benefits the U.S economy by diminishing the costs of enforcement-only border policies. Associate Professor at UCLA and author, Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, outlines in the article, “The Economic Benefit of Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” the increased benefits that the U.S economy will receive with immigration reform that legalizes undocumented immigrants currently residing in America and creates flexible limits for future immigration.
U.S. Immigrants are not just workers, but taxpayers, consumers, residents of a community, and people that deserve assistance when in search of opportunity in America.
Hinojosa-Ojeda discusses the most beneficial immigration reform the U.S adopted being the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, and the effects this act had on the U.S economy and the immigrants who directly benefited from this act. Through the IRCA of 1986, 1.7 million immigrants were granted citizenship through a generalized legalization program, and another 1.3 million through the “Special Agricultural Workers” program. The immigrants that gained citizenship were able to earn higher wages, find better jobs, and invest in furthering their education. Higher wages equal an increased tax revenue which directly benefits the U.S economy. However, the IRCA of 1986 failed to address future flows of immigrants which is necessary for future immigration policies.
Hinojosa-Ojeda discusses three federal choices when it comes to immigration which is comprehensive reform, the use of temporary workers, or mass deportation (186). Throughout the text Hinojosa-Ojeda is able to reject the use of temporary workers and mass deportation to explain why comprehensive reform is most beneficial to the country and provides the most beneficial economic return.
When it comes to immigrants who are not currently residing in the U.S, future immigration flows would be determined by the demand of the U.S labor force. In this scenario, all immigrant workers obtain full labor rights, eventually leading to a diminishing market for easily exploited workers. According to Hinojosa-Ojeda, discovered through the use of economic formulas, this proposed reform would result in an additional $1.5 trillion of gross domestic product over a span of ten years.
However, many feel that we cannot help those who have broken the laws by illegally crossing the border and punishment is the only way America can prevent future lawbreakers from coming to this country. The current president Donald Trump ran on a campaign that painted immigrants as a drain on the economy, and a danger to society posing even a greater threat to the economy.
Despite these statements, Hinojosa-Ojeda is able to reject this by creating a hypothetical scenario where America uses mass deportation. In the span of 10 years, mass deportation would account for a $2.6 trillion loss of GDP. Wages would rise for less-skilled workers, but fall for more skilled workers, and there would be a loss of many jobs. This proves that the enforcement-only approach is costly, ineffective, and detrimental to the U.S economy.
America needs to stop looking at immigrants as a drain to the economy, and instead, realize that illegal immigration is an issue that is never going to go away, so rather than use extensive amounts of money in an attempt to punish those in search of a better life, assist those in gaining citizenship while simultaneously improving the U.S. Immigrants are not just workers, but taxpayers, consumers, residents of a community, and people that deserve assistance when in search of opportunity in America. Living in a country that values democracy and the voice of the people above all else, as citizens, we obtain the power to fight for this reform. This can be done by contacting local and state politicians, protesting, volunteering, and most importantly becoming more informed on immigrants’ rights and reform.
Hinojosa-Ojeda discusses three federal choices when it comes to immigration which is comprehensive reform, the use of temporary workers, or mass deportation (186). Throughout the text Hinojosa-Ojeda is able to reject the use of temporary workers and mass deportation to explain why comprehensive reform is most beneficial to the country and provides the most beneficial economic return.
When it comes to immigrants who are not currently residing in the U.S, future immigration flows would be determined by the demand of the U.S labor force. In this scenario, all immigrant workers obtain full labor rights, eventually leading to a diminishing market for easily exploited workers. According to Hinojosa-Ojeda, discovered through the use of economic formulas, this proposed reform would result in an additional $1.5 trillion of gross domestic product over a span of ten years.
However, many feel that we cannot help those who have broken the laws by illegally crossing the border and punishment is the only way America can prevent future lawbreakers from coming to this country. The current president Donald Trump ran on a campaign that painted immigrants as a drain on the economy, and a danger to society posing even a greater threat to the economy.
Despite these statements, Hinojosa-Ojeda is able to reject this by creating a hypothetical scenario where America uses mass deportation. In the span of 10 years, mass deportation would account for a $2.6 trillion loss of GDP. Wages would rise for less-skilled workers, but fall for more skilled workers, and there would be a loss of many jobs. This proves that the enforcement-only approach is costly, ineffective, and detrimental to the U.S economy.
America needs to stop looking at immigrants as a drain to the economy, and instead, realize that illegal immigration is an issue that is never going to go away, so rather than use extensive amounts of money in an attempt to punish those in search of a better life, assist those in gaining citizenship while simultaneously improving the U.S. Immigrants are not just workers, but taxpayers, consumers, residents of a community, and people that deserve assistance when in search of opportunity in America. Living in a country that values democracy and the voice of the people above all else, as citizens, we obtain the power to fight for this reform. This can be done by contacting local and state politicians, protesting, volunteering, and most importantly becoming more informed on immigrants’ rights and reform.
Works Cited
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl. "The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Cato 32 (2012): 175.
Scott, Eugene. “Analysis | Trump's Most Insulting - and Violent - Language Is Often Reserved for Immigrants.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 2 Oct. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/02/trumps-most-insulting-violent-language-is-often-reserved-immigrants/.
Scott, Eugene. “Analysis | Trump's Most Insulting - and Violent - Language Is Often Reserved for Immigrants.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 2 Oct. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/02/trumps-most-insulting-violent-language-is-often-reserved-immigrants/.

ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPHER:
Miles Wayne is a junior majoring in Journalism. While photography is part of his major, it is also a means of expression that he found when he first moved to San Francisco. It gave him a reason to explore the city as well as a new art form.
Cliff House
San Francisco, California, 2018
Miles Wayne
San Francisco, California, 2018
Miles Wayne

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Ashanté J. Ford is a third-year college student and International Relations major. She wrote this essay for Africana Studies 376 with Erika Walker: “The Government, U.S. Constitution and Black Citizens.” This course gave her the opportunity to utilize her accumulated knowledge as it pertains to extensive research, and formulate her first political comparative essay. In her free time she enjoys singing, writing poetry and merlot.
Ashanté J. Ford
A Comparative Political Essay: The U.S. Constitution versus The Chinese Constitution
A Comparative Political Essay: The U.S. Constitution versus The Chinese Constitution
The U.S. Constitution functions as a rule-book for the citizens of the United States. This doctrine provides a set of laws for citizens to abide by, in order to achieve democracy and just society. The U.S. is considered to be the hegemon (most dominant country) in the international system. Joseph Nye writes in his piece "Limits of American Power" that, “the United States bestrides the globe like a colossus. It dominates business, commerce and communications; its economy is the world’s most successful, its military might second to none.” Because of this, countries such as China, who have strong political ties with the U.S., often idolize the notion of the American Dream and try to reinforce American values into their own system of government. The view of capitalism versus socialism helps to characterize and shape these individual countries—creating two distinct methods of government while simultaneously acknowledging the progress and prosperity of each other.
In terms of classism, China devalues the prosperity of the individual while the U.S. applauds individualism and allows citizens to climb a capitalist ladder to success.
The structure of the Chinese government focuses and attempts a form of socialist democracy: “The basic task of the nation is to concentrate its effort on socialist modernization along the road of socialism with Chinese characteristics… with Chinese characteristics for a New Era, the Chinese people of all ethnicities will continue to adhere to the people’s democratic dictatorship and the socialist road...” (Chinese Constitution Article 1). China models its form of government after American values but still upholds the concept of equality over the law. In China, the constitution is the fundamental law of a country that stipulates the basic principles of the social system and the state system. This is radically different from the U.S. Constitution because in the U.S., law is valued over equality. In terms of classism, China devalues the prosperity of the individual while the U.S. applauds individualism and allows citizens to climb a capitalist ladder to success. The promotion of capital in the U.S. is appealing to China because, in China, ordinary citizens are not allowed to access large amounts of money. China is one of the few countries in the world that has laws that require people to be wealthy before they can publish a newspaper or magazine. According to Congressional-Executive Commission on China, “anyone wishing to publish a newspaper or magazine must have registered capital at least RMB 300,000 ($35,000 U.S. dollars).” On average, Chinese workers make less than $100 U.S. dollars per month. This rigid socialist system allows the Chinese government to assert its dominance over the people.
The structure of the U.S. government claims democracy, but it is not even written into the Constitution. This is a fundamental flaw that is often overlooked by U.S. admirers such as China. Democracy does not exist in the U.S., a Republic exists. This happens because of the constant exploitation of people in the U.S. due to the state’s large income gap. The U.S. has a form of centralized authority that refers to how power and authority rest in the hands of concentrated group leaders. Because the U.S. has a two-party system, it is closer to a dictatorship. Therefore, the structure of democracy in China is more accurate than the structure of democracy in the U.S. With that being said, the class struggle in China is still apparent which is a similarity between the two systems of government.
It is imperative to mention the issue of human rights in China, as well as human rights in the U.S. In the U.S., most of the time, the government will recognize citizen rights over human rights. For example, the U.S. often abuses the concept of human rights by constantly infringing on certain groups of citizens. This can be seen through the treatment of Black citizens. One of the first instances of the dehumanization of Black citizens can be seen through the creation of Jim Crow laws. These laws that were implemented in the South continue to uphold a master narrative in regards to Black citizens. Because these laws enforced segregation and justified racism, older statutes such as the 3/5ths compromise still linger in terms of hierarchy. Although the 3/5th clause was superseded by the 14th amendment, when someone is initially deemed as less than a person, one can continue to violate their human rights despite that. So, when the act of dehumanization occurs, the government or government officials wield the ability to strip away citizenship from the individual. According to "International human rights in the US: A critique" by Rita Maran, “The human rights situation in prisons and jails in the U.S. focused on specifics that are cited by violations involving local, state and federal governments where, in fact, legal norms and obligations frequently fail to be upheld.” Furthermore, In 1951 a petition was sent to the United Nations by William L. Patterson called “We Charge Genocide” that addressed the crime of injustices against Black people and the infringement of their rights as citizens. But, under the banner of genocide, the U.N. could not take action against the U.S. because the U.S. has pulled out of all international treaties. The issue of human rights as it pertains to Black people specifically is a fundamental flaw because it contradicts the Constitution as it pertains to all citizens who hold citizenship in the U.S. Today, Black citizens are facing a new type of slavery. This new type of slavery is seen in the form of mass incarceration, police brutality, and discrimination.
In regards to human rights in China, it can be argued that the Chinese government is just as bad as the U.S. government. Similar to the U.S., China has an income gap and most of the citizens are extremely impoverished. The system in China does not allow the average citizen to uproot themselves from poverty like the American system may, on occasion, sometimes grant. The academic scholar Andrew Nathan makes a valuable point: “In U.S. history, rights are not rights when they are limited to actions the government chooses to tolerate, or to speech by persons with whom the government agrees. The major categories of rights are as follows: imprisonment, arbitrary detention or forced exile.” This especially aligns with the U.S. system of government that thrives on the prison system as it is characterized to be the modern-day form of slavery (Nathan 2). If a citizen opposes the Chinese government, they can face serious consequences. For example, some Chinese immigrants that seek asylum in the U.S. often leave their country because of persecution due to their religion. Freedom of speech in China is not allowed. The Chinese government uses the subversion of state power and protection of state secrets clauses in their law system to imprison those who criticize the government (4). Freedom of expression is a privilege, not a right in China. Therefore, the human rights of citizens in China are constantly infringed upon and regulated which is similar to the U.S.
Ultimately, the U.S. and Chinese Constitutions function in a different but similar fashion in order to maintain their status as core countries in the international political economy. In both countries, their corporate influence thrives in affluent societies and attempts to discreetly control citizens. With that being said, these countries also continue to discriminate and scold the presence of immigrants in their society by enforcing strict rules and regulations. Both of these countries fall short of morality when it comes to human rights, but underneath a system is always a rule book that upholds social constructs in order to keep everyone in their place.
The concepts reflected in this comparative essay highlight power, structure, human rights, civil rights, and citizenship. It gives some regards to the legal, social, and political construction of blackness. Through critical analysis and thorough research, it is apparent why the U.S. and China are competitive forces in the international economy: their governments regulate citizens and focus on control tactics to “punish” people who do not fit into the mold of their structures. Both systems of government wield the power to manipulate their rules and infringe on the human rights of their citizens. In terms of control, the U.S. government and the Chinese government are both equally strong forces.
The structure of the U.S. government claims democracy, but it is not even written into the Constitution. This is a fundamental flaw that is often overlooked by U.S. admirers such as China. Democracy does not exist in the U.S., a Republic exists. This happens because of the constant exploitation of people in the U.S. due to the state’s large income gap. The U.S. has a form of centralized authority that refers to how power and authority rest in the hands of concentrated group leaders. Because the U.S. has a two-party system, it is closer to a dictatorship. Therefore, the structure of democracy in China is more accurate than the structure of democracy in the U.S. With that being said, the class struggle in China is still apparent which is a similarity between the two systems of government.
It is imperative to mention the issue of human rights in China, as well as human rights in the U.S. In the U.S., most of the time, the government will recognize citizen rights over human rights. For example, the U.S. often abuses the concept of human rights by constantly infringing on certain groups of citizens. This can be seen through the treatment of Black citizens. One of the first instances of the dehumanization of Black citizens can be seen through the creation of Jim Crow laws. These laws that were implemented in the South continue to uphold a master narrative in regards to Black citizens. Because these laws enforced segregation and justified racism, older statutes such as the 3/5ths compromise still linger in terms of hierarchy. Although the 3/5th clause was superseded by the 14th amendment, when someone is initially deemed as less than a person, one can continue to violate their human rights despite that. So, when the act of dehumanization occurs, the government or government officials wield the ability to strip away citizenship from the individual. According to "International human rights in the US: A critique" by Rita Maran, “The human rights situation in prisons and jails in the U.S. focused on specifics that are cited by violations involving local, state and federal governments where, in fact, legal norms and obligations frequently fail to be upheld.” Furthermore, In 1951 a petition was sent to the United Nations by William L. Patterson called “We Charge Genocide” that addressed the crime of injustices against Black people and the infringement of their rights as citizens. But, under the banner of genocide, the U.N. could not take action against the U.S. because the U.S. has pulled out of all international treaties. The issue of human rights as it pertains to Black people specifically is a fundamental flaw because it contradicts the Constitution as it pertains to all citizens who hold citizenship in the U.S. Today, Black citizens are facing a new type of slavery. This new type of slavery is seen in the form of mass incarceration, police brutality, and discrimination.
In regards to human rights in China, it can be argued that the Chinese government is just as bad as the U.S. government. Similar to the U.S., China has an income gap and most of the citizens are extremely impoverished. The system in China does not allow the average citizen to uproot themselves from poverty like the American system may, on occasion, sometimes grant. The academic scholar Andrew Nathan makes a valuable point: “In U.S. history, rights are not rights when they are limited to actions the government chooses to tolerate, or to speech by persons with whom the government agrees. The major categories of rights are as follows: imprisonment, arbitrary detention or forced exile.” This especially aligns with the U.S. system of government that thrives on the prison system as it is characterized to be the modern-day form of slavery (Nathan 2). If a citizen opposes the Chinese government, they can face serious consequences. For example, some Chinese immigrants that seek asylum in the U.S. often leave their country because of persecution due to their religion. Freedom of speech in China is not allowed. The Chinese government uses the subversion of state power and protection of state secrets clauses in their law system to imprison those who criticize the government (4). Freedom of expression is a privilege, not a right in China. Therefore, the human rights of citizens in China are constantly infringed upon and regulated which is similar to the U.S.
Ultimately, the U.S. and Chinese Constitutions function in a different but similar fashion in order to maintain their status as core countries in the international political economy. In both countries, their corporate influence thrives in affluent societies and attempts to discreetly control citizens. With that being said, these countries also continue to discriminate and scold the presence of immigrants in their society by enforcing strict rules and regulations. Both of these countries fall short of morality when it comes to human rights, but underneath a system is always a rule book that upholds social constructs in order to keep everyone in their place.
The concepts reflected in this comparative essay highlight power, structure, human rights, civil rights, and citizenship. It gives some regards to the legal, social, and political construction of blackness. Through critical analysis and thorough research, it is apparent why the U.S. and China are competitive forces in the international economy: their governments regulate citizens and focus on control tactics to “punish” people who do not fit into the mold of their structures. Both systems of government wield the power to manipulate their rules and infringe on the human rights of their citizens. In terms of control, the U.S. government and the Chinese government are both equally strong forces.
Works Cited
“Constitution of the People's Republic of China - The U.S. Constitution Online.” Constitution of the People's Republic of China - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net, www.usconstitution.net/china.html.
“Freedom of Expression in China: A Privilege, Not a Right.” Freedom of Expression in China: A Privilege, Not a Right | Congressional-Executive Commission on China, www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privilege-not-a-right.
Govinfo, www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-CONAN-2017/context.
Maran, Rita. "International human rights in the US: A critique." Social Justice vol. 26, no. 1 (1999): 49.
Nathan, Andrew. "Human Rights in China." In China: Adapting the Past, Confronting the Future, edited by Buoye Thomas, Denton Kirk, Dickson Bruce, Naughton Barry, and Whyte Martin K., 147-58. ANN ARBOR: University of Michigan Press, 2002. www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.22778.21.
Nye Jr, Joseph S. "Limits of American power." Political Science Quarterly, vol. 117, no. 4 (2002): 545-559.
Patterson, William L., ed. "We charge genocide: The historic petition to the United Nations for relief from a crime of the United States government against the Negro people." Civil Rights Congress, 1952.
“Freedom of Expression in China: A Privilege, Not a Right.” Freedom of Expression in China: A Privilege, Not a Right | Congressional-Executive Commission on China, www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privilege-not-a-right.
Govinfo, www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-CONAN-2017/context.
Maran, Rita. "International human rights in the US: A critique." Social Justice vol. 26, no. 1 (1999): 49.
Nathan, Andrew. "Human Rights in China." In China: Adapting the Past, Confronting the Future, edited by Buoye Thomas, Denton Kirk, Dickson Bruce, Naughton Barry, and Whyte Martin K., 147-58. ANN ARBOR: University of Michigan Press, 2002. www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.22778.21.
Nye Jr, Joseph S. "Limits of American power." Political Science Quarterly, vol. 117, no. 4 (2002): 545-559.
Patterson, William L., ed. "We charge genocide: The historic petition to the United Nations for relief from a crime of the United States government against the Negro people." Civil Rights Congress, 1952.
Freedom
Omar F. Urbina
Omar F. Urbina

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Edmund Huang is currently in his second-year at SFSU. He wrote this editorial as an assignment for English 214 with Jennifer Beach. The editorial was based on the book project for the class, Anne Fadiman's, The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down. He related to it because, in the Fall of 2016, he fell severely ill.
Edmund Huang
Responsibility to Improve Patient-Provider Communication
Responsibility to Improve Patient-Provider Communication
Communication is a key factor in receiving quality healthcare because it leads to trust, which leads to understanding. And understanding is critical because it can both enable patients to actively make decisions relating to their health and raise satisfaction and adherence. But when patients do not understand, they can become ignorant. This leads them to create a stem of problems. Ignorance can lead to patients incorrectly following doctoral advice, worsening their health. It can also lead them to be nonadherent with their doctors, which causes patient-provider conflict. This problem is significant because according to the article “How Many Hospitals Are in the US?” written by Alanna Moriarty, the American Hospital Association reported there were “6200 active US hospitals” in 2017 (Moriarty). This means that there are a lot of hospitals in the country that could be affected if this problem is not addressed. Medical schools should implement a communication course that emphasizes the communication between patients and providers to train future doctors to better interact with their patients.
A prime example of this problem is discussed in Anne Fadiman’s novel "The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down." In this book Fadiman examines the case of Lia Lee, an epileptic child whose health worsened severely due to her parents not properly understanding doctoral instructions. Lia’s parents viewed the doctor’s prescribed medication schedule as suggestive instead of mandatory, and gave Lia insufficient dosages, which exacerbated her epilepsy. As a result of her epilepsy worsening, Lia lived 26 years completely paralyzed and passed at the age of 30. The consequences might have been reduced if Lia’s parents understood how important it was for Lia to take the medication in the required doses. Lia’s health suffered because her parents did not trust the doctors enough to learn and follow the instructions. (Fadiman)
A prime example of this problem is discussed in Anne Fadiman’s novel "The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down." In this book Fadiman examines the case of Lia Lee, an epileptic child whose health worsened severely due to her parents not properly understanding doctoral instructions. Lia’s parents viewed the doctor’s prescribed medication schedule as suggestive instead of mandatory, and gave Lia insufficient dosages, which exacerbated her epilepsy. As a result of her epilepsy worsening, Lia lived 26 years completely paralyzed and passed at the age of 30. The consequences might have been reduced if Lia’s parents understood how important it was for Lia to take the medication in the required doses. Lia’s health suffered because her parents did not trust the doctors enough to learn and follow the instructions. (Fadiman)
Learning how to better interact with your patients is tantamount to learning medical material because you could have the finest medical knowledge and give the best medical instructions in the world, but what good will it do if your patients don’t trust you enough to follow them?
Learning how to better interact with your patients is tantamount to learning medical material because you could have the finest medical knowledge and give the best medical instructions in the world, but what good will it do if your patients don’t trust you enough to follow them? There is already an education program for existing doctors called, “Program to Enhance Relational Communication Skills” (PERCS). In the program, professional actors work with doctors to simulate the difficult conversations doctors have with patients. According to the article “Cross-Cultural Adaptation of an Innovative Approach to Learning about Difficult Conversations in Healthcare” by Giulia Lamiani and colleagues, a majority of the 146 clinicians who attended the program felt that it improved their communication skills to patients (Lamiani, et. al., 2011). This shows many of the clinicians thought it helped them gain skills for having difficult conversations with patients.
Medical schools to implement an education course similar to the PERCS program. But medical schools might disagree and recommend that students pursue communication courses after graduation because school years are limited. The years spent in medical school should be about learning the material to cure the multitude of symptoms and illnesses that affect patients and material that enables doctors to give diagnoses and prognoses. But giving medical students education on communication earlier would allow the students to fully grasp the material, giving them the right mindset in the future. And once students graduate, they will become official doctors and may not be readily available to learn new skills because they might be too busy with their work. So, it would be difficult for existing doctors to pursue such knowledge. That is probably why only 146 clinicians participated in the PERCS program.
Having this education would increase patient understanding. And improved patient understanding is beneficial to both patients and doctors because this would lead to an increase in patient satisfaction. It would also lead to patients being more adherent with their doctors because they would understand the importance of taking medication or having a procedure done. Lia Lee suffered. Her family suffered. And the doctors in charge of her suffered as well. The doctors were forced to see their patient’s health worsen to such severity. Lia’s case is a prime example of how poor patient-provider communication affects all those related to the patient. But I am sure there are other stories of people suffering due to poor patient-provider communication. Medical schools have the biggest responsibility and must take big steps for making sure tragedies like Lia Lee’s are reduced as much as possible. Our society has created many tools to alleviate this problem. But if they are not being used, it is just a waste of time and money. And patients and doctors would be worse off.
Medical schools to implement an education course similar to the PERCS program. But medical schools might disagree and recommend that students pursue communication courses after graduation because school years are limited. The years spent in medical school should be about learning the material to cure the multitude of symptoms and illnesses that affect patients and material that enables doctors to give diagnoses and prognoses. But giving medical students education on communication earlier would allow the students to fully grasp the material, giving them the right mindset in the future. And once students graduate, they will become official doctors and may not be readily available to learn new skills because they might be too busy with their work. So, it would be difficult for existing doctors to pursue such knowledge. That is probably why only 146 clinicians participated in the PERCS program.
Having this education would increase patient understanding. And improved patient understanding is beneficial to both patients and doctors because this would lead to an increase in patient satisfaction. It would also lead to patients being more adherent with their doctors because they would understand the importance of taking medication or having a procedure done. Lia Lee suffered. Her family suffered. And the doctors in charge of her suffered as well. The doctors were forced to see their patient’s health worsen to such severity. Lia’s case is a prime example of how poor patient-provider communication affects all those related to the patient. But I am sure there are other stories of people suffering due to poor patient-provider communication. Medical schools have the biggest responsibility and must take big steps for making sure tragedies like Lia Lee’s are reduced as much as possible. Our society has created many tools to alleviate this problem. But if they are not being used, it is just a waste of time and money. And patients and doctors would be worse off.
Works Cited
Fadiman, Anne. “The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down.” Farrar Straus & Giroux Inc, 2007. Lamiani, Giulia, Elaine C Meyer, Daniela Leone, Elena Vegni, David M Browning, Elizabeth A Rider, Robert D Truog, and Egidio A Moja. "Cross-cultural Adaptation of an Innovative Approach to Learning about Difficult Conversations in Healthcare." Medical Teacher 33.2 (2011): E57-64. Web. Moriarty, A. (2019, March 27). “How Many Hospitals Are in the US?” Retrieved from https://blog.definitivehc.com/how-many-hospitals-are-in-the-us
Musee d'Orsay
Paris, France, 2019
Photography by Miles Wayne
Paris, France, 2019
Photography by Miles Wayne

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Ze Lei is a second-year student at SFSU majoring in Computer Science. Ze wrote his piece for Christy Shick’s English 214 class in Fall 2019. He moved to Daly City at the age of four and has lived within the Bay Area since then. Lei had early exposure to computers because his mother attended college. He was captivated by technology’s ability to facilitate.
Ze Lei
gRAMmaR pOLICE
gRAMmaR pOLICE

In late September, my roommates Marisa and Chanel were immersed in their MacBook screens. They alternated between their computer screens and their orange Japanese workbooks. On our walnut brown dining table, resources for studying Japanese (e.g. flashcards) were strewn across the table. In their PJ’s, the duo studied Japanese, as they have for nearly every night since the beginning of the semester. Chanel lamented her decision to study Japanese and I’m left wondering why Japanese takes so much effort to learn.
While using the orange workbooks, Chanel and Marisa double checked their homework answers with each other. They’d ask each other questions like ‘Which characters did you use for school?’ and ‘These two characters make a similar sound. Which one is the right one for this word?’ While using flashcards, the pair tried to help each other memorize the 46 characters in hiragana. They’d ask each other for tips like ‘How’d you remember the character for Ko?’ and then reply, ‘The teacher said something about it looking like two fish.’
Watching Marisa and Chanel struggle with Japanese reminded me of the time I spent in Spanish and German classrooms. Conjugations were the first similarity that I noticed between Spanish and German. I studied Spanish in high school and conjugations were the part that I liked the least. Conjugations made verbs harder to remember, as each verb had six forms per tense.
I hated conjugations because conjugations seemed simpler in English. English uses the same conjugation form for many different subject types (e.g. “You have” and “I have”). Before Spanish, I wasn’t aware of conjugations as a grammatical rule. The teachers in elementary school never lectured over conjugations because an explanation was unnecessary. As I spent time memorizing the conjugations, I thought of how useless conjugations were.
I encountered conjugations again when I took German in Spring 2019. The instructor hadn’t introduced conjugations immediately but I groaned internally when he did.
Ugh, I thought. Why does this language need conjugations when the subject can be expressed? Why couldn’t this language be simpler?
As Marisa and Chanel tried to memorize Japanese characters, my first thoughts were the following questions: Why do languages have conjugations? Why are languages grammatically complex? Should they be? I could easily envision an easier version of any language. Three questions popped up as I tried to rationalize a reason for making a language complicated; Do more complex languages convey more? What do complex concepts add to a language? Why should a language be “hard”?
To find answers to my questions, I searched for a variety of resources. I found some informative scholarly articles on Google Scholar. However, for more direct answers, I interviewed two professors at San Francisco State University. My questions were based in linguistics so I interviewed the linguistics coordinator. I asked myself these questions because of my roommates studying Japanese. Therefore, I also interviewed a faculty member of the Japanese language department.
While using the orange workbooks, Chanel and Marisa double checked their homework answers with each other. They’d ask each other questions like ‘Which characters did you use for school?’ and ‘These two characters make a similar sound. Which one is the right one for this word?’ While using flashcards, the pair tried to help each other memorize the 46 characters in hiragana. They’d ask each other for tips like ‘How’d you remember the character for Ko?’ and then reply, ‘The teacher said something about it looking like two fish.’
Watching Marisa and Chanel struggle with Japanese reminded me of the time I spent in Spanish and German classrooms. Conjugations were the first similarity that I noticed between Spanish and German. I studied Spanish in high school and conjugations were the part that I liked the least. Conjugations made verbs harder to remember, as each verb had six forms per tense.
I hated conjugations because conjugations seemed simpler in English. English uses the same conjugation form for many different subject types (e.g. “You have” and “I have”). Before Spanish, I wasn’t aware of conjugations as a grammatical rule. The teachers in elementary school never lectured over conjugations because an explanation was unnecessary. As I spent time memorizing the conjugations, I thought of how useless conjugations were.
I encountered conjugations again when I took German in Spring 2019. The instructor hadn’t introduced conjugations immediately but I groaned internally when he did.
Ugh, I thought. Why does this language need conjugations when the subject can be expressed? Why couldn’t this language be simpler?
As Marisa and Chanel tried to memorize Japanese characters, my first thoughts were the following questions: Why do languages have conjugations? Why are languages grammatically complex? Should they be? I could easily envision an easier version of any language. Three questions popped up as I tried to rationalize a reason for making a language complicated; Do more complex languages convey more? What do complex concepts add to a language? Why should a language be “hard”?
To find answers to my questions, I searched for a variety of resources. I found some informative scholarly articles on Google Scholar. However, for more direct answers, I interviewed two professors at San Francisco State University. My questions were based in linguistics so I interviewed the linguistics coordinator. I asked myself these questions because of my roommates studying Japanese. Therefore, I also interviewed a faculty member of the Japanese language department.

In an interview with Jenny Lederer (2019), the linguistics program coordinator at San Francisco State University, I spoke with her about how languages are structured differently. We compared English to Spanish, French, and Chinese.
Lederer introduced the concept of language types. German, Spanish, and English are all considered to be synthetic languages. Synthetic languages utilize morphemes for sentence structure. In other words, every word in the language has multiple forms that convey different meanings. Teach is a root morpheme that could have -er or -ing added to the end to convey additional information.
Most European languages were considered synthetic languages. In contrast, languages like Chinese are considered to be more analytical. The word order and helper words are the components that convey relationships between words.
I asked Lederer why languages should have conjugations when there are languages that work without conjugations. Firstly, Lederer clarified that any two languages aren’t harder than one another; languages are different. Secondly, she said that the less that a language utilizes morphemes (adding parts onto roots), the more that a language needs to convey meaning using word order. For example, because the conjugated forms of “have” is the same for second person and third person, the placement of the verb is not very flexible. An English sentence uses positioning to make clear which noun is the subject. In contrast, Spanish has a different conjugation for each subject. The conjugations are so specific that, in most cases, the subject can be omitted and left implied.
Afterwards, I asked Lederer why some languages developed to have conjugations in the first place. Unsurprisingly, the reasons for a language’s structure lies in its history and the precursor language that the language came from. Spanish started as a dialect of Latin, which developed from a “proto-indo-european” language. Lederer elaborated that conjugations were most likely a shortening of helper words that would follow the verb in the precursor language.
All of those individual suffixes in a language like Latin, were most likely previously, in proto-Latin or proto-indo-European, independent words that actually fused onto the roots of the verbs. [...] If you only want to think about complexity as complex morphology, you have to wind up with a complex morphological system somewhere. It doesn’t just show up. (J., Lederer, personal communication, October 29, 2019)My takeaway from the interview was that a language can lean towards being more synthetic or more analytic. English is my primary language so I’m accustomed to how subjects share verb conjugations. A language that is more in depth with conjugations is more synthetic than English. As I was learning synthetic languages, I focused more on the difficulties of memorizing more conjugations and not on their benefits.
The interview with Lederer told me why some languages have conjugations. Although conjugations were my main qualm with synthetic languages, I hadn’t explored all the other aspects that make learning a language hard. One part of the conversation I had with Lederer was about how language is always changing. That idea is explored more by a scholarly article I found, a book by John H. McWhorter.
Lederer introduced the concept of language types. German, Spanish, and English are all considered to be synthetic languages. Synthetic languages utilize morphemes for sentence structure. In other words, every word in the language has multiple forms that convey different meanings. Teach is a root morpheme that could have -er or -ing added to the end to convey additional information.
Most European languages were considered synthetic languages. In contrast, languages like Chinese are considered to be more analytical. The word order and helper words are the components that convey relationships between words.
I asked Lederer why languages should have conjugations when there are languages that work without conjugations. Firstly, Lederer clarified that any two languages aren’t harder than one another; languages are different. Secondly, she said that the less that a language utilizes morphemes (adding parts onto roots), the more that a language needs to convey meaning using word order. For example, because the conjugated forms of “have” is the same for second person and third person, the placement of the verb is not very flexible. An English sentence uses positioning to make clear which noun is the subject. In contrast, Spanish has a different conjugation for each subject. The conjugations are so specific that, in most cases, the subject can be omitted and left implied.
Afterwards, I asked Lederer why some languages developed to have conjugations in the first place. Unsurprisingly, the reasons for a language’s structure lies in its history and the precursor language that the language came from. Spanish started as a dialect of Latin, which developed from a “proto-indo-european” language. Lederer elaborated that conjugations were most likely a shortening of helper words that would follow the verb in the precursor language.
All of those individual suffixes in a language like Latin, were most likely previously, in proto-Latin or proto-indo-European, independent words that actually fused onto the roots of the verbs. [...] If you only want to think about complexity as complex morphology, you have to wind up with a complex morphological system somewhere. It doesn’t just show up. (J., Lederer, personal communication, October 29, 2019)My takeaway from the interview was that a language can lean towards being more synthetic or more analytic. English is my primary language so I’m accustomed to how subjects share verb conjugations. A language that is more in depth with conjugations is more synthetic than English. As I was learning synthetic languages, I focused more on the difficulties of memorizing more conjugations and not on their benefits.
The interview with Lederer told me why some languages have conjugations. Although conjugations were my main qualm with synthetic languages, I hadn’t explored all the other aspects that make learning a language hard. One part of the conversation I had with Lederer was about how language is always changing. That idea is explored more by a scholarly article I found, a book by John H. McWhorter.

In the scholarly book “Linguistic Simplicity and Complexity: Why Do Languages Undress?” (2011) by John H. McWhorter, the author examines languages that were created by combining two original languages. Specifically, the author compared the dialects of Indonesia’s language, which has origins in Chinese. The author’s main conclusion was that a language won’t dramatically change its grammar unless the language is adopted by a non-native population. Another conclusion was that, although a language may lose grammatical rules, new grammatical rules tended to take their place.
McWhorter’s book echoed the conversation I had with Lederer. Languages tend to undergo change when two cultures collide. English drifted from its Germanic roots due to invasions by the French. McWhorter considers grammatical complexity to be a trait of synthetic languages and languages that simplify grammar will take on properties of analytical languages.
The idea that grammars can simplify vastly just by chance is conditioned in large part by the development from earlier Indo-European languages to modern ones, such as Old English to Modern English and Latin to Romance. However, in McWhorter (2007), I stress that these cases are in fact due to non-native acquisition themselves. (McWhorter, 208)McHorter’s book explained that language learners are the usual reason that a language changes. However, the language doesn’t consistently become simpler or more complex. Over time, some aspects of a language may become simpler while other aspects become more complex. That concept is explored in another scholarly article, a journal article in a publication for French teachers.
In the French Review journal article “Why Do the French Give Their Nouns Gender?” (1996) by Diana L. Ranson and Siri Carlisle, the authors explain why French has its differences to English. Every answer is related to the history of how French and English developed. French is derived from Latin while English started as a Germanic language. French is spoken the way it is today because of its many iterations over the past hundreds of years.
Something I forgot I had struggled with was the gendering of nouns in Spanish and German. Spanish genders weren’t that difficult because the o’s and a’s usually denoted masculine and feminine, respectively. However, there wasn’t anything like that for German. Similarly, French is considered to have less obvious genderings. The article authors state that the genderings were clearer in Latin but the French gradually changed the nouns to have less obvious genderings.
French’s basis in Latin also explains why verbs are conjugated the way they are in French. Latin verbs had a conjugation for every speaker type. French made incremental changes to Latin during the transitions from Old French to Modern French. Irregular conjugations occur because of the way French has gradually changed. The authors write,
There is a tendency in any language for the most common verbs to be irregular, like être in French and to be in English, simply because speakers regularize verbs which are not used often enough for them to remember the irregular forms. (Ranson and Carlisle, 5)The explanations in the scholarly article help explain why some languages have gendered nouns and exceptions to their rules. Gendered nouns are actually an association of similar concepts. Irregular words are likely the product of regular use. Although the authors only talked about French, other languages probably had similar reasons for changes in structure. The article talked about French’s history and the reason for specific grammar rules. To bring my research full circle I interviewed an expert on Japanese.
In an interview with Makiko Asano (2019), a Japanese instructor at San Francisco State University, we spoke of her experience as an English learner and a Japanese native speaker. Asano attributed any difficulties that language learners perceive to the differences between the language being learned and the learners’ native language. Japanese might seem like a hard language to English speakers because Japanese and English are very different languages.
Regarding Japanese learners, Asano said that students tend to struggle with noun phrases. Her example was that an English sentence would say “I saw a man who I met at the party.” In Japanese, the sentence would be structured as “[I saw a] met at the party man.” Asano attributed the difficulty in learning that concept to the different grammar rules between Japanese and English.
McWhorter’s book echoed the conversation I had with Lederer. Languages tend to undergo change when two cultures collide. English drifted from its Germanic roots due to invasions by the French. McWhorter considers grammatical complexity to be a trait of synthetic languages and languages that simplify grammar will take on properties of analytical languages.
The idea that grammars can simplify vastly just by chance is conditioned in large part by the development from earlier Indo-European languages to modern ones, such as Old English to Modern English and Latin to Romance. However, in McWhorter (2007), I stress that these cases are in fact due to non-native acquisition themselves. (McWhorter, 208)McHorter’s book explained that language learners are the usual reason that a language changes. However, the language doesn’t consistently become simpler or more complex. Over time, some aspects of a language may become simpler while other aspects become more complex. That concept is explored in another scholarly article, a journal article in a publication for French teachers.
In the French Review journal article “Why Do the French Give Their Nouns Gender?” (1996) by Diana L. Ranson and Siri Carlisle, the authors explain why French has its differences to English. Every answer is related to the history of how French and English developed. French is derived from Latin while English started as a Germanic language. French is spoken the way it is today because of its many iterations over the past hundreds of years.
Something I forgot I had struggled with was the gendering of nouns in Spanish and German. Spanish genders weren’t that difficult because the o’s and a’s usually denoted masculine and feminine, respectively. However, there wasn’t anything like that for German. Similarly, French is considered to have less obvious genderings. The article authors state that the genderings were clearer in Latin but the French gradually changed the nouns to have less obvious genderings.
French’s basis in Latin also explains why verbs are conjugated the way they are in French. Latin verbs had a conjugation for every speaker type. French made incremental changes to Latin during the transitions from Old French to Modern French. Irregular conjugations occur because of the way French has gradually changed. The authors write,
There is a tendency in any language for the most common verbs to be irregular, like être in French and to be in English, simply because speakers regularize verbs which are not used often enough for them to remember the irregular forms. (Ranson and Carlisle, 5)The explanations in the scholarly article help explain why some languages have gendered nouns and exceptions to their rules. Gendered nouns are actually an association of similar concepts. Irregular words are likely the product of regular use. Although the authors only talked about French, other languages probably had similar reasons for changes in structure. The article talked about French’s history and the reason for specific grammar rules. To bring my research full circle I interviewed an expert on Japanese.
In an interview with Makiko Asano (2019), a Japanese instructor at San Francisco State University, we spoke of her experience as an English learner and a Japanese native speaker. Asano attributed any difficulties that language learners perceive to the differences between the language being learned and the learners’ native language. Japanese might seem like a hard language to English speakers because Japanese and English are very different languages.
Regarding Japanese learners, Asano said that students tend to struggle with noun phrases. Her example was that an English sentence would say “I saw a man who I met at the party.” In Japanese, the sentence would be structured as “[I saw a] met at the party man.” Asano attributed the difficulty in learning that concept to the different grammar rules between Japanese and English.
Why do languages have conjugations? Why are languages grammatically complex? Should they be?
As an English learner, Asano stated that she struggled with how some concepts are considered countable in English. Her examples were “sand,” which doesn’t have an -s form, and “sun,” which has “the” before it for being the only one. Native English speakers intuitively know the specific cases for each noun. Asano said that English’s quantity of exceptions was the hardest part about the languages.
Asano explained that each of Japanese’s writing forms serves a different purpose. Hiragana is Japanese’s main writing form and its characters denote phonetics. Katakana is used for foreign words that Japanese has integrated. Kanji isn’t phonetic but each character can convey meaning by itself. Asano said that Japanese intellectuals have debated about abolishing Kanji but she finds Kanji useful for expression.
Like Lederer, Asano stressed that any one language isn’t more complicated than another. A language may seem more complicated because there are a greater number of differences to the language it’s being compared to.
In summary, languages represent the multitude of ways that an idea can be expressed. Languages are made to facilitate communication. Speakers of a language don’t design a language to be difficult. There isn’t a best language and every language is made to convey as much information as possible. When comparing two languages, analytical languages might seem to be overly complex because the person doing the comparison has a synthetic language background (or vice versa). Unfamiliarity with differences in language type are mistaken for complexity.
Chanel and Marisa think that Japanese is hard because Japanese is very different from English, their primary language. English is hard for professor Asano for the exact same reason. A language balances complexity between its sentence structure (analytic type) and its word structure (synthetic type). Languages are constantly changing and the most drastic changes are caused by intermingling cultures. Otherwise, drastic changes to a language would be very jarring for its current users. Learning a new language can be hard because that language is different.
Asano explained that each of Japanese’s writing forms serves a different purpose. Hiragana is Japanese’s main writing form and its characters denote phonetics. Katakana is used for foreign words that Japanese has integrated. Kanji isn’t phonetic but each character can convey meaning by itself. Asano said that Japanese intellectuals have debated about abolishing Kanji but she finds Kanji useful for expression.
Like Lederer, Asano stressed that any one language isn’t more complicated than another. A language may seem more complicated because there are a greater number of differences to the language it’s being compared to.
In summary, languages represent the multitude of ways that an idea can be expressed. Languages are made to facilitate communication. Speakers of a language don’t design a language to be difficult. There isn’t a best language and every language is made to convey as much information as possible. When comparing two languages, analytical languages might seem to be overly complex because the person doing the comparison has a synthetic language background (or vice versa). Unfamiliarity with differences in language type are mistaken for complexity.
Chanel and Marisa think that Japanese is hard because Japanese is very different from English, their primary language. English is hard for professor Asano for the exact same reason. A language balances complexity between its sentence structure (analytic type) and its word structure (synthetic type). Languages are constantly changing and the most drastic changes are caused by intermingling cultures. Otherwise, drastic changes to a language would be very jarring for its current users. Learning a new language can be hard because that language is different.
Works Cited
McWhorter, John H. “Linguistic Simplicity and Complexity: Why Do Languages Undress?,” De Gruyter, Inc., 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/sfsu/detail.action?docID=736992.
Ranson, Diana L., and Siri Carlisle. “Why Do the French Give Their Nouns Gender?”, The French Review, vol. 70, no.1, 1996, pp. 1–12. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/396417.
Ranson, Diana L., and Siri Carlisle. “Why Do the French Give Their Nouns Gender?”, The French Review, vol. 70, no.1, 1996, pp. 1–12. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/396417.
Gandhi
Omar F. Urbina
Omar F. Urbina

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
McKenzie O’Connor is a sophomore and first-generation college student studying Communicative disorders. She grew up in San Diego where she danced, performed and composed original choreography in school. This paper was written for English 214 with Professor Sarah Cox. She moved to San Francisco to pursue her dreams in this great city with its love of free expression and unlimited hope.
McKenzie O'Connor
Change the Gun Epidemic
Change the Gun Epidemic
Editor's Note
As we edited this piece we couldn’t help but note that the sale of guns has skyrocketed during the pandemic shutdown. According to multiple sources like The New York Times and NBC News, the purchase of guns was up by millions, over 70% in April compared to the same time last year. While crime seems to be down right now, we couldn’t help but wonder what does it mean that this many more guns are in citizens’ hands? The epidemic of gun ownership and by extension, gun violence, is far from over.
Collins, Keith, and David Yaffe-bellany. “About 2 Million Guns Were Sold in the U.S. as Virus Fears Spread.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Apr. 2020, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/01/business/coronavirus-gun-sales.html.
Kosnar, Michael, and Pete Williams. “Pandemic Pushes U.S. Gun Sales to All-Time High.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 4 Apr. 2020, www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/pandemic-pushes-u-s-gun-sales-all-time-high-n1176451.
As we edited this piece we couldn’t help but note that the sale of guns has skyrocketed during the pandemic shutdown. According to multiple sources like The New York Times and NBC News, the purchase of guns was up by millions, over 70% in April compared to the same time last year. While crime seems to be down right now, we couldn’t help but wonder what does it mean that this many more guns are in citizens’ hands? The epidemic of gun ownership and by extension, gun violence, is far from over.
Collins, Keith, and David Yaffe-bellany. “About 2 Million Guns Were Sold in the U.S. as Virus Fears Spread.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Apr. 2020, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/01/business/coronavirus-gun-sales.html.
Kosnar, Michael, and Pete Williams. “Pandemic Pushes U.S. Gun Sales to All-Time High.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 4 Apr. 2020, www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/pandemic-pushes-u-s-gun-sales-all-time-high-n1176451.
The prevalence and on-going tragedy of gun violence can correctly be described as an epidemic. From Las Vegas to Virginia, from Connecticut to El Paso, gun violence is affecting the whole country. My own experience of this epidemic underscores the situation. In 2010 I was attending my school in Carlsbad, CA when a gunman jumped the fence and started shooting. And in 2019, my sister, brother and other family members were in Pensacola, FL on the Naval base when a gunman killed two people. Two shootings almost 10 years apart, shootings in every corner of our nation, yes, this is an epidemic.
This situation is tragic and intolerable, but like with other epidemics of the past, there is a solution. The epidemic of gun violence can be reduced. By reviewing how policies in other countries have worked to prevent and reduce gun violence and by examining how even in our own country we once successfully reduced gun violence, we can identify a possible answer that could end the epidemic.
This situation is tragic and intolerable, but like with other epidemics of the past, there is a solution. The epidemic of gun violence can be reduced. By reviewing how policies in other countries have worked to prevent and reduce gun violence and by examining how even in our own country we once successfully reduced gun violence, we can identify a possible answer that could end the epidemic.
We should not have to think twice about our safety at school, the store, or the movies. We should not have to think about how to escape if someone with a gun decides to be in the same place as us.
Gun Violence in America
Although it is sometimes hard to get people on the same page on controversial topics, it may be necessary for the United States to move past this epidemic of mass shootings. According to Andrew Ross Sorkin the author of the New York Times article “Simply Unacceptable: Executives Demand Senate Action on Gun Violence”, Chip Bergh—CEO of Levi Strauss & Co.—stated, “The tide is turning.” Sorkin added “recent polls show that a majority of Americans in both parties support background checks and red flag laws” (Sorkin, 2019). Bergh makes the point that even though people are split on a political level, many people agree the United States should have stricter gun laws put in place. Another article, “Gun Violence: We Could Have Saved Lives” by Marian Wright Edelman, published in August 2012, explains how we keep making excuses for why mass shootings keep occurring, instead of taking action even when it is difficult to do so: “Inevitably, some people repeat the argument that the solution to preventing mass shootings is not better gun control laws—even control of assault weapons which have no place in nonmilitary hands—but getting even more Americans armed” (Edelman, 2012). Despite this, with Chip Bergh’s idea, we understand that people are ready to take action. We know that the increase of mass shootings has also spiked a rise in the demand for gun control laws and better regulations. It is important to determine which laws will make a difference and how the United States can reach a common ground.
Other Countries
America’s gun control laws are the loosest when compared to other developed countries. Consider the situation and attitude to guns in Japan. In The Atlantic, Max Fisher describes how Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. His article, “A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths” which was published on July 23, 2012, describes how those laws continue to successfully help prevent mass shootings. Japan does not have mass shootings like we do in the U.S: in 2007 they had a total of 22 shooting crimes (Fisher, 2012). Gun control laws in Japan are strict. To own a gun, you must pass several exams: a written test, a shooting range class, a mental test and a drug test, take a day long class, and pass a rigorous background check (Fisher, 2012). Fisher further explains that you must document to the police the specific location of the gun as well as the ammo in your home, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And the process of gun-control does not end there. Fisher adds, “[t]he police inspect the gun once per year and gun owners must re-take the class and exam every three years” (Fisher, 2012). This rigorous gun-control policy is the reason why most Japanese individuals do not bother owning a gun—the process is too burdensome. Thus, as Fisher illustrates, the policy has successfully limited gun violence in Japan.
Australia is also known for having strict gun laws. In the article “Australia changed its gun laws after a 1996 mass shooting,” published in USA Today on November 9, 2018, Sean Rossman explains that after a man killed 35 people in Port Arthur in Tasmania with a semi-automatic weapon, Australia made their gun laws even more strict. Following this mass shooting, Australia's Prime Minister at the time explained that he did not want this country to be like the United States regarding the mass shooting epidemic (Rossman, 2018). In Australia they have two federally funded buy-back programs that have resulted in more than a million firearms being destroyed. Rossman explains that “Australia's experience shows that banning rapid-fire firearms was associated with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths” (Rossman, 2018).
Strict gun control laws like those in Japan and Australia are successful at reducing and preventing mass shootings and gun related deaths. They are ensuring that gun violence events are part of these nations’ past, not their future.
Where is the U.S. Now
The Supreme Court is willing to rehear cases that may update our understanding of the Second Amendment under the shadow of gun violence. In his New York Times article “After Long Gap, Supreme Court Poised to Break Silence on Gun Rights,” Adam Liptik explains that the United States Supreme Court will be hearing their first Second Amendment case in almost ten years. This court session will be focused around 1000 rulings from lower courts seeking the justices’ opinions and clarification about the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which laid restrictions on a person’s right to own guns (Liptik, 2019). The Supreme Court is also arguing whether it is okay for a gun owner to move and transport firearms across state lines:
“After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280, the city amended its ordinance to allow people with premises licenses to take their guns to their homes and businesses and to shooting ranges and competitions, whether in the city or not. For good measure, New York State enacted a similar law.” (Liptak, 2019)
The United States is still trying to understand and determine what the Second Amendment means and how it applies in the current epidemic of gun violence. There is still hope that a new view of the Second Amendment may lead to legislative and constitutional solutions.
Which Weapon
Some people do not think that banning military grade weapons will make a difference in the number of mass shootings in the United States. Instead those people argue that it is not the gun that is shooting people, it is the person behind the gun. So why should we ban the gun when it did nothing wrong? This idea is complicated and can raise many uncertain responses. As John Donohue and Theodora Boulouta explain in their article “That Assault Weapon Ban? It Really Did Work,” which was published in the New York Times, the United States had an assault weapon ban that was in place between 1994 and 2004 and it worked. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, resulted in a decrease in both gun massacres and fatalities:
“Compared with the decade before its adoption, the federal assault weapon ban in effect from September 1994 through 2004 was associated with a 25 percent drop in gun massacres (from eight to six) and a 40 percent drop in fatalities (from 81 to 49).” (Donohue, Boulouta, 2019)
This proves that between that ten-year period there was a significant decrease in both areas because military grade weapons were banned.
Donohue and Boulouta continue by explaining that this ban had a “10-year sunset provision” meaning that the ban only had ten years until it ceased to have effect (Donohue, Boulouta, 2019). The ban reduced easy access to lethal weaponry that is commonly used in mass shootings. They explain that assault weapons are now legal in 43 states and large capacity magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition are legal in 41 states (Donohue, Boulouta, 2019). That is why it is so easy for this equipment to get into the hands of someone who will do harm. The United States had a ban on assault weapons, and it made a difference. Banning assault weapons today will make a difference in curing the epidemic of gun violence over time.
Businesses Take Action
As America sees more frequent shootings, businesses and corporations are taking steps to reduce the epidemic of gun violence. They have started to ask their customers not to carry open weapons in their stores. In the New York Times article, “More Retail Chains Ask Customers Not to Carry Guns Openly,” Karen Zraick explains that multiple companies throughout the United States are requesting that customers refrain from open carrying in their stores. Following a Walmart shooting on August 3, 2019 in El Paso, Texas, the franchise’s stores across the country made significant changes regarding what ammunition and guns are to be sold at their store (Zraick, 2019). Walmart has also requested that their customers try and refrain from carrying unconcealed weapons in stores.
After seeing Walmart take the lead, companies like CVS, Starbucks, Walgreens, Costco, and Target are requesting the same in their stores. However, there is controversy between what the companies are saying and what the N.R.A and Federal and State governments are saying. Zraick says “The National Rifle Association strongly criticized Walmart’s statement, saying it was ‘shameful to see Walmart succumb to the pressure of the anti-gun elites’” (Zraick, 2019). The N.R.A is shaming companies for doing what they believe is the right thing to do. Following the actions that different companies are taking to make their stores a safe place for customers also gives insight to what other major groups are doing to make sure those companies understand other perspectives on the second amendment.
Moving Forward
People are continuing to die at epidemic levels and the United States government has yet to make any changes regarding gun laws and gun control, although we have seen an uproar of companies ready to make changes to help protect its customers and employees. Sorkin talks about how nearly 150 companies are demanding change on a national level to resolve the gun violence epidemic in the United States (Sorkin, 2019). This is a start to the many steps this country must take to get a handle on this very pressing issue.
Hearing about shootings has become routine. We hear about a new shooting, we read about it, maybe talk to people about how sad it is, and then move on with our lives. We notice that we have a gun problem, yet we never make any changes in our life. It is very important to spread awareness about this epidemic; to explain to people who may not agree with us that there is a solution to this problem. We can learn from other countries and examine our own achievements with gun regulations to successfully reduce the epidemic of gun violence.
We should not have to think twice about our safety at school, the store, or the movies. We should not have to think about how to escape if someone with a gun decides to be in the same place as us.
We have a problem—an epidemic—and we need a cure, so let’s take action.
Although it is sometimes hard to get people on the same page on controversial topics, it may be necessary for the United States to move past this epidemic of mass shootings. According to Andrew Ross Sorkin the author of the New York Times article “Simply Unacceptable: Executives Demand Senate Action on Gun Violence”, Chip Bergh—CEO of Levi Strauss & Co.—stated, “The tide is turning.” Sorkin added “recent polls show that a majority of Americans in both parties support background checks and red flag laws” (Sorkin, 2019). Bergh makes the point that even though people are split on a political level, many people agree the United States should have stricter gun laws put in place. Another article, “Gun Violence: We Could Have Saved Lives” by Marian Wright Edelman, published in August 2012, explains how we keep making excuses for why mass shootings keep occurring, instead of taking action even when it is difficult to do so: “Inevitably, some people repeat the argument that the solution to preventing mass shootings is not better gun control laws—even control of assault weapons which have no place in nonmilitary hands—but getting even more Americans armed” (Edelman, 2012). Despite this, with Chip Bergh’s idea, we understand that people are ready to take action. We know that the increase of mass shootings has also spiked a rise in the demand for gun control laws and better regulations. It is important to determine which laws will make a difference and how the United States can reach a common ground.
Other Countries
America’s gun control laws are the loosest when compared to other developed countries. Consider the situation and attitude to guns in Japan. In The Atlantic, Max Fisher describes how Japan has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. His article, “A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths” which was published on July 23, 2012, describes how those laws continue to successfully help prevent mass shootings. Japan does not have mass shootings like we do in the U.S: in 2007 they had a total of 22 shooting crimes (Fisher, 2012). Gun control laws in Japan are strict. To own a gun, you must pass several exams: a written test, a shooting range class, a mental test and a drug test, take a day long class, and pass a rigorous background check (Fisher, 2012). Fisher further explains that you must document to the police the specific location of the gun as well as the ammo in your home, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And the process of gun-control does not end there. Fisher adds, “[t]he police inspect the gun once per year and gun owners must re-take the class and exam every three years” (Fisher, 2012). This rigorous gun-control policy is the reason why most Japanese individuals do not bother owning a gun—the process is too burdensome. Thus, as Fisher illustrates, the policy has successfully limited gun violence in Japan.
Australia is also known for having strict gun laws. In the article “Australia changed its gun laws after a 1996 mass shooting,” published in USA Today on November 9, 2018, Sean Rossman explains that after a man killed 35 people in Port Arthur in Tasmania with a semi-automatic weapon, Australia made their gun laws even more strict. Following this mass shooting, Australia's Prime Minister at the time explained that he did not want this country to be like the United States regarding the mass shooting epidemic (Rossman, 2018). In Australia they have two federally funded buy-back programs that have resulted in more than a million firearms being destroyed. Rossman explains that “Australia's experience shows that banning rapid-fire firearms was associated with reductions in mass shootings and total firearm deaths” (Rossman, 2018).
Strict gun control laws like those in Japan and Australia are successful at reducing and preventing mass shootings and gun related deaths. They are ensuring that gun violence events are part of these nations’ past, not their future.
Where is the U.S. Now
The Supreme Court is willing to rehear cases that may update our understanding of the Second Amendment under the shadow of gun violence. In his New York Times article “After Long Gap, Supreme Court Poised to Break Silence on Gun Rights,” Adam Liptik explains that the United States Supreme Court will be hearing their first Second Amendment case in almost ten years. This court session will be focused around 1000 rulings from lower courts seeking the justices’ opinions and clarification about the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which laid restrictions on a person’s right to own guns (Liptik, 2019). The Supreme Court is also arguing whether it is okay for a gun owner to move and transport firearms across state lines:
“After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York, No. 18-280, the city amended its ordinance to allow people with premises licenses to take their guns to their homes and businesses and to shooting ranges and competitions, whether in the city or not. For good measure, New York State enacted a similar law.” (Liptak, 2019)
The United States is still trying to understand and determine what the Second Amendment means and how it applies in the current epidemic of gun violence. There is still hope that a new view of the Second Amendment may lead to legislative and constitutional solutions.
Which Weapon
Some people do not think that banning military grade weapons will make a difference in the number of mass shootings in the United States. Instead those people argue that it is not the gun that is shooting people, it is the person behind the gun. So why should we ban the gun when it did nothing wrong? This idea is complicated and can raise many uncertain responses. As John Donohue and Theodora Boulouta explain in their article “That Assault Weapon Ban? It Really Did Work,” which was published in the New York Times, the United States had an assault weapon ban that was in place between 1994 and 2004 and it worked. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, resulted in a decrease in both gun massacres and fatalities:
“Compared with the decade before its adoption, the federal assault weapon ban in effect from September 1994 through 2004 was associated with a 25 percent drop in gun massacres (from eight to six) and a 40 percent drop in fatalities (from 81 to 49).” (Donohue, Boulouta, 2019)
This proves that between that ten-year period there was a significant decrease in both areas because military grade weapons were banned.
Donohue and Boulouta continue by explaining that this ban had a “10-year sunset provision” meaning that the ban only had ten years until it ceased to have effect (Donohue, Boulouta, 2019). The ban reduced easy access to lethal weaponry that is commonly used in mass shootings. They explain that assault weapons are now legal in 43 states and large capacity magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition are legal in 41 states (Donohue, Boulouta, 2019). That is why it is so easy for this equipment to get into the hands of someone who will do harm. The United States had a ban on assault weapons, and it made a difference. Banning assault weapons today will make a difference in curing the epidemic of gun violence over time.
Businesses Take Action
As America sees more frequent shootings, businesses and corporations are taking steps to reduce the epidemic of gun violence. They have started to ask their customers not to carry open weapons in their stores. In the New York Times article, “More Retail Chains Ask Customers Not to Carry Guns Openly,” Karen Zraick explains that multiple companies throughout the United States are requesting that customers refrain from open carrying in their stores. Following a Walmart shooting on August 3, 2019 in El Paso, Texas, the franchise’s stores across the country made significant changes regarding what ammunition and guns are to be sold at their store (Zraick, 2019). Walmart has also requested that their customers try and refrain from carrying unconcealed weapons in stores.
After seeing Walmart take the lead, companies like CVS, Starbucks, Walgreens, Costco, and Target are requesting the same in their stores. However, there is controversy between what the companies are saying and what the N.R.A and Federal and State governments are saying. Zraick says “The National Rifle Association strongly criticized Walmart’s statement, saying it was ‘shameful to see Walmart succumb to the pressure of the anti-gun elites’” (Zraick, 2019). The N.R.A is shaming companies for doing what they believe is the right thing to do. Following the actions that different companies are taking to make their stores a safe place for customers also gives insight to what other major groups are doing to make sure those companies understand other perspectives on the second amendment.
Moving Forward
People are continuing to die at epidemic levels and the United States government has yet to make any changes regarding gun laws and gun control, although we have seen an uproar of companies ready to make changes to help protect its customers and employees. Sorkin talks about how nearly 150 companies are demanding change on a national level to resolve the gun violence epidemic in the United States (Sorkin, 2019). This is a start to the many steps this country must take to get a handle on this very pressing issue.
Hearing about shootings has become routine. We hear about a new shooting, we read about it, maybe talk to people about how sad it is, and then move on with our lives. We notice that we have a gun problem, yet we never make any changes in our life. It is very important to spread awareness about this epidemic; to explain to people who may not agree with us that there is a solution to this problem. We can learn from other countries and examine our own achievements with gun regulations to successfully reduce the epidemic of gun violence.
We should not have to think twice about our safety at school, the store, or the movies. We should not have to think about how to escape if someone with a gun decides to be in the same place as us.
We have a problem—an epidemic—and we need a cure, so let’s take action.
Works Cited
Donohue, John, and Theodora Boulouta. “That Assault Weapon Ban? It Really Did Work.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/opinion/assault-weapon-ban.html.
Edelman, M. W. (2012, Aug). Gun violence: We could have saved lives. Sacramento Observer Retrieved from https://search-proquest- com.jpllnet.sfsu.edu/docview/1054935132?accountid=13802
Fisher, Max. “How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 3 Dec. 2015, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting- deaths/260189/.
Liptak, Adam. “After Long Gap, Supreme Court Poised to Break Silence on Gun Rights.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Dec. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/guns-supreme-court.html.
Rossman, Sean. “Australia Changed Its Gun Laws after a 1996 Mass Shooting.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 9 Nov. 2018, www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/11/08/thousand-oaks-shooting-australia-no-mass-shootings-since- 1996/1934798002/.
Sorkin, Andrew Ross. “'Simply Unacceptable': Executives Demand Senate Action on Gun Violence.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Sept. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/business/dealbook/gun-background-checks-business.html?module=inline.
“Ten Years of Mass Shootings in the United States.” EverytownResearch.org, https://everytownresearch.org/massshootingsreports/mass-shootings- in-america-2009-2019/.
Zraick, Karen. “More Retail Chains Ask Customers Not to Carry Guns Openly.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Sept. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/business/open-carry-walmart-cvs-walgreens.html?searchResultPosition=13.
Edelman, M. W. (2012, Aug). Gun violence: We could have saved lives. Sacramento Observer Retrieved from https://search-proquest- com.jpllnet.sfsu.edu/docview/1054935132?accountid=13802
Fisher, Max. “How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 3 Dec. 2015, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting- deaths/260189/.
Liptak, Adam. “After Long Gap, Supreme Court Poised to Break Silence on Gun Rights.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Dec. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/guns-supreme-court.html.
Rossman, Sean. “Australia Changed Its Gun Laws after a 1996 Mass Shooting.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 9 Nov. 2018, www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/11/08/thousand-oaks-shooting-australia-no-mass-shootings-since- 1996/1934798002/.
Sorkin, Andrew Ross. “'Simply Unacceptable': Executives Demand Senate Action on Gun Violence.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Sept. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/business/dealbook/gun-background-checks-business.html?module=inline.
“Ten Years of Mass Shootings in the United States.” EverytownResearch.org, https://everytownresearch.org/massshootingsreports/mass-shootings- in-america-2009-2019/.
Zraick, Karen. “More Retail Chains Ask Customers Not to Carry Guns Openly.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Sept. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/business/open-carry-walmart-cvs-walgreens.html?searchResultPosition=13.
Humanities
Photography by Omar F. Urbina
Photography by Omar F. Urbina

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Karina Patel is a junior majoring in Photojournalism. She was raised in Daly City and is currently residing in San Bruno with her family. She wrote this editorial for her ENG 214 class with Jennifer Beach and she enjoyed the whole process of researching this subject. She became interested in the topic when she read Dear America: Notes of an Undocumented Citizen by Jose Antonio Vargas, which she recommends anyone read.
Karina Patel
The Truth About Undocumented Citizens' Taxes
The Truth About Undocumented Citizens' Taxes
Undocumented citizens have always been a controversial topic, but it is safe to say that right now it is something that almost everyone is talking about and is a main issue for our government. The problem specifically is about how many people assume undocumented citizens are these huge criminals who are hiding and using up the U.S.’s resources. This idea has been fueled by the current administration, claiming that undocumented citizens are a drain to the economy and that they evade taxes because they are not citizens. This got me thinking if that was true. Everyone who works in the United States must pay an income tax. How can that be avoided? Well, some undocumented workers work under the table jobs, jobs that only pay in cash and have no paper trail. However, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy state that as of 2013, 11.2 million undocumented immigrants were paying taxes. So how and why are undocumented citizens paying taxes?
If they are going to work in this country to prove they can be of value, then they have every right to obtain these benefits.
You need a Social Security number to pay income tax and work legally. If you do not have a Social Security number, then you can get an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, a number that allows undocumented citizens to legally pay taxes even if they are working illegally. I learned from an article called “Undocumented Citizens Pay Taxes too, Here’s how They Do It”, written by Alexia Fernández Campbell and published by Vox, a news website, that undocumented citizens try their best to pay taxes because they hope it will get them citizenship. There are not many studies around why undocumented citizens pay their taxes, but there have been cases where some were granted citizenship because they paid taxes, showing that they contributed to the country and will continue to do so in the future. Those who pay their taxes might mean a chance at becoming a citizen in the future explains Hunter Hallman in “How Do Undocumented Immigrants Pay Federal Taxes? An Explainer.” At least that is the hope. The sad thing is that all these undocumented workers are paying taxes that they may never benefit from. Social Security and Medicare are the main programs that income tax is funded by. Undocumented immigrants do not benefit from either of these programs because they are not citizens. Yet in the year 2013, the Social Security Association found that undocumented citizens contributed $13 billion dollars to Social Security according to Campbell. Social Security is a trust fund that provides economic stability to retirees, people over the age of 65, give or take, who are no longer working and earning money. This however is something only documented citizens can benefit from, even though the undocumented population has paid into this fund just as much as every legal working citizen. On the other hand, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, allowing undocumented citizens to work legally would increase their state and local tax contributions. This means they would get paid more because of their legal status therefore contribute more to taxes and would be able to reap the benefits that come with paying taxes.
There are people out there who disagree with these findings and disagree that undocumented workers do in fact contribute more than they benefit in this system. And I think it is not the facts that they necessarily disagree with. It is the fear of having ‘outsiders’ in their space. Uncomfortable with the notion that they might stir up trouble in their neighborhood. Or bring whatever they were running from into this country. Something that is important for everyone to know is that undocumented citizens work hard every day for the future and safety of their children, the same as everyone else in this country does. There are people from all over the world wanting to live here so that they have a chance to live better and happier lives. We are all the same, whether someone is documented or not. Our parents came here for the same reason undocumented citizens came here, for a better future for their family and children. This country is where there are opportunities to thrive and succeed, we should be proud and welcome everyone who wants to come here because they are promoting and benefitting this country in doing so.
It is clear that undocumented citizens contribute to the economy. What needs to happen now is a way to legalize these workers so they could contribute even more as well as be able to receive benefits like Social Security and Medicare. Not only do workers benefit our economy, it provides hard working people the benefits that they deserve to have. If they are going to work in this country to prove they can be of value, then they have every right to obtain these benefits. There needs to be a way for undocumented workers to become citizens. The immigration system we currently have is not working, otherwise there would not be as many undocumented workers as there are today. Those who are here illegally but have been and are paying income and other federal taxes should have a chance to become a citizen. They have worked hard for this, and it is not hurting anyone to let them become citizens, so why not make the process for those already here and contributing easier?
There are people out there who disagree with these findings and disagree that undocumented workers do in fact contribute more than they benefit in this system. And I think it is not the facts that they necessarily disagree with. It is the fear of having ‘outsiders’ in their space. Uncomfortable with the notion that they might stir up trouble in their neighborhood. Or bring whatever they were running from into this country. Something that is important for everyone to know is that undocumented citizens work hard every day for the future and safety of their children, the same as everyone else in this country does. There are people from all over the world wanting to live here so that they have a chance to live better and happier lives. We are all the same, whether someone is documented or not. Our parents came here for the same reason undocumented citizens came here, for a better future for their family and children. This country is where there are opportunities to thrive and succeed, we should be proud and welcome everyone who wants to come here because they are promoting and benefitting this country in doing so.
It is clear that undocumented citizens contribute to the economy. What needs to happen now is a way to legalize these workers so they could contribute even more as well as be able to receive benefits like Social Security and Medicare. Not only do workers benefit our economy, it provides hard working people the benefits that they deserve to have. If they are going to work in this country to prove they can be of value, then they have every right to obtain these benefits. There needs to be a way for undocumented workers to become citizens. The immigration system we currently have is not working, otherwise there would not be as many undocumented workers as there are today. Those who are here illegally but have been and are paying income and other federal taxes should have a chance to become a citizen. They have worked hard for this, and it is not hurting anyone to let them become citizens, so why not make the process for those already here and contributing easier?
Works Cited
“Undocumented Immigrants’ State and Local Tax Contributions.” Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, July 2013.
Campbell, Alexia Fernández. “Undocumented Immigrants Pay Taxes Too. Here's How They Do It.” Vox, 17 Apr. 2017.
Hallman, Hunter. “How Do Undocumented Immigrants Pay Federal Taxes? An Explainer.” Bipartisan Policy Center, 28 Mar. 2018.
Campbell, Alexia Fernández. “Undocumented Immigrants Pay Taxes Too. Here's How They Do It.” Vox, 17 Apr. 2017.
Hallman, Hunter. “How Do Undocumented Immigrants Pay Federal Taxes? An Explainer.” Bipartisan Policy Center, 28 Mar. 2018.
Powell Street Station
San Francisco, California, 2018
Miles Wayne
San Francisco, California, 2018
Miles Wayne

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Yesenia Zuniga is a first-year Broadcasting and Communication Arts major and Journalism minor. Born in the Bay Area, she relocated to Arizona with her family until she graduated high school. She has a passion for learning about people’s stories and cultures. She plans to become a TV host and create her own media outlet. Zuniga wrote her piece for Professor Lee Chen-Weinstein’s class, English 114: Writing for the First Year.
Yesenia Zuniga
Discourse in Broadcast Journalism
Discourse in Broadcast Journalism
The term “fake news” has been the new go-to for determining what news sources people should steer away from or choose to believe. Broadcast journalism is a dangerous game as multiple perspectives, forms of language, and rhetoric can interfere with the subject matter and how it is being represented. Journalism can be political, focus on pop culture, and even go into sports, and it is all on air to the public. Regardless of what the subject centers on in broadcasting, the commonalities within journalism are language and discourse. The discourse of broadcast journalism is displayed through gaining experience, analyzing viewers, and programming content that appeals to a specific audience.
Whether you are on air to cover the World Series, review the latest scandal, or recap the events at the White House, it all comes down to the confidence and appeal of your words to your audience.
Discourse is communication within a social group; whether that be personal, cultural, professional, or social, discourse communities are distinct to their own members. Within the English field, there are two main arguments over the concept of discourse and its teachings. The traditional and popular belief is that discourse is nearly impossible to adapt to; one must learn a single form of discourse and be subjected to the rules of it (much like standard English and how it is systematically taught in American schools). Lisa Delpit, author of “Acquisition of Literate Discourse: Bowing before the Master?” explains the belief of James Paul Lee—a literary specialist—that discourse isn’t teachable and people who are born into non-dominant discourses will find it “exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to acquire such a Discourse” (Delpit, 297). Lee also expresses that standard English acts as a dominant discourse in comparison to its unprofessional counterparts, like American slang or Spanglish, because proper English has always been taught through our schooling and professional settings. In other words, if you do not belong to a dominant discourse community, you cannot learn the language and become a part of that functioning community.
On the contrary, Delpit believes that discourse is not concrete and is formed by people who are actively involved in discourse communities. She explains that if someone is frequently around those who speak a certain language, they too will adopt the same language and become fluent in it. She continues, “Discourses are not static but are shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them and by the form of their participation,” meaning one must be flexible in learning languages and their rules in order to learn a community’s discourse (Delpit, 300). Being able to participate in and the application of oneself toward these group’s languages is what determines a person’s ability to thrive in these environments, not just the language they use at home. The support of this theory is shown through bilingual children learning their native language at home and practicing standard English at school, while being fluent in both languages.
The field of broadcast journalism also supports Delpit’s theory, given that internships and experience craft the language used in this community. It takes time and consistency to adapt to the forms of language journalists speak. Regardless of your emphasis in journalism, journalists share the same programming and ability to interact with their audiences to communicate. While the qualities of public speaking can be natural to someone and difficult for another, anyone entering this field can be trained to speak its discourse. The culture of broadcast journalism can be summed up through audience analysis and programming content. Media coverage is determined based on what events we deem relevant and how stories appeal to a general audience. The broadcasting world is intense, as a lot of the pressure going into the job centers around consistency, managing shows, and bringing in audiences. Journalists must analyze their audience and identify what appeals to them, what they want to hear. For example, a journalist covering news about sports must know common knowledge about the topic, be updated on certain players and situations, and understand what happened during the game.
I interviewed a specialist in my field who has taken on the intensity of the broadcasting world personally. Dr. Sean Fourney was a former talk-show host/reporter for the Pennsylvania based radio station WCHE 1520 AM. Fourney also worked with ESPN Radio of the Lehigh Valley as a producer/promotional assistant and currently works as a Communications professor at San Francisco State University. He discussed the discourse and culture of his field from his own experiences. During the interview, Fourney gave insight on the intensity behind the culture of broadcasting and the forms of programming involved. In the field of broadcasting, the word programming means the ability to form messages through skits, advertisements, news coverage, or aesthetics.
Fourney explained how reporters “create profiles of who [their] audience [is] based on the market research” (S. Fourney, personal communication, Oct. 31, 2019). Broadcasters in training must build their own voice that connects to their audience. Fourney informs that you must sound believable, whether that is through what you are saying or how you are saying it. Broadcasters’ vocabulary relies heavily on basic knowledge of the covered subject and how to communicate to their audience. Fourney states that the discourse of broadcast journalism must be taught and adapted to one’s preference. It is rare that someone comes into the field knowing how to deliver programs to an audience and understand the fundamentals of communicating to the media.
The ability to write content according to who your audience is supports Delipit’s idea that learning discourse is taught through participation. Fourney covers how there is “very little improvisation and wiggle room” when a broadcaster is on air; therefore one must be trained to learn this language (S. Fourney, personal communication, Oct. 31, 2019). There is a series of intense internships and self-produced interviews a broadcaster must perform before they get any serious time on air. He also explains that programming must stay popular to the audience; you must be introduced to new pools of language and communities that appeal to your audience’s needs, not just your primary discourse group (S. Fourney, personal communication, Oct. 31, 2019). It takes time to develop an ear for your audience and find your voice in the broadcasting world; that goes for everyone who has ever been in this field.
Dr. Fourney was not shy about expressing the biases he has encountered while working on air. He continued that money is a big motivator in broadcast journalism as it is anywhere else, stating, “you have to accept that you are responsible for bringing in revenue each and every day … you are willing to stick with some things because they make money while abandoning others quickly because they don’t.” (S. Fourney, personal communication, Oct. 31, 2019). It is very common to see certain stories getting more coverage than others due to their popularity instead of those which bring up valid information about policies and global issues. The culture of broadcast journalism is built by one’s image, public appeal, and popularity.
According to Fourney, the discourse community of broadcast journalism can be summed up as a highly intense, yet a “very programed” setting (S. Fourney, personal communication, Oct. 31, 2019). Regardless of what area of emphasis the work is for, there is a certain type of language used when functioning in this group. The language consists of analyzing characters and being able to adapt to who you are speaking to. Whether you are on air to cover the World Series, review the latest scandal, or recap the events at the White House, it all comes down to the confidence and appeal of your words to your audience. In broadcast journalism, learning and becoming accustomed to the language is what makes you a successful member in its discourse community.
On the contrary, Delpit believes that discourse is not concrete and is formed by people who are actively involved in discourse communities. She explains that if someone is frequently around those who speak a certain language, they too will adopt the same language and become fluent in it. She continues, “Discourses are not static but are shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them and by the form of their participation,” meaning one must be flexible in learning languages and their rules in order to learn a community’s discourse (Delpit, 300). Being able to participate in and the application of oneself toward these group’s languages is what determines a person’s ability to thrive in these environments, not just the language they use at home. The support of this theory is shown through bilingual children learning their native language at home and practicing standard English at school, while being fluent in both languages.
The field of broadcast journalism also supports Delpit’s theory, given that internships and experience craft the language used in this community. It takes time and consistency to adapt to the forms of language journalists speak. Regardless of your emphasis in journalism, journalists share the same programming and ability to interact with their audiences to communicate. While the qualities of public speaking can be natural to someone and difficult for another, anyone entering this field can be trained to speak its discourse. The culture of broadcast journalism can be summed up through audience analysis and programming content. Media coverage is determined based on what events we deem relevant and how stories appeal to a general audience. The broadcasting world is intense, as a lot of the pressure going into the job centers around consistency, managing shows, and bringing in audiences. Journalists must analyze their audience and identify what appeals to them, what they want to hear. For example, a journalist covering news about sports must know common knowledge about the topic, be updated on certain players and situations, and understand what happened during the game.
I interviewed a specialist in my field who has taken on the intensity of the broadcasting world personally. Dr. Sean Fourney was a former talk-show host/reporter for the Pennsylvania based radio station WCHE 1520 AM. Fourney also worked with ESPN Radio of the Lehigh Valley as a producer/promotional assistant and currently works as a Communications professor at San Francisco State University. He discussed the discourse and culture of his field from his own experiences. During the interview, Fourney gave insight on the intensity behind the culture of broadcasting and the forms of programming involved. In the field of broadcasting, the word programming means the ability to form messages through skits, advertisements, news coverage, or aesthetics.
Fourney explained how reporters “create profiles of who [their] audience [is] based on the market research” (S. Fourney, personal communication, Oct. 31, 2019). Broadcasters in training must build their own voice that connects to their audience. Fourney informs that you must sound believable, whether that is through what you are saying or how you are saying it. Broadcasters’ vocabulary relies heavily on basic knowledge of the covered subject and how to communicate to their audience. Fourney states that the discourse of broadcast journalism must be taught and adapted to one’s preference. It is rare that someone comes into the field knowing how to deliver programs to an audience and understand the fundamentals of communicating to the media.
The ability to write content according to who your audience is supports Delipit’s idea that learning discourse is taught through participation. Fourney covers how there is “very little improvisation and wiggle room” when a broadcaster is on air; therefore one must be trained to learn this language (S. Fourney, personal communication, Oct. 31, 2019). There is a series of intense internships and self-produced interviews a broadcaster must perform before they get any serious time on air. He also explains that programming must stay popular to the audience; you must be introduced to new pools of language and communities that appeal to your audience’s needs, not just your primary discourse group (S. Fourney, personal communication, Oct. 31, 2019). It takes time to develop an ear for your audience and find your voice in the broadcasting world; that goes for everyone who has ever been in this field.
Dr. Fourney was not shy about expressing the biases he has encountered while working on air. He continued that money is a big motivator in broadcast journalism as it is anywhere else, stating, “you have to accept that you are responsible for bringing in revenue each and every day … you are willing to stick with some things because they make money while abandoning others quickly because they don’t.” (S. Fourney, personal communication, Oct. 31, 2019). It is very common to see certain stories getting more coverage than others due to their popularity instead of those which bring up valid information about policies and global issues. The culture of broadcast journalism is built by one’s image, public appeal, and popularity.
According to Fourney, the discourse community of broadcast journalism can be summed up as a highly intense, yet a “very programed” setting (S. Fourney, personal communication, Oct. 31, 2019). Regardless of what area of emphasis the work is for, there is a certain type of language used when functioning in this group. The language consists of analyzing characters and being able to adapt to who you are speaking to. Whether you are on air to cover the World Series, review the latest scandal, or recap the events at the White House, it all comes down to the confidence and appeal of your words to your audience. In broadcast journalism, learning and becoming accustomed to the language is what makes you a successful member in its discourse community.
Works Cited
Delpit, Lisa D. “Acquisition of Literate Discourse: Bowing before the Master?” Theory Into Practice, vol. 31, no. 4, 1992, pp. 296–302., doi:10.1080/00405849209543556.
Sean Fourney “Broadcasting Interview”. 31 October 2019. Zuniga, Yesenia. Conducted via Email. Personal Communications.
Sean Fourney “Broadcasting Interview”. 31 October 2019. Zuniga, Yesenia. Conducted via Email. Personal Communications.
About the Editors
Danny Benson
Danny Benson is a Creative Writing major at SFSU. He has worked as an automotive journalist for Automobile Magazine and Turo. Danny enjoys writing science fiction, crime and comedic stories. His mind is an archive of useless information that he cannot wait to share with the world.
Nina Henry
Nina Henry is a graduating senior at SFSU, majoring in Communications Studies. She has a passion for helping others share their stories. She loves reading other authors’ work and giving suggestions to help bring their pieces to life. During this experience, adapting and teamwork were essential to the success of the journal. Nina appreciates working with such amazing editors on a fantastic edition of Sutro Review.
Luka M.
Luka M. is a student at SFSU. Luka's favorite part of speech is an interjection.
Robin Meyerowitz
Robin Meyerowitz is a Lecturer in the English department teaching Composition courses. Working with Nina, Luka and Danny on this issue has been the highlight of the semester. When not on campus (or sheltering at home), you might find her walking her schnauzer, Winston, practicing yoga, writing personal essays or watching movies.
Danny Benson is a Creative Writing major at SFSU. He has worked as an automotive journalist for Automobile Magazine and Turo. Danny enjoys writing science fiction, crime and comedic stories. His mind is an archive of useless information that he cannot wait to share with the world.
Nina Henry
Nina Henry is a graduating senior at SFSU, majoring in Communications Studies. She has a passion for helping others share their stories. She loves reading other authors’ work and giving suggestions to help bring their pieces to life. During this experience, adapting and teamwork were essential to the success of the journal. Nina appreciates working with such amazing editors on a fantastic edition of Sutro Review.
Luka M.
Luka M. is a student at SFSU. Luka's favorite part of speech is an interjection.
Robin Meyerowitz
Robin Meyerowitz is a Lecturer in the English department teaching Composition courses. Working with Nina, Luka and Danny on this issue has been the highlight of the semester. When not on campus (or sheltering at home), you might find her walking her schnauzer, Winston, practicing yoga, writing personal essays or watching movies.