（休）Becoming Native American

Indians? Native Americans? Indigenous People of the Americas?

A map showing cultural areas of North America before the arrival of Europeans. These different cultures did not consider themselves to be "one people." Christopher Columbus, who landed on the island known today as Cuba, thought he was in the East Indies (South and Southeast India, including Indonesia, Singapore, the Philippine Islands, and East Timor), and so he called the people he met "Indians." Europeans used this word to make all the various cultures in North America, and all the various people, to look like "one people" with "one culture." For this reason, today, many people prefer to use the words "Native Americans" or, more generally, "indigenous peoples of the Americans."

A language map of North America before the arrival of Europeans. Most of the languages have been destroyed.

Important historical notes, by Shouko Nishibeppu

Long before white men set foot on American soil, Native Americans lived on the land. They comprised a large number of distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups. In modern America, still, there are there are 563 tribal governments in the United States. The government recognizes the right of self-government and supports their tribal supremacy and self-determination. They have the right to from their own government, to enforce laws, to tax and so on. However, as recently as the 1970s, United States was still wanted to pursue a policy of ‘assimilation’ because they want to eliminate the reservation and operate Native Americans into mainstream U.S. culture.

Sherman Alexie and the Spokane Indians
Sherman Alexie is from the Spokane Indian tribe. The Spokane Indian Reservation is located in eastern part of Washington. (A “reservation” is an area of land in the United States and that is kept separate for Native Americans to live in.) The Spokane are people who live in Washington State. According to the 2000 census, there are 2004 people in the Spokane tribe.

A long time ago, Alexie’s ancestors lived near the Spokane River by fishing, hunting, and gathering. After the white men came, the Spokane suffered from new diseases like smallpox, syphilis, and influenza. Because of the European invasion, the Native Americans lives and cultures were changed completely. The population of Native American was decreased by disease, by displacement, and in many cases by warfare with European groups.

Today, it is difficult for Native Americans to rediscover their customs. They tend to be addicted to alcohol and gambling. Some of them use the traditional culture as a source of money from tourism. Some adapt to American society, while some do not.

The white men destroyed their burial grounds and ancient villages. However, in 1877, the Lower Spokane agreed with the US government to relocate to the Spokane reservation. The years later, the Upper and Middle Spokane agreed to move to another Reservation. Sherman Joseph Alexie Jr was born there in 1966.
The Native American writer Sherman Alexie was born in 1966 and grew up on the Spokane Indian Reservation in Washington State. Alexie’s 1993 story, “A Drug Called Tradition,” depicts the distance between modern Indians and the traditional figures from their past. Parts of the story were turned into a 1998 film titled Smoke Signals, and we will watch scenes from the film today. It was the first movie written, produced, and acted by Native Americans and Alexie received two awards for the film’s screenplay.

This information about Sherman Alexie comes from two Web sites (A and B).

And here is Alexie's own official Web site.

The Plot of "A Drug Called Tradition," by Kotomi Nakayama

The story“A Drug Called Tradition” is filled with dreams. There are three main characters, all young Native American men. Thomas is a storyteller whose stories are sometimes strange. Victor is the narrator. Victor and Junior leave Thomas’s party in Junior’s car to take a drug that Victor has. Along the road, they see Thomas, who has left his own party. The boys drive to a lake and, after each one takes the drug, he has a dream. First, Thomas sees Victor stealing a horse from white people. Second, Junior sees Thomas dancing with buffalo and other Native Americans. Third, Victor sees Junior singing and playing guitar like a rock star. These dreams express the boys’ desire to be real Native Americans who live in a different world and time. After they tell each other their drug-influenced dreams, Victor remembers a story that Thomas once told him about skeletons. Victor then explains how he once got a little drum from Big Mom, a spiritual leader of the tribe.

About the characters and their individual roles, by Aiko Oshima

I think that Thomas plays the role of storyteller. He always talks about this story without using drugs. He knew their dreams are no more than their hopes. I think Victor is the most important character. He is the hero of the story. He does not feel comfortable to be a Native American at first, and he thinks that Thomas is strange.

However, although he could not fully understand Thomas, he was influenced by Thomas. He had a hard time telling what the truth is but he grows grew up through the story. I think Junior is not a clear character. He belongs to the young generation, thus he is called “Junior.” He drives a car and, in Victor’s dream, he acts like a modern rock star. He seems to represent young Native Americans.

The content and significance of Thomas's dream
In his dream, Thomas sees Victor stealing a horse and riding by moonlight. After he steals the horse, he and the horse pass by a blind man (he was this horse’s owner). But, in spite of the fact that the blind man smelled Victor riding the horse right in front of him, he thinks that it is only a dream. So, Victor rides the horse across the open plain in moonlight. The moonlight makes everything a shadow. When Victor asks the horse his name, he answers “Flight".

The horse's name, “Flight,” signifies running away from the white man. Thomas imagines that his Native American ancestors run away from the white people.
Maybe you may wonder why the horse cooperates with Victor, who comes to steal the horse. I think we can imagine Pegasus and the flying horse. Pegasus is very beautiful and free. Maybe this image is similar to the thoughts of Native Americans.

The Spokane Indians did not use horses traditionally until very late. For the Spokane tribe and other tribes of the Northwest, the image of horses and Indians is modern. The author suggests that Thomas is imagines things about his ancestors in a strange way. Thomas sees the Indians as if they were in a cowboy-and-Indian movie. But it is also true that the Indians were very good with animals and understood them. The dream takes that idea to an extreme. That is why the horse comes out and speaks to Thomas, I think.

Further impressions
I could not understand this story at first. I didn’t know about Indians until we read this story and listened to the teacher talk many times. So, I did not understand what the characters dreams mean. For example, in the first dream, I wonder why Victor steals a horse and why the horse can speak. But I can understand their thinking a little now. They have ideals about the Indians who are their ancestors. I think they want to run away from the present to the past.

I sometimes dream and see a different world, just like the characters. But since the dream is nothing but a dream, I feel sad and think that I must live in the present when I wake up from the dream. In relation to this, Victor realizes at the end of "A Drug Called Tradition" that he should not seek to recreate the past and should live in the present.

Everyone has ancestors, but a lot of people including me don’t know our ancestor's true character or appearance; however, if there were no ancestors, we would not exist. In spite of this, a lot of us don’t know about our ancestors or have mistaken images of them, like the characters in the story. This is very strange, but I think that, in a sense, there is nothing one can do about it. Victor's and Thomas's ancestors would never have imagined that their many descendants would study and think about them.

I was glad that through this study I was able to think of many kinds of things that I don’t think of in my daily life.

The content and significance of Junior’s dream, by Rie Osako

The white man gave Indian blankets that were infected with smallpox (天然痘) and killed many of them. Junior is the sole survivor. He is sick and runs a high fever. He takes off his clothes and splashes the water across his bare skin. And he dances a Ghost Dance. He dances one step and Indian revives. He dances other step and a buffalo falls from sky. The buffalo join Indian and their hooves shake the earth. Junior and the other Indians continue to dance until all white men return to Europe.

This dream signifies the Indians’ desire to push the white man away. Indians wanted to push away the white man, but they didn't. So I think this dream describes the desire Indians had. The dream made me sad. The white man gave Indians blankets which are infected with smallpox to kill Indians. Many Indians died. I was sad to learn the feeling Indians are robbed their land and killed by the white man.

I think the traditional role of drugs in some Native American cultures is to assist in performing miracles or having visions. Indians used natural drugs as medicine, too. They wanted to feel better or recover. When Alexie’s characters take drugs, they are acting "like Indians." They want to assimilate with their ancestors. But the drugs are also a problem for the Indians, like alcoholism, which is another disease they got from white men.

The origin of Junior's dream, prepared by Philip Adamek

Junior’s dream is based on the actual dream of an actual Native American. His name was Wovoka. His idea of the “Ghost Dance” became very popular among Native Americans in many parts of the country. The Indians danced it often, and it sometimes scared white men. The Ghost Dance was made illegal in some places. Eventually, it scared some white men so much that, on one occasion, they tried to stop the dancing and eventually killed about 300 Indians who had been dancing the Ghost Dance.

(Painting: The Ghost Dance.)

The Ghost Dance was the last desperate hope of the Plains Indians to regain the old way of life the white man had taken from them. It came from a vision by a medicine man named Wovoka. He said that in his vision he was carried to the afterworld, where all those who had died were living a happy life.

The Ghost Dance became very popular. Tribes as widely dispersed as the Sioux, Cheyenne, Comanche, Shoshone, and Arapaho began dancing and chanting to make the white man go away and the great buffalo herds return.

(image: Wovoka)

Wovoka that he had stood before God in Heaven, and had seen many of his ancestors engaged in their favorite pastimes. God showed Jack a beautiful land filled with wild game, and instructed him to return home to tell his people that they must love each other, not fight, and live in peace with the whites. God also stated that Jack’s people must work, not steal or lie. God said that if his people followed these rules, they would be united with their friends and family in the other world.

Information on the Ghost Dance comes from here and here.

The Third Dream; Victor sees Junior as a popular entertainer, by Shouko Nishibeppu

In this dream, there are a lot of fictions. For example, the President of the United States is said to be ‘Crazy Horse.’ The song lyrics describe a dream of the Indians that is like that of the Ghost Dance.

My thoughts
At first, I could not understand why Victor had such a dream because I did not know the back ground of Indians. The dream makes me sad because the reality is so different. It expresses Victor’s desire to change his ancestors’ history. I think his dream is not only his personal dream but a dream of Native Americans. Therefore, the dream is of great significances.

Scenes from the movie Smoke Signals

Chapter 11: How to Be an Indian
Thomas: Hey, Victor, what do you remember about your Dad?
I remember one time we had this fry bread eatin’ contest… and he ate 15 pieces of fry bread. It was cool.
Victor: You know, Thomas, I don’t know what you’re talkin’ about half the time.
Why is that?
Thomas: I don’t know.
Victor: I mean, you just go on and on, talkin’ about nothing. Why can’t you have a
normal conversation? You’re always tryin’ to sound like some damn medicine man or something.
I mean, how many times have you seen “Dances With Wolves”? A hundred, two hundred? Aw, geez. You have seen it that many times, haven’t you?
Don’t you even know how to be a real Indian?
Thomas: I guess not.
Victor: Well, shit. No wonder. Geez. I guess I’ll have to teach you then, ain’t it?
First of all, quit grinnin’ like an idiot. Indians ain’t supposed to smile like that. Get stoic... No, like this... You gotta look mean or people won’t respect you. White people will run all over you if you don’t look mean. You gotta look like a warrior. You gotta look like you just came back from killing a buffalo.
Thomas: But our tribe never hunted buffalo. We were fishermen.
Victor: What? You wanna look like you just came back from catching a fish? This
ain’t, “Dances with Salmon,” you know. Thomas, you gotta look like a warrior... There, that’s better. And second, you gotta know how to use your hair.
Thomas: My hair?
Victor: Yeah. I mean, look at your hair. It’s all braided up and stuff. You gotta free it.
An Indian man ain’t nothing without his hair. And last... You gotta get rid of that suit, Thomas. You just have to.

Thomas: Um, ‘scuse me. Those are our seats.
White passenger: You mean these were your seats.
Victor: No, that’s not what he means.
White passenger: Now listen up. These are our seats now, and there ain’t a damn
thing you can do about it. So why don’t you and Super Injun’ there find yourself someplace else to have a powwow. Okay?
Another passenger: Come on, now, boys. Just sit down.

Chapter 12: John Wayne’s Teeth
Thomas: Geez, Victor, I... I guess your warrior look doesn’t work every time.
Victor: Shut up, Thomas.
Thomas: Man, the cowboys always win.
Victor: The cowboys don’t always win.
Thomas: Yeah, they do. The cowboys always win... Look at Tom Mix... What about John Wayne? Man, he was about the toughest cowboy of them all, i’n’t it?

(Photo: the actor Tom Mix)

Victor: You know, in all those movies... you never saw John Wayne’s teeth. Not once.
I think there’s something wrong when you don’t see a guy’s teeth.

(Photo: the actor John Wayne)

John Wayne’s teeth
Hey-ya
John Wayne’s teeth
Hey-ya
Hey-ya, Hey-ya-hey
John Wayne’s teeth
Hey-ya
John Wayne’s teeth
Hey-ya
Hey-ya, Hey-ya, Hey
Are they false?
Are they real?
Are they plastic?
Are they steel?
Hey-ya, Hey-ya, Hey...

Are they plastic?
Are they steel?
Hey-ya, Hey-ya, Hey... etc.

About skeletons and Alexie’s ideas concerning ancestors, by Chiharu Inamura

It seems that the skeleton story told by Thomas (pp. 21-22) may represent the author’s opinion. The other characters do not seem to understand the story, but it seems to be an original Native American way of thinking.

I think that the idea of the skeleton in this part means both “bones (骨)” and “unreal image (虚像)”. The skeleton represents our past figure (過去の姿) and future figure (未来の姿) based on our present. That is to way, the skeleton shows our past figure and future figure as unseeable things that accompany us wherever we go.

Explanation
We always belong to our past figure and future figure, although we cannot see them or reach them entirely. We cannot fully contact them. Even if you don’t have a watch, the skeletons understand what time is it because they always are with us. But we can’t dance with them, Thomas says, which means that we can spend time with them even if we think about them often. That is, I think, why Victor says (that Thomas said) that we are trapped in the now (p.22 line 21) (いつも現在に縛られている) and that “Indian time” is “now.”

In brief, the author thinks that we always learn our history in many ways except from our real ancestors. Then we have lots of stereotypes about our history. However, we have to change our idea that the culture of the old times can be saved or lived in the present. Now, in the present, Native Americans have an original modern Indian culture. I think that the author thinks that both the old culture and the new culture are equally Indian culture. Therefore, the author criticizes stereotypes about Indians. He tries to show that although modern Native American culture is very different from ancient Native American culture, it is still Native American culture.

My opinion
When I first read the story, I couldn’t understand the characters. However, I understand now that the characters are modern Americans, although their ancestors were Indian. Therefore, their ideas of Indians come from modern media (movies and TV) and they do not know what their ancestors were like exactly.

In fact, this case seems similar for young Japanese these days. For example, some people might believe that their Japanese ancestors always wore kimono, and others might think that their Japanese ancestors always ate fish. However, the images of the ancestors have been made by the next generations gradually, which means, we haven’t learned from our ancestors directly, but only in school, or from our parents and grandparents, and in many other ways. After all, I think this story might be asking us, “Do you really know your ancestors? Don’t you have some simple, stereotypical, or false images of your ancestors? ”

In brief, I think that we have to stop thinking by stereotypes. And I want to learn the true history of my ancestors.

Explanation of the little drum, by Kotomi Nakayama

The little drum is a small pager in the shape of a drum. The drum is symbolic of Indian traditions, while the pager is symbolic of modern technology. The drum-pager thus brings together past and future. Victor got it from Big Mom, who was a spiritual leader of the tribe. Victor says, “I keep it really close to me, like Big Mom said (to do)…” Victor has never used the pager, but it represents the possibility of communicating with his ancestors. In this way, it seems to me that by the end of the story Victor has changed a little. He realizes, I think, that he does not need drugs and that he does not have to escape into the past. He understands that he must not approach his ancestors forcibly.

In the story, two instruments appear. First, in Victor’s dream, we see Junior playing a guitar. The guitar came from Spain, and so it is not part of traditional Native American culture. It was made famous in Western media. Second, there is the drum that Big Mom gave to Victor. The drum is a true Native American instrument and that is why Big Mom gives him a pager in the shape of a drum.

The relationship between skeletons and the little drum
According to the character Thomas, all persons have their own skeletons. We have a past skeleton and a future skeleton. The past skeleton is walking one step behind you, and the future skeleton is walking one step in front of you. The little drum has a past and a future, too. It is symbolic of Indian traditions, but the pager is symbolic of modern technology. Therefore, both the skeletons and the pager-drum are connections to the past and future that allow us to live at peace with ourselves in the present time.

Thomas says “ What you have to do is keep moving, keep walking, in step with your skeletons. They ain’t ever going to leave you, so you don’t have to worry about that. Your past ain’t going to fall behind, and your future won’t get too far ahead”(p.22). I think this sentence shows that the past behind you and future in front of you will not disappear, so you must not approach them forcibly. You should live at peace in the present.

My opinion
I couldn’t understand the story when I first read it. It is deep. However, I read it a few times and understood it gradually. This story’s author is a Native American, and his story describes young modern Indians trying to understand their own traditions, life, and ancestors. The characters in this story want to become Native American out of respect for their ancestors. They see illusions after taking drugs and in their dreams see each other as victorious Indians. However, their images of Indians come from Western media, not from their real ancestors. They are mistaken about various things. They take a drug to find their traditions, and finding their traditions is also like a drug: it makes them feel good to be victorious Indians. However, they cannot become Native Americans in this way. I felt pity for them. However, by the end of the story, Big Mom gives the little drum to Victor, and Victor seems to change a little; so, I think little drum’s influence is big. I think Alexie uses many ways in this story to describe the mental life of Native Americans today.

Extra documents:

Some words from Chief Joseph (born 1840, died 1904):

Our fathers gave us many laws, which they had learned from their fathers. These laws were good. They told us to treat all men as they treated us; that we should never be the first to break a bargain; that it was a disgrace to tell a lie; that we should speak only the truth.

For a short time we lived quietly. But this could not last. White men had found gold in the mountains. They stole a great many horses from us, and we could not get them back. The white men told lies for each other.


When I think of our condition my heart is heavy. I see men of my race treated as outlaws and driven from country to country, or shot down like animals.

I know that my race must change. We can not hold our own with the white men as we are. We only ask an even chance to live as other men live. We ask to be recognized as men. We ask that the same law shall work alike on all men. (The full speech is here.)

(Photo: Spokane Indian girl)
Thanks, everyone, for a fun class. -- Adamek

（日） The Beat Trial

I really would like to stop working forever--never work again, never do anything like the kind of work I'm doing now--and do nothing but write poetry and have leisure to spend the day outdoors and go to museums and see friends. And I'd like to keep living with someone -- maybe even a man -- and explore relationships that way. And cultivate my perceptions, cultivate the visionary thing in me. Just a literary and quiet city-hermit existence.

Allen Ginsberg

On this audio clip, we hear Allen Ginsberg reading and discussing his famous poem, "Howl."

On this audio clip, we hear Allen Ginsberg debating about drugs with his father in 1971.

The Beat Trial
A one-act play.

元山　千草 Allen Ginsberg, American poet
亀澤　好乃 Mr. Turtle, the lawyer
江口 佳央理 Judge Gucci
山田　祥子 Mr. Hillfield, salesperson
村山　麻美 Ms. Murayama, NHK reporter

村山: はい、村山です。私は今サンフランシスコの裁判所の前に来ています。今日はアメリカの詩人アレンゲンズバーグ氏の公然わいせつの裁判が開かれまが、ここでいったん、ＣＭに入ります。

Mr. Hillfield: Are your windows dirty? Have you any dirt in your house? Do you feel dirty yourself? Well, America's favorite company, Quick Clean, has just the product for you. If you use Quick Clean, you will never have to clean your windows again. Yes, Quick Clean will clean your whole house. Spray it everywhere. Spray it on your bed, spray it on your car, spray it on your children. Use Quick Clean, and even your children will look and feel clean. Indeed, the whole world feels clean with Quick Clean. Try Quick Clean… we promise that you will like it. Quick Clean!　
村山: これが１９５０年代にみられる典型的なコマーシャルですね。みなさん御存じのとおり、この時代、アメリカ政府はアメリカ人に新しい日用品を買わせるために攻撃的なテレビやラジオのコマーシャルを用いて、世界にその経済力をみせつけていました。それはすべてソビエト連邦に対する闘争であり、世界中の共産主義者がアメリカの脅威であることを悟られました。無情なコマーシャルは、アメリカを強く、そして共産主義者から救う方法としてアメリカ社会に広まっていきました。家やトースター、洗剤、おもちゃ、そして特に車などといったものを買うことは愛国的なことであるとして宣伝されました。さらに、共産主義者は、あらゆる場所で政府の人間に捕まえられ、国や国民にとっての脅威だと考えられていました。たくさんの芸術家、作家、役者のような伝統に従わないライフスタイルの人々は共産主義者に間違えられ、訴えられました。政府のブラックリストに載っていたたくさんの人々はちゃんとした仕事に就けなかった自らをBeatライラーズと呼んだ人々はそのような時代背景に反対し、伝統を守る人や商業本意の人に挑戦を始めた。これらの作家は独特の表現で主流のアンチコミュニストの宣伝に反抗し、１９６０年代のたくさんの社会運動に多大な影響を与えました。彼らは韓国やベトナムの戦争に反対し、ドラッグを使い、ジャズに感化されたような表現でたくさんの異なる政治的な考えを示しました。そして、大衆向けのスピーチやユーモアを使うことにより、重要な社会的疑問を投げかけました。彼らは、田舎で同じような家に住んでいる異性愛者達を批判し、自らは気の向くまま、街から街へ移り住む生活を送っていました。詩人、アレンはそのようなビート作家の一人でした。では、アレン・ギンズバーグ被告のいる法廷に入り、ミスター・ギンズバーグに反対する弁護士の主張を聞いてみましょう。

Mr. Turtle: Are you Mr. Allen Ginsberg?
Ginsberg: Yes.
Mr. Turtle: And did you write the poem called “America,” just last year, that is, in the fall of 1956?
Mr. Ginsberg: Yes.
Mr. Turtle: Mr. Ginsberg, do you know why you have been brought here today?
Mr. Ginsberg: To read my poem?
Mr. Turtle: No!... I will do that.
Mr. Ginsberg: Why, thank you.
Mr. Turtle: Mr. Ginsberg! (Turning to the judge) Your honor, I would like to read a few lines of Mr. Ginsberg’s poem, if I may.
Judge Gucci: Go ahead.
Mr. Turtle: I would like to ask Mr. Ginsberg to explain what the words of his poem mean. I think that everyone will understand that Mr. Ginsberg is a sick man, and that his poem is dangerous and should not be read by the young people of this country.
Now, Mr. Ginsberg, in your poem “America,” you ask, “When can I go into the supermarket and buy what I need with my good looks?” May I ask you, Mr. Ginsberg, what you mean by this?
Mr. Ginsberg: I sometimes watch TV.
Mr. Turtle: Mr. Ginsberg, are you listening to me?
Mr. Ginsberg: And that’s the feeling I get. The TV commercials and programs. They are filled with beautiful people who can do anything they want. They can have anything they want. They do not work.
Mr. Turtle: Mr. Ginsberg, whom are you talking to in this poem?
Mr. Ginsberg: To the reader.
Mr. Turtle: But you keep saying, “America,” “America,” “America…”
Mr. Ginsberg: Well, I’m talking to America.
Mr. Turtle: Mr. Ginsberg, who is “America”?
Mr. Ginsberg: That’s my question. I ask that same question in the poem. Who is accepted in America?
Mr. Turtle: But Mr. Ginsberg, in the same poem, you also write, “It occurs to me that I am America.” So, does that mean that you wrote this poem to yourself?
Mr. Ginsberg: If you think that I have a place in America, then “yes” is my answer.
Mr. Turtle: I do not believe this poem has a place in America. And I think it is quite crazy to write a poem to oneself. Now, let me give another example. In the same poem, you write, “I used to be a communist when I was a kid I’m not sorry.” What do you mean by that? Are you a communist today?
Mr. Ginsberg: I think communists are interesting people. Especially American communists.
Mr. Turtle: Answer my question. Are you a communist?
Mr. Ginsberg: I am afraid that I do not know, sir. But this trial is about a poem, right? Not about communists.
Mr. Turtle: This trial is about America.
Mr. Ginsberg: Oh, good. I like that topic. I wrote a poem about it last year.
Mr. Turtle: Mr. Ginsberg. This is a serious matter.
Judge Gucci: Mr. Turtle, you are not Senator Joe McCarthy, and this is not a hunt for communists. Please discuss the poem. ★

村山: まぁ、グッチ裁判長の言い分はなんておもしろいのでしょう！１９５０年代にマッカーシーは国中の何千ものアメリカ人と政府内の共産主義者を訴えました。彼のそのような運動は国に大きな恐怖を与え、多くの人々が共産主義者だという容疑のもと、逮捕されました。アレン・ギンズバーグもまた、共産主義者なのでしょうか？引き続き彼らの主張をきいてみましょう。

(Anti-Communist Senator Joe McCarthy)

Mr. Turtle: Mr. Ginsberg, you also wrote in the same poem that “I smoke marijuana every chance I get.” Do you smoke marijuana, Mr. Ginsberg?
Mr. Ginsberg: In my poem, I do.
Mr. Turtle: Mr. Ginsberg, I am not talking about your poem.
Mr. Ginsberg: I thought that’s what we were talking about.
Mr. Turtle: I mean, in real life, do you smoke marijuana?
Mr. Ginsberg: Well, it is not illegal, is it?
Mr. Turtle: No, but it is not normal.
Mr. Ginsberg: Well, I may not be normal, Mr. Turtle.
Mr. Turtle: Your poem is definitely not normal, and that is the problem.
Mr. Ginsberg: There is no such thing as a normal poem, Mr. Turtle.
Mr. Turtle: Mr. Ginsberg! Why do you say you smoke marijuana if you don’t really smoke it?
Mr. Ginsberg: Mr. Turtle, when I write the word “I,” I do not mean “I, Allen Ginsberg.”
Mr. Turtle: Who do you mean, then?
Mr. Ginsberg: America.
Mr. Turtle: I don’t understand.
Judge Gucci: Mr. Ginsberg, please answer the questions clearly.
Mr. Turtle: You also write, “America stop pushing I know what I’m doing.” So, you are talking to America, right? And you say that America is pushing, right?
Mr. Ginsberg: Yes.
Mr. Turtle: Whom is America pushing?
Mr. Ginsberg: The greatest minds of its generation. It is pushing them out. Making them go crazy. Beating them down.
Judge Gucci: Gentlemen, this is not a political discussion group. I will ask you one more time. Please talk about the poem.
Mr. Turtle: But, your honor, this man calls himself a “Beat poet.” To understand his poem, I have to know what he means by “beat poet” or “beat writer.”
Judge Gucci: OK, go ahead.
Mr. Turtle: Explain yourself, Mr. Ginsberg. What is a “beat writer?”
Mr. Ginsberg: Beat writers are down-and-out writers. They are not wealthy and powerful, and they do not take the side of the wealthy and famous. They side with those whom society has beaten down, with the excluded. But that is only one meaning of “beat.” “Beat” also, as you know, has a religious meaning. It refers to the blessed, as in the word “beatitude.” I like this second meaning, because in a commercial society, art plays a role like that of religion. It can be a spiritual guide to young people in particular. The beat writer works alone, not in groups, and the beat writer tries to develop his own inner self and mind. ★

村山: ギンズバーグ氏が今ビートライターについての説明をしました。ビートという考え方は２つの意味を含んでいます。１つは「負かされ、疎外された」という意味、そしてもう１つは「神の恵みを受けた、モノより心に関心のある」という意味です。

Mr. Turtle: So, I am supposed to believe that this poem is written by a down-and-out but blessed American writer?
Mr. Ginsberg: I think so.
Mr. Turtle: But what good is the poem?
Mr. Ginsberg: I cannot answer that question.
Judge Gucci: Mr. Turtle, do you have no more questions?
Mr. Turtle : No, your honor.
Judge Gucci: Then I will ask the jury to decide whether Mr. Ginsberg is guilty of public indecency. (Stands and talks to the students in the audience.) I will give you five minutes. Please tell me your decision when I return. (He leaves the room.)

村山:（驚いた様子で）はぁ、これは驚きました…。グッチ裁判長は皆さんに、ギンズバーグ氏が有罪か無罪か判決を下してもらおうと思っています。ここで皆さんに４，５人のグループを作って話し合ってもらいます。そしてそれぞれのグループに有罪か無罪か１つの答えを出してもらいます。

The judge returns.

村山: そしてこの判決の前に、コマーシャルをもう１つお送りしましょう。

Mr. Hillfield: Are you worried about Communists? Do Communists live near you? Do they talk to your children? Well, America's favorite company, Quick Clean, has a new product for you. Yes, Quick Clean now has a Communist Detector. It will help you to find Communists everywhere. Just turn this dial―like this―and if there are Communists near you, this little light will become red. Use Quick Clean's new Communist Detector, and you and your whole family will be free of Communism. Indeed, the whole world will be free with Quick Clean. Try Quick Clean's Communist Detector…. we promise that you will like it. Quick Clean!
Judge Gucci: OK, if you think Mr. Ginsberg is guilty, please raise your hands. (Pause) And if you think Mr. Ginsberg is innocent, please raise your hands.
The defendant is guilty/ innocent.

The actors come to center-stage and bow.

END OF PLAY

READ ALLEN GINSBERG'S POEM "America."

HISTORICAL TRIAL: What was the consequence of the real trial?

The main reason the poem was attacked is that it contained strong language. Today, strong language is used everywhere--in poetry, in books, in movies. However, the 1950s were very different from today. As this article explains, the fact that the editor of "Howl" was proclaimed innocent meant that other books could use "dirty words" and not be confiscated. The victory of "Howl" was a victory for the freedom to use many kinds of English. It also made "Howl" and the City Lights bookstore (where it was sold) very popular.

As Allen Ginsberg said (in the interview linked to above):

"It (the poem) got to be well known... because it was of some real sincerity and quality, and it was a genuine person writing about genuine life. And then the police were trying to ban genuine life, so it just turned into, like, a cause célèbre."

Question: What do you think Ginsberg means by the expression "a genuine life."

The Beat Period, Yoshino Kamesawa

.The United States faught against Soviet and world communism.

.Women and blacks had gotten many jobs during World War II, but many lost their jobs after the war was over because there wasn't much need for weapons and arms.

.The U.S. government needed a lot of money to win the space race after the Soviets took the lead by being the first to go around the Earth in space (in "Sputnik").

.The U.S. government realized the power of TV to strengthen its consumerist society. They began to use TV to make people want to buy many things. As the result, the economy continued to grow after the war, and the TV had a very big influence on the culture generally.

.While material wealth increased, there were others who prefered spiritural and intellectual power. Some of these writers became known as "Beat writers."

A Culture of Containment, Chigusa Motoyama

What is the "Beat" Generation and what is a "Beatnik"?

After World War II, life in America was infested with a Culture of Containment (封じ込めの文化). Exemplified best by McCarthyism, there was a containment of communism and a explosion of consumerism (消費主義). Men went off to work, and women were contained in their houses. People who didn't adapt to American society ware contained in mental hospitals or prisons. It seemed like everyone else would have a job, security, and happiness.

A few writers at the time, however, found that such a society was too restrictive. The small group of writers threw away the rich American life to create a greater sense of being alive. In objecting to the conservative society, many of them listened to jazz, had goatees, and approved of drugs, alcohol, free sex, and homosexuality. Allen Ginsberg, the author of the poem "Howl," Jack Kerouac, and William S. Burroughs were the nucleus of the group. They called themselves the "Beat Generation."

The word "beat" has two meanings. On one hand, "beat" has negative meanings like "having been cheated or defeated," and "having no money." On the other hand, "beat" has a positive meaning, as in the similar, religious words "beatitude" and "beatific." So they thought of themselves as people who, although they were cheated and excluded from mainstream society, were nonetheless more spiritually alive then most people. In this sense, they were blessed with a life much richer than that of rich and thoughtless Americans.

People who thought that the beat generation was a serious threat to American society often called them "beatnik" after the name of a Soviet Union satellite called "Sputnik." The beat writers didn't like to be called "beatnik" because they saw it as a cheap stereotype. Beat literature is part of American culture, too, and they felt that their role in America was important. You may think that they are strange, dirty, and incomprehensible, but I don't think the beats had only a bad influence on American society. They warned Americans not to let their freedoms be taken away.

About Allen Ginsberg, Mami Murayama

Allen Ginsberg (June 3,1926-April 5,1997) was an American poet. He is known as a beat writer. His father was a highschool teacher and a poet. He was a Jewish immigrant from Russia. Allen Ginsberg's mother was also an immigrant from Russia. She suffered from a mental disease.

Allen entered Columbia University. He was going to become a college professor or lawyer in accordance with his father's wish, but he came under the influence of friends who later became representatives of the Beat Generation. Once, he wrote some strong language on the University dormitory's wall.Because of it, he was thrown out of Columbia University.

He returned to school but left again after only three weeks.

When he was 30, his mother died. After that, he received the doctor's diagnosis. The doctor said to Allen, "Be yourself". These two events were an opportunity for him to write poems.

He announced "HOWL" in poetry reading that was held in San Francisco. This influenced many people and was spoken of very highly. It was the start for Allen Ginsberg as a poet.

He wanderded around America and Africa, reading his poems. He participated in pacifism, anti-nuclear power plant demonstrations, gay pride demonstrations, and demonstrations to protect the coral reefs in Shiraho, Japan.

He was killed by liver cancer in his apartment in New York at the age of 71. Before he died, he wrote "Death and Fame," which was read at his funeral.

（土）Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, Part II

A few words about Thoreau

Henry David Thoreau spent one night in jail because he didn't pay tax money that could be used to attack Mexico. He disagreed with slavery, and the government supported slavery in the South.

Thoreau was born (1817-1862) in Concord, Massachusetts. He had many jobs. He was an American author, philosopher (哲学者), poet, and environmental scientist. Actually, he lived in the forest for a few years and wrote Walden about his life there.

He was informed by variety of philosophies. He was familiar with modern philosophy and he studied ancient scriptures (聖書) carefully, classical Greek and Roman philosophy, and literature of Asian traditions. Many people were influenced by Thoreau's philosophy; for example, his friend, Emerson, and the German idealists.

In 1837, he began to write. In "Civil Disobedience," he insisted that people should act on what they believe to be right. He said that people in the U.S have strong patriotism (愛国心) and that it often causes them not to doubt what the government does. He felt frustration with the people who disagreed with the attack on Mexico but did not resist the government. By not paying his poll tax, he wanted to show the importance of acting on one's conscience (良心). Our conscience is ours alone. No one can give it to us. No one can take care of it for us.

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE (part 2 of 3 parts)

You must act on your conscience

Paragraph 1
Thoreau said that people have patriotism, and that this causes them not to do the right thing. Although they know the government's actions are not good, they don' try resisting the government because of their patriotism. The United States has two distinct areas, the South and the North. Each has a different attitude toward slavery. Thoreau wonders why they don't separate. Slavery does not fit their conscience.

Paragraph 2
All people have a conscience. Thoreau thinks we should not be satisfied simply to have a good opinion. You must act under your opinion. For example, if someone steals your money, what will you do? You will try to get your money back and try to prevent the person from stealing money from you again. In the same way, the people should reject slavery.

Paragraph 3
Generally, people want to reform unjust（不正な）laws, but only a few people are willing to act. So such persons act by themselves. A few people begin to realize that they are right. Many people don't act by themselves. They see a wise man as a crazy man. Christ, Copernicus, and Luther are respected by people long after their deaths, but they were treated badly for acting on their conscience. Thoreau thinks that we should all act on our conscience.

In my understanding, according to Thoreau's ideas, if I meet a new situation, I have to decide whether it is right or not. I must think according to my conscience and have to act myself. Some time it may be difficult for me, but if I stop acting for myself, it means that I will be acting for the sake of others. I will be like a machine.

Ai Muroya

When to stop the machine

Paragraph 4
There were various laws for each crime. For example, if a man stole money, he would be put in prison for a certain number of months. It is decided in advance how long a prison sentence each crime deserves. However, in Thoreau's time, there was no clear penalty for resisting the government by not paying taxes, so Thoreau was put in prison for an undetermined period of time. There was no clear penalty for not paying one's tax. If a man stole money, it only means that he wants money, but if Thoreau or someone else chooses not to pay the tax for reasons of conscience, it means he doesn't support the government. This is perhaps why the penalty jail time remained unlimited.

Paragraph 5
Thoreau thinks of the government as a machine. A machine is not a person and does not have the power of living beings. Machines never accomplish anything without people's assistance; they need people power. Like many machines, the government has many parts. Some parts may be bad. They may not work well or they may be annoying. For instance, the chain on a bike is annoying, because it is dirty. However, some of these annoying parts are necessary for the machine to work well, and we cannot do anything about it. It is not worth the trouble of going against the whole government simply because it is not perfect. However, if the government begins to require its citizens to support terrible actions (like slavery and stupid wars), the people should reject the entire government, and not just parts of it. This is what Thoreau means when he writes, "Let your life be a counter friction to the machine." A "counter friction" is an obstacle to the machine; it makes the machine slow down and stop. Thoreau thought that it was time not to obey the government, because the government was not bad only in parts, it was bad as a whole.

Paragraph 6
Thoreau doesn't think people can change the government by the ways which are given by the government. It cost people too much time to change whole government. People were born not to change the government and make the whole world better but simply to live in the world. Therefore, no one person has the responsibility of changing the whole world or improving the whole government. The important things is not to do what you think is bad, even if the thing is an order of the government. Not doing what you know is wrong is a duty for everyone. The duty can be found in their conscience.

Paragraph 7
Thoreau thinks people who were against the government should act on their opinions. They shouldn't wait until they are a part of the majority. Not all majority groups are right. The most important thing is to be free to follow one's conscience. If most believe the wrong thing and only one man believes the right thing, the big group seems to be a majority in general, but from the viewpoint of who is more right, the man single man is in fact in the majority. Thoreau argued this way to encourage his fellow abolitionists not to hesitate in fighting against slavery.

I learned from Thoreau that is important to explain and support my opinions with theory. When he wants to say that we shouldn't obey a bad government, he describes the government as a machine. It is easy to understand and a persuasive explanation. There is much persuasion in his opinion, but if I were alive in that period, I couldn't support him. I don't have as much courage as he had. To act different from the majority of people is too difficult. Still, I admire him for his courage.

Nao Iwakawa

The importance of obeying one's conscience

Paragraph 8
Thoreau has a neighbor who collects taxes for the government. Thoreau wonders whether the officer will treat him kindly or be rude. If he acts on the basis of his conscience and is honest, he may treat Thoreau justly; but he is a tax collector. If he does his job unquestioningly, he will put Thoreau in jail. Thoreau thinks many people do not obey their conscience because they fear the government. He thinks that the more honestly people act, the sooner slavery will disappear, because there will be no one to support the government and it will not be able to continue war and slavery.


Paragraph 9
The government imprisons people who do not pay their taxes. However, Thoreau thinks that prison is the best place for him because in prison he can be an example of resistance to the government. In prison, he can confirm that his true idea is much better and more stronger than the government's wrong idea. The government attacks Mexico to widen slavery and its actions are violent and bloody. Contrary to this, not paying taxes is not violent and bloody. The government wants to get more money because carrying out the war takes a lot of money, and Thoreau thinks that if many people refuse to pay their taxes, the government may have to give up the war and stop supporting slavery. The government needs public officers to gather taxes, and Thoreau thinks the war and slavery will be finished if government workers quit their jobs and refuse to obey it. 　　　

Paragraph 10
Thoreau regards having more money as having less goodness. If we have much money, we do not care of paying money very much. For example, if you had 100,000,000 yen and you want to buy brand-named goods that cost 100,000 yen, you would not hesitate to buy them. However, if you have only 1,000 yen, you would think carefully about what you should pay or buy and whether you need it or not. Therefore, people who have a lot of money pay their taxes easily and purchase things easily and do not think about the consequences of their tax-paying or of their buying things. They do not think about slavery or unjust wars. The government treats people who pay taxes kindly and helps them to stay rich. Speaking about money, Thoreau discusses the following story from the Bible:

Some followers of Jesus asked Jesus, "You say that you are our leader. Should we give our tax money to you, then, or to Caesar?" When asking Jesus this question, they wanted to test him. If he said, "to Caesar," then, they might think, Caesar would seem more powerful than Jesus. But if Jesus said, "to me," then Jesus would do an illegal thing, by taking money that does not belong to him. Jesus answered the men by saying, "Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God those things which are God's" This can be restated like this: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." In this sentence, Caesar represents a political leader, like a president, and God represents a spiritual leader, like Buddha. The men asked God, "Should we pay taxes to you?" and he said," You should pay it not to me but to Caesar because his image is stamped on the coin and so it belongs to him." In this way, Jesus showed that there are two kinds of leaders: political and spiritual. Jesus is not a tax-collecting leader. Like Thoreau, he wants men and women to behave justly, even if the consequences of one's actions are terrible. However, unlike Thoreau, Jesus does not say whether to pay or not to pay taxes. He says that money does not concern him at all. For Thoreau, the taxes are not important as money; they are symbols of agreement or disagreement.



This means the ideas of our conscience -- of what is right and wrong -- have nothing to do with our obligations towards the government. He uses this expression to make many people realize they should obey their ideas.

In my opinion, many people don't act on their conscience because they fear losing the goverment's support. Because of this, they tend to be self-centered. I think it is important have courage enough to obey our consciences.

Ayami Ijichi


The cabin that Thoreau lived in alone for two years in Walden Pond, Massachusetts.

Laws and the Law

On paragraphs 11-14:

As we studied last week, Thoreau didn't obey the government by not paying his poll tax. The reason why he did so was that he obeyed his conscience. In contrast, since many people around him feared that their property would be endangered by acts of disobedience, they obeyed the government by paying their poll tax. Thoreau thought that if people want to live without losing their property, it is impossible to live honestly since they have to show outward respect toward the government.

After he was put in jail, he spent one night there. In the jail cell, there was a wall of stone. At first sight, we think that the wall can restrict humans because people are separated from the outside by it. This is obviously true, but Thoreau says that the prison walls can restrict only our bodies. However, how about our thoughts? Our thoughts remain free wherever we go.

The most important thing Thoreau thought about was the law of one's conscience. The laws of states are written in the plural form, "laws." However, the law of conscience is written in the singular form, "law." What is the difference between them? Each state has many laws, so there are many laws in the country. Talking about the law of conscience, each person has his or her own original standard. We can't find the same law of conscience in the world. There is only one law of conscience that each person has. In addition, if people don't obey the laws of state, they may be punished by the state. However, if they don't obey the law of their own conscience, no one punishes them, but they may have a sense of guilt. This is the biggest difference. The laws can be changed and are never perfect. However, the law of conscience remains both individual and permanent. It does not change from year to year. Therefore, Thoreau thought the law of conscience is higher than the laws of the state.

It was difficult for me to understand the essay because there are many peculiar expressions in it. When reading it, I thought that Thoreau was a brave man. It is easy to tell or think my own thoughts, but it is not so easy to act in the right way. Most of us are inclined towards others' opinions. However, we have our own will. We must carry out our intentions even if everyone around us is against us. To have a strong will, and to act on it: these are the important things that Thoreau wanted to encourage, I think.

Naoko Fujinaga

（金）Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, Part I

Civil Disobedience Part One

The American Government

Paragraphs 2 and 3
Henry David Thoreau thinks that government does not have the power and force of actual human beings. Government is powerless without people themselves. But government is still necessary. Government can enforce the law and should help people to live and to prevent fights among the people. But government never accomplishes anything by itself unless it does so by getting out of the way. As Thoreau says, "It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate (the people)." Henry David Thoreau wants a government that responds to the needs of the people.

Paragraph 4
People follow the law even they think it is not right, because governments are physically strong. If there are six people in a company and two people disagree with some idea, the two have to follow them even their conscience tells them not to. Most people think war is not good in the world. They hope for peace. But most people also think that we need to go fight if a few people in the government decide to go to war. Thoreau thinks it is not desirable to have too much respect for the law, since the law can be abused by only a few men for selfish reasons.

I understand what Henry David Thoreau wanted to say, because I was thinking about Japan. People want to stay with a group all the time, especially in school. They cannot say "no" even if they don't want to do something. I think Japanese people should respect their conscience and say what they think. It is important to respect our own ideas of what is right. If we don't, then we become like machines.

Nozomi Nakamura

The three kinds of men

A slave state was a U.S. state that enslaved African Americans. Slavery was one of the causes of the American Civil War and was abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in 1865.(Thoreau finished his essay in 1849 and died in 1862.)


The free and slave states as of 1861, with free states in blue and slave states in red. This map shows the United States after the war against Mexico (1846-1848).

My comments on Paragraphs 5-7:

In Paragraph 5, Henry David Thoreau explains that there are 3 types of men. First, there are men, such as soldiers, who use their bodies without their conciences to serve the state. Second, there are men who use only their heads. They are politicians or ministers. They control the first men. Although they use their heads and have power, they also do not act on their moral sense.
The third type of men, who are extremely rare, act on their conscience, on what they believe to be fair and true. They are reformers or political rebels. They try to improve the state when the state is bad. Thoreau says that a "very few... serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part." In other words, most men of conscience serve the state by resisting it.

In Paragraph 6, Thoreau argues that there is a difference in how the three types of men are viewed by society. On the one hand, the first and second types are believed to contribute to the welfare of the country, so they are called benefactors or philanthropists, while, on the other hand, the third type is believed to be useless and selfish. However, Thoreau thinks that the third type is the most useful to society because only the third type uses their body, mind, and their conscience.

In paragraph 7, how did the American government behave then? Henry David Thoreau said that he will not support the government as long as it is a slave state. It would be a disgrace to support it. These are his firm beliefs. Thoreau was jailed for his refusal to pay taxes to support the war, and penned his famous essay, "Civil Disobedience," after he got out of prison.

Shouko Matsumoto

Voting, Political Parties, and Duty

In Paragraph 11, Thoreau argues that voting is weak way to resist the government’s war against Mexico. Voting relies upon other people and requires the majority to vote for what is good or right, but the majority, which has the most power, usually only wants to help itself. People should vote to secure the full rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, and not simply to support a majority. However, voting is always a weak way to resist because it relies upon chance and the majority.

In Paragraph 12, Thoreau explains why he does not support political parties. The party leaders decide who will be the candidates for the whole party and country. To vote for such candidates is like voting as a foreigner who does not understand the reasons why each candidate has been chosen. It is random and not based on knowledge. Therefore, Thoreau is not interested in the men who are chosen by powerful political parties to be candidates. He does not believe that the government should be composed on the basis of only a few men's opinions.

In Paragraph 13, Thoreau says that although it is not a man’s duty to end bad things, it is a man’s duty not to support them. People who pay taxes in a time of war support the war because their tax money is not only used to pay for the war, it is also a symbol of faithfulness and support. The thinking public say that they will not fight and that the war and slavery are no good, but these men do not act on what they know to be true; through their tax money, they support the war. However, because Thoreau was opposed to the war and to slavery, he did not pay his taxes and was put in jail.

I first thought that Thoreau was a bad man because he did not pay his taxes and was put in jail. However, I understand that he may be a rare but great person who was right to oppose war and slavery. Also, it is important that he thought that only talking was not enough. And he showed this idea in his own actions. Such thinking is marvelous. I think that his aggressive action was very important and that, with people like him, America can change for the better.

Minami Fukumoto

When and Why Should I Act?

1. A guide to Thoreau-related Internet sites

2. A few words about Thoreau's life and some of his famous words

3. What did Henry look like?

First, I want to say something about the Declaration of Independence (アメリカ合衆国独立宣言). What were its main ideas?

It was necessary for Americans to free themselves from political regulation by England, because people in the American colony paid taxes to England, but they couldn't vote. People living in the colony didn't have full rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some of them wanted to stand up to England and declare their equality as human beings (and some of them did not). In the argument of the Declaration, governments are established among men to protect these rights. However, if the government does not protect people's rights, a new government must be created. It is founded on such principles and organization for and by the people. In this way, the government is most likely to protect and improve their safety and happiness. So, the main idea of the Declaration is that a government is an artificial creation. It is made to help the people. If it does not help the people, the people should reject it.

This is important to understand because, in resisting the government, Thoreau respected the main idea of the United States Declaration of Independence.

My explanation of paragraphs 8-10:

Paragraph 8
Is the time to resist now or should we wait?
One of every six people living in America at the time was a slave. The government taxed the people to its own advantage. Mexico was unfairly overrun and conquered by the America army (in the two-year Mexican-American war), and was controlled by strict military law. For these reasons, Thoreau writes in "Civil Disobedience" that he thinks that "it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and reform." This means that, for him, individuals needed to hurry up in resisting the government. That's is to say, Thoreau believe that, no matter what the consequence, because the government is bad, individuals should resist it now and not wait any longer.

Paragraph 9
Should we act or consequence of resisting the government?
This paragraph compares acting for the good with the idea of acting for good consequences. Thoreau did act, because he didn't pay tax without worrying about the results of his action. Therefore, he was put in jail for one one night. On the other hand, William Paley, an English theologian & philosopher, believed that it was right to consider the consequences of actions before deciding to act. He thought of his own advantage and judged decisions by a standard of convenience, so he didn't reflect too much on the principle. Instead of the question, "Is my act good or is it bad?," he asked,"are the consequences of my act going to be good or bad?" (On Paley) Thoreau, however, was not a practical thinker. For him, the American people must not support slavery and must not support the war against Mexico, no matter if the consequences are terrible (for instance, if the government is destroyed).

Paragraph 10
Who is the enemy?
This paragraph talks about the people of Massachusetts. Americans seem to agree with Paley's thinking. Nobody wants Massachusetts to do the right thing if the consequences are bad. The Union is divided between the free North and the slave South, but few people want them to separate. Merchants and farmers--the people who make money--aren't willing to fight for the equality of slaves and freedom of Mexicans. They returned slaves to the South and thought about their money, so they thought only about their own advantages. However, their thinking gradually changed. Some politicians understood that as one big country, the Union would be powerful. Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War against the South, because the South wanted to leave the Union. However, he defeated the South to keep the Union together.

But the Civil War came at the end of Thoreau's life. During his life, he saw the North and South cooperate to keep slavery going. That is why Thoreau said that, of 1,000 men, 999 people only talk about what is right to do, while only one does the right thing; 999 people out of 1,000 said that the "government is bad, it's not fair, keeps slaves, etc...", but Thoreau was a rare man because he did not believe that talking was good enough. For him, the people of Massachusetts acted like Paley.


(自由の女神像)

My feeling about these paragraphs and Thoreau.
In reading Thoreau's essay, I understood some historical background for the economy, life, and politics of America and England. Before I understood Thoreau's thinking, I thought he must be a bad man, because he didn't pay his tax (called a "poll-tax"). However, now that I know why he didn't pay it, I see that he was one of the only men who put his ideas into action. The paragraphs I studied were difficult to understand, but the content is interesting and contains a variety of comparisons (analogies or metaphors). In the end, I agree with Thoreau: if a single man does not act on his conscience, then the American government, or any government, will not change for the better.

Rina Ishihara

The Mexican-American War 1846-1848

Here is a map of the United States in 1840, six years before the War.

And this is a map from 1870. At this time, much of the land taken from Mexico has become "US territories" (shown in light blue). The "territories" will later become states.

Why did the war happen?

The main reason for the war was the idea, very popular among American politicians, that American had a "manifest destiny" to conquer all the land to the Pacific Ocean (where California is today). This means that President Polk and many others believed that God had given them the right to destroy all people who opposed their plans to expand the United States to the West.

How did the war start?

To gain support for the war, the U.S. President, James Polk, sent soldiers into Mexico, hoping they would be attacked. Some of them were. In the spring of 1846, 16 soldiers were killed while trespassing in Mexico. The President claimed that they were killed in the United States and, by this lie, he got the support of many Americans. Abraham Lincoln asked the President to show the exact spot (or place) where they were killed, but the President never did.

Moreover, in those years, many Americans developed racist attitudes towards Mexicans, and this racism helped to support the war against Mexico.

How many people were killed?

The United States lost 13,780 people. Many of them were German and Irish immigrants who fought for the United States only to get money.

About 25,000 Mexicans were killed; most of them women, children, and other non-fighters. The United States bombed Mexican cities.

What were some consequences?

Famous Americans such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, former president John Quincy Adams, and Henry David Thoreau protested against the war. The anti-war movement was also an anti-slavery movement. At the end of the war, Texas became a slave state. New US territory included Texas, California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The United States took 40% of Mexican land.

Philip Adamek

Life As a Counter Friction: Introduction to "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau

Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.
-- Henry David Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience"

What is "civil disobedience?"

Civil disobedience has several slightly different meanings or theories, depending on who has defined and used it.

The first person to write about the idea was Henry David Thoreau. He was an American writer who was famous for living alone in the woods and for writing about nature. In 1849, he published an essay, "Resistance to Civil Government" (that was later called "Civil Disobedience.")

The main idea of the essay is that, to be a good person, one must NOT depend on others. As Thoreau wrote, one must "get off another man's back." Indeed, one must do what one's own conscience(良心)says is the best thing to do. For Thoreau, it is important that everyone be "self-reliant" (自立心, as in「自立心を持つ」) and not depend on voting, democracy (other men's opinions), consequences of one's actions, and material possessions. That is, one must be free to obey one's conscience. "To obey," here, means: to do what one's conscience says is right, and not only to think it or to talk about it. If everyone acts according to his or her conscience, then, as individuals, they will resist, and therefore improve, their own government. As a consequence, they will be able to live together in dignity (威厳).

Because of his values, Thoreau does not seem at all like a modern American. However, his influence has been very great. He especially influenced Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, who both read Thoreau's essay carefully and became famous for practicing non-violent civil disobedience. Martin Luther King Jr. fought against racism and poverty in the United States, and Gandhi fought against British control of India. All of these men had to go to jail for their actions. And all of them were widely respected for their bravery (勇気).

Reading "Civil Disobedience."

Small Goverment Is Good Government

To begin our reading, I note that, in Paragraph 1, Thoreau says, famously, that "that government is best which governs least." In other words, government should not become too powerful, because men need to be independent from it. In the same paragraph, Thoreau says that governments are "at best but an expedient." An expedient is something that is used temporarily to achieve some goal. For instance, if I want to take a book from a top shelf but cannot reach the shelf, I will use the expedient of a chair or a ladder. When I have taken the book down, I will no longer need the ladder. The ladder is there to serve me. I am not the servent of the ladder. The ladder, in this case, is a metaphor for government as Thoreau sees it. By itself, the ladder can accomplish nothing. To be useful, it needs the power of people. And it is only good when it responds to what the people know is right and just behavior.

Unlike bookstore ladders, however, most governments do not work well. As Thoreau says, "the government itself... is... liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it." In other words, government does not respond to the people's idea of what is right and good. Rather, it serves only the interest of a few people (usually men) who take control of the government. For Thoreau, the best example of this is the war against Mexico. That is why, at the end of Paragraph 1, he asks the reader to take as an example of bad government,

"the present Mexican war, the work of comparitively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool..."

In other words, only a few people, including President James Polk, decided to go to war against Mexico. Most Americans were not involved in the decision. Moreover, informed Americans knew that the war was imperialistic and wrong.

Thoreau thought that the politicians who started the war had abused their power in government. To stretch the metaphor of the bookstore ladder, it was as if someone had taken the ladder and started to kill customers with it by hitting them on the head. If the ladder is used so violently, then the people should resist those who have abused it and make the ladder again serve them expediently (only when necessary).

For Thoreau, the war against Mexico called for "civil disobedience." This means that, in his opinion, people must stop supporting their own war-making government, even if the consequence is that the government is destroyed and the North and South are divided. As Thoreau argued, the best way to stop supporting the government is not to pay one's taxes.

In my own opinion: I think it is important to remember that, at the time Thoreau wrote, there were no modern corporations. Today, corporations dominate our societies, control our governments, and dominate the lives of individuals. Therefore, the little government control that remains is all the people have, in many cases, to protect themselves from corporations. Thoreau could not imagine this situation in 1849; so it is understandable that, for him, government should be small. At the time Thoreau wrote, it was easy to imagine self-reliant individuals who oppose government power and who always want less government. Today, however, to remain independent, healthful, and prosperous, an individual often needs the government (or sometimes lawyers) to offer protection against polluting, annoying, violent, cruel, secret, unfair, selfish, all-powerful corporations (which Noam Chomsky has called "常識のない暴君"). I think it would be a good idea to write a new "Civil Disobedience" but to call it, instead, "Corporate Disobedience;" that is, disobedience to the corporations that weaken and control our minds.

Philip Adamek

Martin Luther King Jr. : Important Dates

1929 : Birth.
1955 : Ph.D. in philosophy from Boston University.
1963 : Organizes a bus boycott in Alabama to protest segregated buses. His house is bombed, and he is put in jail. Writes "Letter from a Birmingham Jail."
1964 : The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ends segregation in America.
1964 : Becomes the youngest person ever to receive the Nobel Peace Price (age 35).
1965 : The Voting Rights Act gives more blacks and poor people the power to vote. People no longer need to pass a test to be able to vote.
April 4, 1967 : Speech at Riverside Church condemns the Vietnam War.
April 4, 1968 : Is killed by a gunman in Memphis, Tennessee.

(木) Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence

Who was Martin Luther King Jr. and what was his speaking style?

Please see this page.

Here is my summary of the page's contents: Martin Luther King Jr. was born in 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia. After he graduated from Morehouse College, he went to Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania State (see picture below).

In 1951, he began doctoral studies in Systematic Theology at Boston University and received his Doctor of Philosophy in 1955. He visited India because he was invited by the prime minister of India in 1957. At that time, he received the influence of Mahatma Gandhi by studying Gandhi's doctrine of "non violence and resistance doctrine."

As an African-American, he was discriminated against many times. For example, when he was a boy, he was playing with the two white boys who lived next door when their mother said, "I will never allow my children to play with Martin." And, when he was a high school student, he got on the bus but was forced to hand over his seat to a white person. King gave a speech on August 28, 1963 that is known as the "I Have a Dream" speech in which he called on the government to end segregation. He also gave a speech in 1967, "Beyond Vietnam - A Time To Break Silence," in which he insisted that the government of America should use money not for the war but for the poor.

Second, I will give examples of his speaking style.

This is the audio and text to "Beyond Vietnam - A time To Break Silence" from 1967.

Please watch and listen to "I Have a Dream" from 1963.

The style of his speech is very individual. He spoke in loud voice, slowly. He made passionate speeches and seemed a little angry. In the 1963 speech, he used the expression, "I have a dream," many times. He also used the expression, "Now is the time," and "Let freedom ring" many times, and this created a unique rhythm. He spoke in very strong rhythm and his English was easy to understand. As King begin to end his speech, his voice became louder, he started repeating certain phrases, and the people in the crowd would get louder and louder, too. This "call-and-response" style comes from the Baptist Church of which King was a member.

This was the first time that I had become aware of his speaking style. I think that many people understood what he said because he made passionate speeches. I think the poor were saved by his movement such as making speeches.

Ran Nagasaki

A Fictional Interview

Q: Excuse me, Mr. King.
A: Yes?
Q: I'm Hiroe Sainohira, from NHK in Japan. I just saw your speech. May I ask you a few questions?
Q: O.K.

Q：What have you been doing for these last two years?
　（ここ２年にわたって、あなたは何をしましたか？）
A：I broke the act of betrayal of the people who remain silent. I spoke my desire. I requested an end to the destruction of Vietnam.
（私は差別などを見て見ぬ振りをして黙っている人たちの裏切り行為を破りました。そして、私の熱い思いを話ました。私は、ベトナムの破壊から根本的な逸脱を求めました。）

Q：What did people say to you about your speaking out？
　（それに対して人々はあなたに何といいましたか？）
A：People are “Why are you speaking out against the war?　“Why did you join the anti-war voices?” “Peace and human rights don't go together.”
（私の方針についてたくさんの人々が異議を唱えてきました。人々は‘なぜあなたは戦争について話しているのか？”‘なぜあなたは異議の声に加わるのか？”‘平和と人権は混合しない”などいいました。）

Q：Why did you say that a couple of years ago there was hope for the poor people of America?
（貧困な人々にとって輝いているときがあったそうですが、それはどのように見えましたか？）
A：It seemed that there was a real promise of hope for the poor－both black and white－through the government's poverty program. In it, there were experiments, hopes, new beginnings.
（貧困プログラムを通して黒人も白人も、貧困な人々にとって希望の真の約束があったように見えました。それには試み、希望新しい始まりがありました。）

Q:What can you do if the United States government will not use the money or energy necessary for poor people as long as it continues the war in Vietnam?
(ベトナムが破壊的な吸引管のような人間や技術やお金を探し続けさえすれば、アメリカは貧困な人々の必要な資金や復興エネルギーを投資しないだろうといいましたが、あなたはどうしましたか？)
A:I came to see war as an enemy to Americans and so I criticize war.
(私は戦争をますます敵として見るようになり、戦争を非難するようになりました。)

Q：What is a political form of the present United States?
（現在のアメリカの政治形態は何ですか？）
A：Today, the United States has a racial superiority complex
and it is militaristic.
（現在のアメリカの政治形態は、人種的優越感および軍国主義です。）

Q：What is the danger to a country like the United States that spends a lot of money on war every year?
（年々お金を使いすぎている国家はどうなってきていますか？）
A:A nation that continues year and year to spend more money on military defense than on programs to help its own people is a nation whose soul is dying.
(多くのお金を使いすぎている国家は精神の死に近づいています。)

Q: Thank you for your time, Mr. King.
A: Thank you.
.....................................................
It is easy for me to understand King's speech. Through the speech, I lear a lot of things about King's idea of a revolution of values and its background.

Hiroe Sainohira

Speech Background

King gave his speech, "Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence," at the Riverside Church in New York City in April of 1967.

Here is a page from the Riverside Church that explains why King spoke at the Riverside Church and the importance of King's ideas for America today. The main reason for his giving the speech is that he was invited to speak by a group called "Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam." As Mitchell K. Hall writes, this group was "the largest explicitly religious group formed to oppose the Indochina (Vietnam) War." The group had more than 40,000 members and included non-relgious members and members from different religions.

Thanks largely to the efforts of Martin Luther King Jr., in 1964, the United States of America declared equality between blacks and whites and the end to racial segregation (separation by the government of blacks and whites into different schools and different services). However, actually, there was no equality between them. In "Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence," King said, "we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel (悲惨な) irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools." On TV or other media, they pretended that blacks and whites were equal.

"We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear."

In other words, King and many others were angry with the government because, at that time, the United States had been attacking Vietnam for seven years and, although the government of the United states had declared equality between blacks and whites, it gave no support to its own social justice programs because it was using a lot of money for the war in Vietnam. It is for this reason that King gave his speech.

As King said,

"And finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them."

Many people criticized King because of his speech against the Vietnam War and against the government of the United States.

I think he has a very strong sense of justice. At the time that he gave the speech, many voices in the media criticized him. For instance, journalists Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon write that, "Time magazine called it 'demagogic (デマの) slander (悪口) that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi' (a communist radio station). The Washington Post made the patronizing comment (ひいきにする) that 'King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people.' In other words, American mass media hated Martin Luther King Jr. They criticized (苦しめた) King in many ways.

However, King is a hero now, for there is a national holiday for him; but this speech is largely forgotten. I think that he took an enormous risk because his speech was against the government and against the entire country's values.

I think the government of the United States was mean because it did not keep its promise that blacks and whites would have equal rights. It wasted a lot of money on the Vietnam War instead of using it end poverty and injustice in America. I am disappointed with the U.S. government. Today, many Japanese have a lot of complaints about the Japanese government. I wish someone like Martin Luther King Jr. would appear in Japan someday.

Rie Ishitsuka

What is Martin Luther King Jr.'s "revolution of values"?

In his speech, "Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence," Martin Luther King, Jr. talks about a "revolution of values." First, I will quote King, who said that he understood that, even though the government created a program to end poverty, "America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube (バキューム)." In other words, American government was taking money and energies away from people for Vietnam War in spite of their promises to help the poor people.

That is to say, King was concerned for how war affects the moral values of the entire nation. He argued that, "when machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the evils of racism (人種差別主義), materialism (物質主義), and militarism (軍国主義) will not be defeated." In my understanding, this means that if things and money are thought more precious than people, these three systems will continue. King worried about it.



Here is how King put the point:

"America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from re-ordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war."
–"Beyond Vietnam: Breaking the Silence," April 4,1967

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.(社会を向上させるプログラムよりも、軍の防衛に年々多くのお金を使い続ける国家は精神的な死に近づいている。)"
-"Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?," 1967 (This quote come from this Website)



The American government tried to defeat communism by killing people. King refused the system of communism, too, but he has a different idea from the government. He said, "communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or unclear weapons." He thought that communism will be defeated by changing people's values. If people continue racism, materialism, and militarism, communism will never disappear, because communism, despite all its problems, fought against racism and materialism.

I think that in spite of his speech, the American government hasn't changed. The value system of racism, materialism, and militarism remains. The government did a similar thing with its war in Iraq. I hope the American political system is reformed someday.

Masumi Fukuda

ブログの問題

リサーチ記事をブログに載せる際、投稿をクリックしますが、記事を書いている時は「HTMLの編集」機能を使って下さい。色々問題があるので「作成」は使わないで下さい。

Philip Adamek

(水) Bracero

Mexicans returning to Mexico after trying to the US across the New River before daylight in Calexico, California, in 2006.

Bracero, a song by Phil Ochs (click to listen).

Wade into the river, through the rippling shallow waters, steal across (こそこそ動く) the thirsty border (メキシコとアメリカ合衆国の間の砂漠のような南西部) , bracero. Come bring your hungry body to the golden fields of plenty, from a peso to a penny (メキシコからアメリカへ), bracero.

★　Oh, Welcome to California
Where the friendly farmers will take care of you

Come labor for your mother, for your father and your brother for your sister and your lover, bracero. Come pick the fruits of yellow, black the flowers from the berries. Purple grapes will fill your bellies.

★ repeat

And the sun will bite your body, as the dust will dry you thirsty, while your muscles beg for mercy, bracero. In the shade of your sombrero, drop your sweat upon the soil, like the fruit, your youth can spoil, bracero.

★ repeat

When the weary night embraces, sleep in shacks that could be cages, they will take it from your wages, bracero. Come sing about tomorrow with a jingle of the dollars, and forget your crooked collar, bracero.

★ repeat

And the local men are lazy, and they make too much of trouble, besides, we’d have to pay them double, bracero. But if you feel you’re falling (もし気分が落ち込んで), if you find the pace is killing (仕事のペースが落ちたら), there are others who are willing (仕事をしたいと思っている人間はほかにもたくさんいるんだぞ), bracero.

★　repeat

Phil Ochs' song is written about the people from Mexico who went to the U.S. for a limited period of time to work on a farm. The song consists of five parts, and the content gradually becomes ironic and sarcastic.

The appearance of laborers' tiredness and suffering is expressed in the song. The 3rd part especially describes their pain. A sombrero is a kind of Mexican hat for men that is tall with a wide, round edge. The last part of the song is written from the boss' viewpoint. The bosses controlled and used the braceros. Braceros got an unfair deal.

I said the content gradually becomes ironic. The song has repetitious parts.
I'm interested in the refrain, which says, "the friendly farmers will take care of you." The sentences are the same in the refrain, but the meaning is different. I think "take care" has a couple of meanings. In my opinion, it first means "pay attention to" the bracero. It has a good meaning, but I think it also has a negative meaning.

The last part expresses the boss's unfair attitude. The song made me sad when I discovered the meaning of the lyrics. When the bosses "take care of" the bracero, they actually take advantage of them. They use them and then make them leave. The bracero's pain and the boss's unfairness appear in the song, and I can imagine the bracero's suffering.

Ayano Ogura

What is "the Bracero Program" ?

"The Bracero program was originally a temporary contract labor program which was created by the U.S. and the Mexican governments. The 'braceros' were Mexican migrant workers. More than 4 million Mexican farm laborers emigrated to America, and thousands of impoverished Mexicans abandoned their rural communities and headed north to work as braceros."

"The Bracero program contributed to the growth of the agricultural economy. The braceros converted the agricultural fields of America into the most productive in the planet. The braceros, very experienced farm laborers, became the foundation for the development of North American agriculture."

(Quotes from this Farmworkers' Website )

The situation of the braceros was very severe.

"The bracero contracts were controlled by independent farmer associations and the 'Farm Bureau.' The contracts were in English and the braceros would sign them without undderstanding their full rights and the conditions of employment. When the contracts expired, the braceros were required to return to Mexico. In case of an emergency, the braceros could return to their native lands only with written permission from their boss."

(Quote from this Farmworkers' Website )

The Bracero Program ended by the introduction of machines like the one below in 1964.

About the conditions in which the braceros lived: some people did not have the place where they parked their trucks, took a bath, change the clothes, even go to the toilet. In addition, braceros were fingerprinted as part of the processing procedure, and were fumigated with DDT before being allowed to enter the United States.(Reference)

This page also discusses the conditions of their lives.

For instance, Leonard Nadel's photograph from 1956 of Central Valley farmworkers forced to stand naked in line to be sprayed with pure DDT. (The photographer was later arrested in Mexico for documenting "bracero" recruitment.)

I thought at first that the song was sung merrily, but it was not true. Actually, the song makes ironical remarks about farmers. I understood the irony after I learned about the Bracero Program. Braceros contributed to American development, but they were not given honor or enough money. I will remember that that Braceros were the basis of America's agriculture.

Kana Mantoku



Who is Cesar Chavez?

Cesar Chavez (1927-1993) was a Mexican-American farm worker, labor leader, and civil rights activist who established the National Farm Workers Association, which later became the United Farm Workers. His work led to numerous improvements for union workers. He is considered a hero for farm laborers. He is praised as one of the greatest American civil rights leaders after Martin Luther King, Jr. His birthday has becom a holiday in four U.S.states. Many parks, cultural centers, libraries, schools, and streets have been named in his honor in several cities across the United States. (This information comes from here.)

The effect of Pesticides

Cesar Chavez gave a speech to the United Farm Workers of America a few years before his death.

Here is a link to part of Chavez's speech. It is read by an actress. Please listen.

The United Farm Workers is a group that fights against the bad conditions of farm workers. For example, low pay, bad living conditions, and child labor. Moreover, there is malnutrition among migrant children(移住性子供間の栄養失調),tuberculosis(結核), and pneumonia(肺炎). Their average life span is more than twenty years below the U.S. standard.

In his speech, Chavez tells two stories about boys. As Chavez says, Johnnie Rodriguez was not even a man; Johnnie was a five-year-old boy when he died after a painful two years battle against cancer. His parents were farm workers. Like all workers, they were exposed to pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. His mother worked in the table grapes around Delano, California until she was eight months' pregnant(身ごもる) with Johnnie. His parents cannot say for certain if pesticides caused their son's cancer, but neuroblastoma(細胞腫)is one of the cancers found in McFarland, a small farm town only a few miles from Delano, where the Rodriguezes live.

As for the second story, Felipe Franco is a bright seven-year-old boy. Like other children, he will someday need to be independent. But Felipe is not like other children, he was born without arms and legs. His mother worked in the grapes near Delano until she was in her eighth month of pregnancy. He feels neither anger nor sadness. He is given the care and love he will always need. He believes he will have his arms legs someday. (The full speech is on this United Farm Workers page.)

What does acute pesticides poisoning produce?(ひどい殺虫剤の中毒は何を引き起こすか？)The answer is eye and respiratory irritation(目や呼吸器官の炎症),skin rashes(発疹), systemic poisoning(全身中毒), and death(死).What are the chronic effects of pesticides poisoning on people, farm workers, and their children?(人々、農場労働者、そして子どもに及ぼしている殺虫剤中毒の慢性の影響は何か？)The answer is birth defects(生まれつきの障害), sterility(生殖不能症), still birth(死産), miscarriages(早産), neuropsychological effects(神経心理への影響), and effect on child growth(子どもの成長に対する影響).

In this way, people are greatly harmed by pesticides. However, workers put up with skin irritations and rashes. They continue to work in bad conditions because they need the money. They don't complain out of fear of losing their jobs. And many do not speak English.

I think the government should help them. However, the government, the Environment Protection Agency, the American legal system, and doctors don't help them. If I were a worker in their position, I would be very angry. I think this is a serious problem because their treatment is unfair!

Cesar Chavez stood up and boycotted. He was a hero of American farm workers because he helped them.

Ayumi Ninomiya

The Bush Plan: "Guest Workers."

The Bush Guest Worker Program
The "guest worker" means someone from a foreign country who comes to work in the United States. Many illegal aliens work "off the books" (without written documentation) in the United States in low-level jobs and they often live in fear.(Reference)
Their rights aren't protected by labor laws. Furthermore, the farming and the other industries are desperate for workers and cannot always find Americans to do the jobs. Bush has proposed a temporary guest worker program to solve some of those problems.

His proporsal is that he wants to reform the United States immigration laws and he believes that it'll bring economic benefit to American farmers.

However, many people in America have a different opinion. The Texas writer, Molly Ivins, says that the guest worker program helps only big business and is only temporary. None of the workers can look forward to US citizenship. In addition, if the workers work illegally, they will be punished and pushed out of the country, but the employers will not be punished. Eliseo Medina says that the proposal has merit as a way to deal with future immigrants only. This means that the program is terrible for the 8 million to 11 million immigrants living in America today. Many of these people have been in the US for 15 or 20 years, have paid taxes, have children, and are part of the community, but they will have to leave. In brief, the guest worker program makes no sense for Mexican-Americans already living in the United States.(Reference)

I think that Guest Worker Program is inconsequent because a lot of American people are against Bush's proposal. In addition,it will take too much time to document all the workers. I wonder why Bush wants to do such a critical thing. I think that he must propose proper measures to deal with immigrants, especially Mexican immigrants.

Kyouko Kubo