English 1A
Analysis

Assignment: Choose one of the first four chapters of Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation to focus on in a detailed, 3-5 page argument analysis. Make connections between the author’s composition and wording, and his content (the main point of the chapter).

[Instructor comments appear in bold, italic font within brackets below.]

Success: 2 Fast, 2 Furious 

[Good title! You play on the title of Schlosser’s chapter (“Success”) in a way that is both funny and indicative of what you will say about his criticisms of the fast food industry.]

Human beings have always dwelled on competition and success – from the first tribal wars of the earliest humans, to the bloody franchise wars of the twentieth century’s booming fast food industry. Eric Schlosser defines and analyzes what it means to be successful in one of the world’s largest industries in the fourth chapter of his book, Fast Food Nation. It is clear through his argument that the author believes there is a large gap between the success of those at the top and bottom of the fast food industry. Schlosser uses a great mix of techniques to prove his point. By showing us conflicting viewpoints, using irony, tying in religious references, and giving personal stories, Schlosser is able to most effectively prove that success is not equally attainable for all fast-food workers.

The various viewpoints that Schlosser presents are integral to his argument because they illustrate the large gaps between success and failure in the fast food industry. When a restaurant owner takes his crew to a conference meant to teach success techniques to upper-middle-class business professionals, Schlosser notes that, “The Little Caesars employees have seats just a few yards from the stage. They have never seen anything like this before” (105). The few fast food workers at the conference are surrounded by an upper class of business professionals they are not accustomed to, and whom they view as the epitome of a success they will never know. Schlosser gives us their viewpoint to emphasize the difference between the employees and professionals so that we can understand the discrepancies between success levels. One of the workers, Rachael Vasquez, “can hardly believe that she’s sitting among so many people who own their own businesses, among so many executives in suits and ties” (105). To Rachael and the other workers, the success the professionals have is something esoteric, abstract, and inaccessible. Schlosser’s point here is that the lifestyle associated with financial success is so alien to the fast food workers that it is clear they could never envision themselves ever attaining that level of success, as defined by mainstream society and the fast food industry. However, Schlosser then goes on to present a diametrically different definition of success in the last paragraph, with a retrospective quote from a Christopher Reeve speech. Reeve is quoted, “Since my accident, I’ve been realizing… that success means something quite different [from attaining wealth]” (107). [Where and when is Reeve saying this, and why do you say it is “retrospective”?] This opposite viewpoint shows that Reeve’s idea of success differs greatly from the idea assimilated by the fast food industry, which are largely materialistic. Rather than value money and wealth, Reeve understands that success is largely metaphysical. His perspective clashes with other viewpoints to show just how shallow the fast food industry really is. Here, Reeve is used as a metaphor for the goodness in our society – a loud, frustrated, helpless, but ultimately disregarded cry for sanity in a culture gone mad over greed. By giving us these contrasting viewpoints, Schlosser’s argument is enhanced with a virtual debate over who actually realizes success, and what that even means.

Schlosser goes on to dissect the meaning of success using compelling irony because it shows just how shameless the fast-food chains really are towards their workers, and how self-centered their general beliefs really are. The most emotionally powerful irony in the chapter is directly after the previously mentioned Christopher Reeve speech when, as Schlosser states, “Moments after Reeve is wheeled off the stage, Jack Groppel, the next speaker, walks up to the microphone and starts his pitch” (107). The fact that Groppel, and presumably others in the audience so quickly abandon Reeve’s words of wisdom displays that the idea the industry has of success is hard-set. If not even the earth-shattering words of Christopher Reeve can knock sense into the heads of a room of business professionals, then nothing short of a miracle will, because they are heartless in their tactics. The irony is that the reader would never expect for Reeve’s words to be so hastily thrown out by someone with any more than a miniscule of humanity. The heartlessness of fast-food practices is shown to have been praised by Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald’s, when he says, “Eventually I opened a McDonald’s across the street from that store [the original McDonald brothers’ restaurant], which they had renamed The Big M… and it ran them out of business” (97). He brags here that he ran the McDonalds brothers’ first restaurant out of business, in a classic example of the apprentice vanquishing his teacher. Schlosser highlights this irony because it stirs up emotion in the reader, as Kroc’s words appear cold-hearted and ruthless, with no gratitude, compassion, or sympathy for the brothers who sold him the business he used to build a fast food empire. Ray Kroc personifies the attitude of the entire fast food industry, with its cutthroat, swindling practices. The irony presents the reader with an emotional reaction, and realization that the fast food industry is a cold, Darwinist institution with no consideration for those who do not achieve success. 

Schlosser’s use of religious references is powerful rhetoric because it demonstrates the seemingly almighty appearance of the fast food restaurants. He compares fast food owners to religious leaders when he says, “Like other charismatic leaders of new faiths, Kroc asked people to give up their former lives and devote themselves fully to McDonalds” (95). Schlosser is emphasizing through the Kroc example that franchisees were expected to take on a restaurant as if it were a new religion, and thereby absorb fast-food values in lieu of religious ones. Through tough contracts, and high franchising fees, the author makes it clear that the restaurant owners of today are expected to make the same commitments. This is due to the industry’s pseudo-religious premise that “the meek shall no longer inherit the earth; the go-getters will get it and everything that goes with it” (106). This mentality is blasphemous to traditional, more humble beliefs, but Schlosser explains by these words that traditional religion “seems hopelessly out of date” (106) in our fast paced society. The result is that there is a wide gap between those who are aggressive and money-making, and the typical worker who never becomes a model of success. In order for this system to thrive, a new way of thinking is necessary to justify it. Schlosser describes this new way of thinking as a sort of fast-food religion, which facilitates the widening of the gap between those who achieve success, and those who are doomed to fail. [Excellent point about Schlosser’s use of religious rhetoric; not only is this something I hadn’t seen, but your explanation aptly ties this to the “new way of thinking” demanded for “success” in the industry.] 

Through personal stories, Schlosser hopes to stir additional emotion in the reader as well as grant some humanity to the fast-food workers who are largely overlooked in our fast food culture. Schlosser decides to start the chapter with the story of Mathew Kabong, a pizza delivery boy. He goes into great deal about Kabong’s looks, attitude, and job condition. Although most people normally pay little attention to what goes on behind the scenes during a pizza delivery, Schlosser goes into detail how “a little white girl with blonde hair, about seven years old, smiles at this big Nigerian bringing pizza, hands him fifteen dollars, takes the food, and tells him to keep the change.” (91) Pizza delivery persons, like other fast food workers, have long been treated as an expendable resource; they are not much more than mere “units” to be managed in the eyes of a franchise. Schlosser gives us the story of a kid we can relate to, because he knows that it will add some dimension to these otherwise dehumanized workers who fix us our food. He is able to show us their story, and thereby relate to us their unsuccessfulness, because it is much easier to relate to the story of a worker if we can visualize them working, and put ourselves in their shoes. The author also gives us a personal story of a franchisee, Feamster, who started as a hockey player and then ended up a Little Caesar’s owner. Schlosser tells us how “it took Feamster three years to pay off his initial debt. Today he owns five Little Caesars restaurants… his annual revenues are about 2.5 million” (103). Feamster’s story is important so that we will have some compassion for him, as well as a franchisee. At the same time however, it helps Schlosser’s argument because we get to see how much more successful he is than a typical worker. Even though Feamster is a nice guy, his workers still don’t attain the same level of success that he is privy to. Personal stories help Schlosser’s argument by giving us a look into the lives of real workers to help us evaluate their success, and compare them to each other.

Schlosser uses many techniques for a powerful argument in the fourth chapter of his book, Fast Food Nation. By showing us conflicting viewpoints, using irony, tying in religious references, and giving personal stories, Schlosser is able to most effectively prove that success is not equally attainable for all fast-food workers, but is a privilege restricted to those on top. [This sentence of your conclusion repeats a little too neatly the wording of your thesis; this is one of the only places in your paper that seems a bit formulaic.] Chapter Four, “Success,” builds upon all the ideas in the previous chapters, and boils everything to one critical point: what makes up success. By narrowing down his argument to the basic principles of success and failure, Schlosser is able to provoke greater emotion and understanding in the reader. Not only do we all either succeed or fail, but it is up to us to define our own success. Generally though, success is inaccessible for the common worker in the fast food industry, as the gap between those who make it and those who don’t is too large and established. [Very coherent paper: you keep the term “success” (and the problems with the fast-food industry’s notions of it) at the heart of your paper, coming back to it in your thesis, in each of your body paragraphs, and again in your conclusion. Your reader is thus able to see how Schlosser’s various examples and argument strategies are unified around a central idea.]

Instructor end comment:

[This paper was a pleasure to read. It helped me to see things about the chapter I hadn’t noticed, and to make connections between a variety of points. Structurally, you maintain a clear focus, making new and interesting points in each paragraph, showing originality and a keen eye for detail. I am also impressed with the way you find precise, brief quotations from Schlosser’s text to support you throughout the paper, and without over-quoting, spend the greater part of your paragraphs on your own ideas and reasoning. Possible area for improvement: a couple of points need clearer explanation (remember to imagine your reader as someone who has not read the chapter; you need to succinctly explain what is going on). However, this is a very strong paper showing original thinking, often stylish writing, and an excellent grasp of the reading and assignment.]

** Minor mechanical errors/typos have been corrected by the creators of CHARLIE

English 1A
Analysis

Assignment: Explore the major differences between growing up in the U.S. in 2008 vs. 1968, and analyze one of those differences carefully, citing textual support, and also (possibly) personal interviews with people who were in their teens or twenties in 1968 and living in the U.S. Narrow the topic from the broad question: *How are the two generations different, and why?* to arrive at a thesis naming and explaining one specific difference between the two generations.

[Instructor comments appear in bold, italic font within brackets below.]

Like Water for Chocolate and the Power of Matches, Oxygen, and a Candle

In the novel Like Water for Chocolate, author Laura Esquivel subtly suggests Tita’s path and the roles that each of the main characters play, through the analogy Dr. Brown gives about matches (115-117). This analogy also gives more meaning to the title, Like Water for Chocolate. [Brief but clear introduction]

Through Dr. Brown, Esquivel uses the process and ingredients needed in creating and lighting matches as a parallel to Tita’s life and the ingredients she needs to truly feel “on fire.” During the middle of the novel, Dr. Brown explains:

While phosphorus (a match) doesn’t combine with oxygen to burn at ordinary temperatures, it does burst into flame very rapidly at an elevated temperature…he melted the phosphorus by holding the tube over the flame of a candle…when the oxygen reached the top of the jar, where it encountered the melted phosphorus, an explosion occurred, brilliant, instantaneous, like a flash of lightning (115).

In this quote, Esquivel is pointing out that to create this brilliant “explosion,” three ingredients are needed: phosphorus (off the tip of a match), oxygen, and a source of heat to melt the phosphorus, like the flame from a candle. Right after this process is explained, Dr. Brown connects Tita to this analogy through the statement:

My grandmother had a very interesting theory; she said that each of us is born with a box of matches inside us but we can’t strike them all by ourselves; just as in the experiment, we need oxygen and a candle to help. In this case, the oxygen, for example, would come from the breath of the person you love; the candle could be any kind of food, music, caress, word, or sound that engenders the explosion that lights one of the matches”(115).

This passage is prophetic and explains the roles that each character is to play and the elements Tita must acquire in order to “nourish the soul” (115) and truly be happy. [Good set up to help your reader follow your essay structure.]

The “box of matches inside us” is of course referring to the passion and love Tita is capable of feeling. Inside of her are many powerful emotions waiting to come out, but, as Dr. Brown says, “We can’t strike them by ourselves” (115). And for Tita, there is no exception. Throughout the novel, Tita is desperately trying to light her matches, but no matter how much Tita eats, cooks, or crochets her bedspread, she can never fill that void alone.

Upon hearing of Pedro’s engagement to Rosaura, Tita was so heartbroken, she couldn’t fall asleep. Esquivel tells us, “She started to eat the Christmas Rolls Nacha had left out on her bureau…this remedy had proven effective many times…but this time it didn’t work. She felt no relief from the hollow sensation in her stomach…She realized that the hollow sensation was not hunger but an icy feeling of grief” (19). Here, Esquivel uses the word “icy” to illustrate the effect of the wedding on her flame. [Good close reading.]

As mentioned in the matches analogy, what Tita needs is oxygen, and a candle. If oxygen comes from “the breath of the person you love,” (115) then undoubtedly Pedro is the oxygen in Tita’s life. When Pedro is able to explain to Tita about his true motive for marrying Rosaura, Esquivel writes, “For Tita, these words were like a fresh breeze fanning embers that had been about to die” (38). Just as more oxygen helps a fire grow, Pedro’s words are able to build up her flame, and just in time, too. However, as in Dr. Brown’s analogy, the matches and oxygen are not enough. There must be a source of heat, or candle to first heat the phosphorus. Many examples of “candles” are used throughout the novel to help light Tita’s matches. [This is another excellent comment on the quote. You also have another smooth transition here; you’ve gone from matches to oxygen, so your reader is ready to hear about the candle now.]

A strong example of a candle used in the novel is the meal Tita cooks with the roses from Pedro. Esquivel even forewarns, “Tita’s blood and the roses from Pedro proved quite an explosive combination.” (51) While serving the meal, “It dissolved her (Tita’s) entire being in the rose petal sauce, in the tender flesh of the quails, in the wine, in every one of the meal’s aromas. That was the way she entered Pedro’s body, hot, voluptuous, perfumed, totally sensuous” (52). This example shows that with food there to create and mediate heat, Tita could actually have a very hot and passionate, enflamed experience.

While food is a well-used medium throughout the novel, another example of a candle is when Pedro simply hears a sound coming from the kitchen. “The sound of the pans bumping against each other, the smell of the almonds browning in the griddle, the sound of Tita’s melodious voice, singing as she cooked, had kindled his sexual feelings (66). With the right elements present, Tita’s matches, and Pedro’s oxygen, the simple “sound” of pots and pans in the kitchen was easily able to act as a candle, bringing Tita and Pedro together and helping the fire burn. When Tita saw Pedro watching her, she “knew through her own flesh how fire transforms the elements” (67). [Great explanation and another smooth transition]

However, throughout the novel, Tita is constantly prevented from lighting her matches and sustaining their heat. Mama Elena is exactly who Dr. Brown is referring to when he say, “That’s why it’s important to keep your distance from people who have frigid breath. Just their presence can put out the most intense fire.” (116) And putting out the most intense fire is exactly what Mama Elena does by forbidding Pedro and Tita to marry. Even from when Tita and Pedro first meet, “she felt his hot gaze burning her skin” and the “heat that invaded her body was so real” (17). Clearly together they create heat. However, just Mama Elena’s “presence” always puts out the flame. One of many examples of this is during Pedro and Rosaura’s wedding, when Pedro and Tita embrace, “it was as if all of her inner joy, which had nearly been extinguished, had suddenly been rekindled by Pedro’s warm breath upon her neck, the hot touch of his hands upon her breasts…she could have stayed in his arms forever, but a look from her mother made her pull away in a hurry.” (38) The correlation between matches and the words “extinguished” and “rekindled” is hard to miss. But Mama Elena is right there to put it out again. [right!]

Because Mama Elena saw that even Tita’s cooking was acting as a candle, she “asked Pedro to stop praising the meals…how alone Tita felt during this period” (69). Mama Elena does everything in her power to keep Tita’s flame down, even directly punishing Tita by making Pedro, her oxygen, move to Texas. Esquivel writes, “Ever since Pedro, Rosaura and Roberto had gone to live in San Antonio, Tita had lost all interest in life…the house could fall down and it wouldn’t have even mattered” (87). Away from her oxygen and surrounded by Mama Elena’s frigid presence, Tita slowly begins to suffocate. When Chencha comes to check on her from the dovecote, you can see that Tita has almost completely lost her spark through the quote, “Tita looked up, her eyes vacant, and stared at Chencha as if she had never seen her before” (100). If not for John Brown, who helps breathe life in Tita, her soul would have frozen forever. [Be careful not to cut too much from a quote; you risk confusing your reader.]

John, although not the main fire in Tita’s life, has a major role to play in liberating her. It was his candles, both physically and emotionally, which supported Tita in overcoming and overpowering the cold. He knew Mama Elena was suffocating Tita. He saw Tita’s “eyes light up holding her nephew” (78), and was “completely shaken” when she told him, “I can’t marry or have children because I have to take care of my mother until she dies” (78). He sees how much she wants to have her own child, but is restricted by Mama Elena.

When Dr. Brown was asked to take Tita to the insane asylum, he “listened to Mama Elena’s version of the story” (100), but instead took Tita to his own home, knowing that the main cause of her illness was Mama Elena. There, he tried to guide her and even give her hope, telling her “If we stay a good distance away from those people, it’s easier to protect ourselves from being extinguished…there are many ways to dry out a box of damp matches, but you can be sure, there is a cure.” [page number?] Tita, who had felt like “her own matches were damp and moldy,” and that “No one would ever be able to light one again” (116), began to believe in herself. The quote, “With John’s warmth toward her in word and manner, she felt better each day” (108), shows how John is able to emit a small but sufficient amount of oxygen towards Tita’s flame. [Good comment to wrap up this point.]

When Tita goes back to the farm to help Mama Elena, he helps save her once again: She felt an urge to run far, far away, to shield the tiny flame John had coaxed up inside her from her mother’s chilling presence. It was if Mama Elena’s spit had landed dead-center on a fire that was about to catch and had put it out. ...John held her in his arms…his warm embrace saved Tita from freezing. They only touched for a few seconds but it was enough to rekindle her spirit (131).

Even physically, he is there for her, helping her light the oven and giving her a box of matches, “When Tita was trying to light the oven, she couldn’t find any matches anywhere. John, always gallant, had quickly offered to help her…After lighting the fire, he had presented Tita with a box of matches, taking her hands in his” (231). John is Tita’s liberator, showing her “the way to freedom” (172) by lighting her path.

Tita doesn’t completely give in to Mama Elena. Hearing about Roberto’s death, Tita first stood up to her mother and, “instead of obeying her order, she started to tear apart all the sausages she could reach, screaming wildly” (99). In response, her mother slapped her across the face with a wooden spoon, and left her up in the dovecote overnight. This punishment nearly extinguished Tita completely. However, over time and with John’s support, Tita began to build up her resistance to Mama Elena’s cold. After Mama Elena got injured and Tita came to help, she had less fear, “her mother received her in silence. For the first time, Tita firmly held her gaze, and Mama Elena lowered hers. There was a strange light in Tita’s eyes” (129). Tita was beginning to fight back.

Nevertheless, even after Mama Elena dies, she still instigates cold and ice, haunting Tita and threatening to curse the only possible link between Pedro and Tita, a baby. Tita is in the kitchen when “an icy shiver ran down Tita’s spine. She turned around and was stunned to find herself face to face with Mama Elena” (173). It isn’t until Tita has a showdown with her mother, facing her directly and standing up in front of the cold, that she is to able to rid herself of that chill. When Mama Elena confronts Tita for the last time, Tita cries “Once and for all, leave me alone; I won’t put up with you! I hate you, I’ve always hated you! Tita had said the magic words that would make Mama Elena disappear forever...her mother began to shrink away until it became no more than a tiny light” (199). Because of her built up strength, for the first time, Tita is able to overpower Mama Elena and even transform her into a light.

However, while John is able to empower Tita and be there consistently for her, he doesn’t quite have the same effect on Tita as Pedro does. With John, her emotions are warm and safe, but never so intense. When John returns the day after Tita has had sex with Pedro, Tita is a new person. John “embraced her warmly, but when he kissed her, he knew something had changed inside of Tita” (203). Tita thinks she loves John, but her feelings are always confused when Pedro is around. This is shown in the quote, “At that moment, she was convinced that John, who was always at her side supporting her without reservation, was her true love. But then she saw a group of people approaching from the mausoleum and from a distance she made out Pedro’s silhouette …and she was no longer so sure of her feelings” (138).

Whenever Tita thinks of Pedro, her emotions are intensified and dangerous, whether good or bad. Even after Tita is engaged to John, the power and heat produced by Tita and Pedro doesn’t change. For example, as Tita is taking a shower to prepare herself for John’s arrival, she feels an unnatural heat, “suddenly the water started to feel warmer and it kept getting warmer and warmer until it began to burn her skin…and what did she see on the other side of the planks but Pedro, watching her intently” (153). Pedro’s eyes alone are able to produce great heat. Similarly, after Pedro “caused her (Tita) to lose her virginity” (158), there was smoke rising from the building. In the quote, “plumes of phosphorescent colors were ascending to the sky like delicate Bengal lights” (158), the word phosphorescent is undoubtedly related to the phosphorus used in the match analogy. [Yes! Great focus on the heat, smoke and sparks in this paragraph.]

Towards the end of the novel, with Mama Elena gone, Rosaura dead, and Esperanza and Alex leaving, Tita and Pedro are finally able to be freely together; oxygen, phosphorus, and heat. After everyone leaves the wedding, Pedro and Tita go to the darkroom to make love. Fittingly, “250 (physical) candles” (243) light up the dark room. [Another wonderful transition here below]

Understanding the meaning of the matches’ analogy also gives more clarity and meaning to the actions of Tita at the end of the novel. When Pedro dies, Tita knows it is because he has lit all his matches at the same time, just as Dr. Brown had warned her. She recalled his words; If a strong sudden emotion suddenly lights all the candles we carry inside ourselves, it creates a brightness that shines far beyond our normal vision and then a splendid tunnel appears that shows us the way…and calls us to recall our lost divine origin. The soul longs to return to the place it came from, leaving the body lifeless (243-244).

To light all one's candles at the same time is in actuality, to leave the physical body and embrace the spirit. Tita decided to reject the tunnel, but she immediately regrets her decision. She feels that “with Pedro died the possibility of ever again lighting her inner fire, with him went all the candles. She knew that the natural heat that she was now feeling would cool little by little, consuming itself as rapidly as if it lacked fuel to maintain itself” (244). Tita decides she would rather die physically and be with Pedro, than live alone and that she must “find some way, even if it was an artificial one, of striking a fire” (244) in order to find him again.

In order to recreate the tunnel, she begins to gather different “fuels” to get the candle to burn, trying to “reproduce the most moving memories of her and Pedro” (245). Even physically, she took candles from John and “began to eat the candles out of the box one by one” (245). Finally, “the candle began to burn…and the tunnel again appeared before her eyes” (245). There she finds Pedro and joins him forever, together going forward in search of their “lost divine origin” (244) or true purpose before the fall.

Finally, a last aspect of the novel which the matches analogy helps clarify is in regards to the novel’s title, Like Water for Chocolate. One of Tita’s cooking directions states; When the water comes to a boil for the first time, remove it from the heat…return the pan to the stove. When it comes to a boil again and starts to boil over, remove it from the heat. Put it back on the heat and bring it to a boil a third time. Remove from the heat and beat the chocolate (179).

Tita is exactly “like water for chocolate,” being repeatedly put on the stove, and removed when she begins to boil. Throughout the novel, she tries to light her matches or “reach a boiling point.” However, whenever she does, she is removed from the heat source to cool again. In the directions, it says to remove from heat three times in a row. Yet, for Tita, it is many more than that. Every time Mama Elena’s chilling presence surrounds her, she loses her heat. Only until after she dies is Tita truly and literally on fire, “the fiery bodies of Pedro and Tita began to throw off glowing sparks” (245). Eventually, they consume the whole farm in fire, leaving nothing but ash, the family cookbook and a new beginning for the future generations. [I never saw this before! You’re right!]

Works Cited:

• Esquivel, Laura. Like Water for Chocolate. New York City: Doubleday, 1992.
• * Minor mechanical errors/typos have been corrected by the creators of CHARLIE

English 7
Analysis

Assignment: Explore how Esquivel uses *the kitchen* and kitchen metaphors to reveal secrets about the loves and lives of the characters in her novel.(This student focused on interpreting the key metaphor of *lighting a match*)

[Instructor comments appear in bold, italic font within brackets below.]

The Lost Drive of Student’s Activism

Whatever happened to the youth’s drive and activism in order to protest for their rights and have their voice heard on what is also wrong? This is a question that many ask frequently in this period of time, around this year of 2008. Back in 1968 though, “The Year that rocked the world,” according to Mark Kurlansky’s book, that question would have been a joke. A more likely question back then would have probably been, “When or at what point are the students going to stop with all their movements, marches, sit-ins, hunger strikes, rallies, etc?” In 1968, the world was going through a rough series of events, which could not go unnoticed or un-criticized by the people; and in fact, people acted on what they believed was right. Students took a stand and fought not only for themselves and their own rights, but for the rest of the world. They protested issues like getting the blacks the same rights as any other U.S. citizen, to the war in Vietnam and also the student massacres that were taking place in other countries. Today’s generation, the so called Echo Boomers have even been labeled “Generation Q,” according to an article by Thomas L. Friedman, that is to say “the Quiet Generation.” After forty years, the government, technology, science, money, have been just the right tools to make our generation silent, self-absorbed, greedy, apathetic; words which the 60’s generation did not know. [Good way to contrast the two generations at the start. Also, clear focus you’re drawing that there has been a huge change in attitudes since 1968.]

During 1968, the world was facing tremendous problems, such as unnecessary wars, military drafts, dictatorships, discrimination issues, excessive involvement of the government in education, among others. All of those factors were the leading cause of the students’ activism at that time. What’s so interesting about these movements is that they were not just happening in one or two countries, but all around the world, from America, to Europe and Asia. All the students were in search of was more equality, democracy, to be heard and not let the government step on their rights, especially when it came to interfering with their schools and education; that’s why rejection of any kind of authority was dominant among them. An example of the most remarkable common protests all around the world was protest against the U.S./Vietnam war. Some of the biggest protests took place from the U.S. to France, Germany, etc. The anti-war movements demanded that the U.S. left Vietnam, chanting, “Vietnam for the Vietnamese… U.S. Go Home… Johnson Assassin” (Kurlansky 54). [You could cut the sentence starting with “ Some of the biggest…” since it is essentially the same as what you’re saying here. ]

In Europe, France, Italy, and Spain were host to some of the bloodiest movements during the year. In May of 1968, there was a rebellion of students in France, with abandoned campuses, and spreading until becoming a national strike, due to the unison between students and workers. Around the same time in Italy, protests broke out at the University of Rome, even after the school had already been previously closed once in March also due to violent protests. These protests were so eventful because even the teachers and faculty joined in with the students, after the police injured around two hundred students on the first day of protesting (Kurlansky 82). Meanwhile, in Spain, the movements taking place were mainly anti-fascists, anti-Franco. These revolts started after almost thirty years of Franco’s dictatorship. Starting on 1967 and continuing onto the following year, a new generation of students started demanding a more representative government, pleading “Liberty!” and “Death to Franco!” (Kurlansky 16). When the anti-fascists demonstrations began, the police got involved, closing down many of the most important campuses around Spain, thus angering the students even more, making them seriously demand the authorities to stay out of their campuses, which were considered to be almost as sanctuaries.

Just as Europe was facing a year of student movements in 1968, America was definitely not the exception, with the U.S. and Mexico holding in their history some of the most memorable youth acts, including the worst student massacre ever. In the U.S. there was a whole series of issues being debated. Among the most important were the fight for blacks’ civil rights, and the war in Vietnam, which involved military drafts. The students just revolted when the Johnson administration announced that over a hundred thousand graduate students would also be drafted. The student movements began, with marches, sit-ins, rallies, and sometimes violent demonstrations, since everyone had learned that violence is what attracts the media, and media coverage is what you need in order to make a big statement. A student even said, “We thought the campus ought to look like a graveyard, because that’s where most of the seniors are headed.” (Joseph Chandler, Kurlansky 82). A lot of support groups, clubs, and societies were formed by students, like the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), one of whose main purposes was to show authorities they would not tolerate being told what to do, and what’s right or best for them.

Toward the end of the year, in Mexico City, just as its citizens were preparing everything to host the Olympics that year, the worst student massacre would take place there to take away the spotlight. According to Mr. Esteban Tellez, who was 17 years old at the time, and Mr. Marcelino Herrera, who was 15 at the time, students from various Universities, along with some of their professors and parents, started protesting against a recent raise in tuition. They demanded University studies to be affordable by everyone, and not just those with the money. When these protests began, the government, under Gustavo Díaz Ordaz, ordered the placement of soldiers at the campuses to control the students, because they supposedly believed all they were trying to do was spoil the Olympics (Tellez, Herrera).

On October 2nd of 1968, students started marching along the most important boulevards of the city, toward a place called Plaza de Las Tres Culturas in Tlatelolco. The military was sent there, and was given the order to open fire on all of those who were protesting. “It was as if they were spreading poison on cockroaches.” (Herrera). They also had orders to kill or incarcerate any parent or teacher in the protest, due to fear of them protesting again near or on the actual days of the Olympics. The exact number of deaths is unknown but is an estimated between 400-500, and around 6,000 incarcerations, making this one the worst student massacre ever recorded. It was one of the saddest days for the citizens of the city, and till this day, forty years later, every Mexican, young or old, holds it deep to their heart, remembering the fallen students every year, marching the same streets they marched that shameful day. Mr. Tellez, looking at the youth from today, says, “Youth back then actually cared to make a difference, and the only way to do that is by taking action; they wanted to make history. Now a day, the youth doesn’t even care to vote, simple as that.” [What a great example here. Also, very clear transition on the subject of activism versus apathy. Be sure to cite your sources though.]

Today’s students generation, the so called Echo Boomers, show such a lack of care, of activism, they’ve simply just been labeled, “Generation Q,” the Quiet Americans. This is the first generation that has grown with computers at home, internet, cable TV (which the Government controls in various ways), and a whole bunch of other materialistic needs. The government has learned to keep us “happy,” to give us not what we need, but what we crave, what we want in order to fulfill our materialistic needs. Unlike back then in 1968, the youth is not watching on TV or hearing on the radio how many and in what horrible ways soldiers and other people are being killed in the war in Iraq. The government knows perfectly what kind of reactions a simple image of a soldier being killed can stir up. You would think that after learning about all that has gone on throughout history, the injustices, discrimination, patronizing, today’s youth would know better than to keep quiet, or just “send an e-mail” to show their support of a cause. As one journalist comments, “They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them” (Friedman).

Unlike today, back in 1968, students wouldn’t even think twice when it came to stepping up for their rights or the rights of others: “They spent the summer being young and brave, risking their lives, getting beaten and jailed.” (Kurlansky, 91). Where’s that drive in the youth of today? A common thought or belief among students of today, like Isidro Vargas, who’s a student at Chabot College, is that youth only gets involved if affected “directly.” He says, “Youth possesses a lot of political power but doesn’t care to use it.” A lot of the times the students’ lack of interest or participation in a cause is their ignorance of what is being fought for, or the false belief that “they won’t make a difference anyway.” Another shared thought, says Raul Tellez, a student at CSUEB, and Manuel Ortiz, a Chabot student, is that youth is very materialistic; they only work hard to get what they think they “need,” and the more they have, the more they want. They’re also so self-absorbed; they believe their personal problems are enough to deal with and they don’t even have the time to attend a march or a rally, thus making the few who actually do care to make a difference lose hope or motivation, leading to them just giving up, thinking, “Why bother?” [Be sure to introduce all your quotes; your reader doesn’t know who Friedman is, for example.]

It’s a sad truth, but youth has lost its drive and sense of fighting for what’s right and not just settling for what the government is telling them is right. If the 60’s student generation, who lost their lives protesting and fighting for a just cause, heard what a student today does at the most to “support” a cause is turn on their computers and send an e-mail, they would feel such a disappointment. That would be so understandable. Students have to realize that past generations heroes didn’t achieve their goals by clicking away on their computers, but by getting out there and doing something about it. “Activism can only be uploaded, the old fashioned way – by young voters speaking truth to power, face to face, in big numbers, on campuses or the Washington Mall.” (Generation Q, Friedman). That’s exactly what the year 1968 was all about. It’s such a shame to see how kids today just expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter, and even on top of all they think that asking others, like politicians, what they are going to do for them or for their country, is enough to make sure everything will be ok. Well that’s clearly not enough, and it’s been proven throughout the years. John F. Kennedy once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” We, the youth of today need to stop being such a careless generation, overlooking what’s happening around us all over the world, just because it doesn’t affect us “directly,” because if anything, it will affect tomorrow’s world for our future children.

Works Cited

• Friedman, Thomas L. “Generation Q.” New York Times 10 Oct. 2007.
• Herrera, Marcelino. Church manager, St. Louis Beltran. Personal Interview. 15 Feb. 2008.
• Kurlansky, Mark. 1968 The Year That Rocked the World. New York: Random House, 2005.
• Ortiz, Manuel. Driver, CINTAS. Personal Interview. 30 Jan. 2008.
• Tellez, Esteban. Sorter, Recycle Waste Management CO. Personal Interview. 30 Jan. 2008.
• Tellez, Raul. Student, CSUEB. Personal Interview. 30 Jan. 2008.
• Vargas, Isidro. Student, Chabot Community College. Personal Interview. 30 Jan. 2008.
• ** Minor mechanical errors/typos have been corrected by the creators of CHARLIE