For Thursday: Boo, Behind the Beautiful Forevers, Chs.3 and 4

Answer TWO of the following:
 
Q1: Where do we see the clash of the New India and the Old India in these chapters? What else makes it difficult for India to move past old prejudices and cultural beliefs? 
 
Q2: Though to most outsiders Annawadi is just one sprawling slum, how do the people who live there see it? What are the different parts/regions of Annawadi, and how are they distinguished? 
 
Q3: What does learning English and English literature mean for Manju? Though India has so many different languages and dialects, why has English (the language of its former colonizer) remained so important to them? Do you think a country that uses a borrowed language like this can ever be truly itself?
 
Q4: What are some of the dangers and temptations that children have to face in the slums? Besides merely engaging in illegal activities to live, why is it so difficult for children to escape the slums intact? You might consider how this relates to the children in Born Into Brothels as well.

For Tuesday: Boo, Behind the Beautiful Forevers, Prologue, Chapter 1, Chapter 2

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Abdul’s younger brother tells him, “Everything around us is roses...And we’re the shit in between” (xii). According to the book, why does the government tolerate the illegal settlement of Annawadi? And why do people stay there if they’re treated like “shit” by the entire world? 

Q2: How does the Indian idea of privacy compare with what we read of China in One Person Means Alone? How might this lack of privacy—and the utter impossibility of being alone in a crowded city or slum—shape how their society views the world? Do you think the author realizes this, or wants us to be shocked by it?

Q3: According to the book, Annawadi is “one of the most stirring success narratives in the modern history of global market capitalism, a narrative still unfolding” (6). What do you think she means by this? How could a slum be a success story? And what does this say about its place in the world-wide web of capitalism (which implicates us as well)?

Q4: In one passage, Boo writes that “As group identities based on caste, ethnicity, and religion gradually attenuated, anger and hope were being privatized, like so much else in Mumbai” (90). While most people would applaud the removal of the old rules of caste and race, what has replaced them? Why might Boo suggest that even abstract things like anger and hope can be “privatized"?

Short Paper #2: Picturing Immigration

From Getty Images: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/sad-refugee-middle-eastern-women-royalty-free-image/529142868

Context:      For your second short paper, I want you to enter into the conversation that both “Citizen Khan” and “Refugees Hear a Foreign Word: Welcome” participate in: that of immigration, outsiders, and citizenship. This is a volatile issue since the last presidential election, and one that people often engage in without really knowing the historical or contemporary facts. However, sometimes talking about it isn’t enough; sometime we really have to see the issue to understand how to discuss it.

From Getty Images: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/september-2018-syria-atmeh-displaced-syrian-girls-sit-news-photo/1034289642

Assignment:          For this paper, I want you to start with a picture. That is, an actual picture that introduces the conversation to your readers. This picture can be of anything slightly related to the issues in these articles: immigrants, refugees, families, politicians, Americans, historical images, etc. Consider what you want us to ‘see’ about this conversation, and find an image that seems to support a way of talking about this discussion. I will give you a few images on the blog to consider, but you do not have to choose these images. They’re just a starting point. But think about how you feel about the issues in these essays, and find an image that seems to illustrate this (imagine if you were writing a book on the subject—this would be your cover).

From Getty Images: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/congo-dr-royalty-free-image/509186276

Introduction:         Your paper must open by introducing the image and describing it for us. Then you have to find a passage in one of the two essays that you feel supports the image and explain this connection. That should be your introduction, and it can be one or more paragraphs, but your essay has to start with the description and discussion of the image.

Body Paragraphs: Use these to connect the image to the conversation and explain why the conversation matters. You can either support the ideas of immigration in the essays, disagree with them, or be on the fence—there’s no right answer. However, you must use ideas and quotes from one or both essays to support your opinion, and consider a NAYSAYER as well, which you can easily find in the essays. Remember: why does this issue matter? Help us see this without making it sound too easy or too mean spirited.

From Getty Images: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/childrens-drawing-of-people-on-boat-in-distress-at-royalty-free-image/909231252

Requirements:

• At least 3 pages double spaced
• Must use an image to introduce the topic (see above)
• Must use at least one of the essays in class substantially; you can also use earlier essays from class. More than one quote is probably a good idea.
• Due after Fall Break, Tuesday, October 23^rd by 5pm [we have class that day, but you don’t have reading—we’ll be watching a film to introduce our second book]

For Thursday: Kantor & Einhorn, "Refugees Hear a Foreign Word: Welcome" (pp.93-106)

Here's a link to the actual article so you can see images of the families: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/world/americas/canada-syrian-refugees.html

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: According to the essay, why are Canadians so supportive of the refugee program--to the point that a newspaper called them, "an angry mob of do-gooders" (95)? What seems to distinguish the Canadian response to immigration to our American one? You might consider what the author hope we (being Americans) might learn from the Canadian mindset...or if we should be more like Canadians at all.

Q2: Toward the end of the essay, Mr. Ballani says something very poignant: "A human life has value here...You can feel it everywhere" (104). This is something we often take for granted, but what does he mean by this. How can you see in Canadian and American society that we value the life of an individual more than in his home country, or in many of the war-torn areas of the world? How does it "show" in our culture and society?

Q3: The essay compares many of the host families to "helicopter parents," which can make assimilation and independence difficult for the immigrants. How do well-meaning hosts often get in the way, ignorant of the immigrants' culture and language? 

Q4: In general, what do you think immigrants/refugees owe to their adopted country? If they are taken in by a  host family and given support, money, etc., how do they repay this debt? Does it require them to assimilate, learn the language, adopt the culture, beliefs, and values of their new country? Do the hosts often expect too much from their guests--and expect it unfairly?

For Tuesday: Schulz, “Citizen Khan” (pp.224-242)

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: According to the essay, how could an immigrant from Afghanistan become “Hot Tamale Louie” within years of arriving in the US in the early 20th century? Why did no one know who he was, or where he came from?

Q2: The racial laws of the late 19th century/early 20th century were very vague and often deeply discriminatory. According to the essay, what groups were denied citizenship on racial grounds? What did it mean to be “not white,” and conversely, what does it mean to be “Caucasian”?

Q3: On page 238, Schulz writes “sometimes a story about leaving turns into a story about staying.” In general, why are immigrants so successful in America, particularly the various “Khans” who settled here from Afghanistan? If we use Zarif Khan as an example, what accounted for his seemingly miraculous prosperity?

Q4: At the end of the essay, Schulz warns us that “nativist nostalgia is a fantasy” (242). What does she mean by that? Why are people like Bret Colvin deluding themselves in a fantasy of what used to be, and what should be again? Why does Khan’s story prove to us that things were never they way we think they were, and in general, were often a lot worse?