In Down these Mean Streets, Piri Thomas talks about himself growing up in all these different neighborhoods. He lived with his mother and father and four siblings. In the beginning of the chapter, Piri talks about his father is so used to beating him up for like the most little mistakes that he would do. He sometimes wondered if his father loved him like the rest of them (his siblings). He had argued on page 22, “Maybe ’cause I’m the biggest, huh? Or maybe it’s ’cause I’m the darkest in the family”? All of these thought went through his head because of the mistreatment that he gets from his father. He was so upset that one day, he decided to leave home. Piri realized that he had nothing to eat or drink and had no way of surviving. He decided to go back home, with his father not even worried about where he had been at that particular point in time. Piri grew up very poor. His father had multiple jobs and he was always not the very happy at all times. His mom talked to them about Puerto Rico and how everything was all nice, and also how you did not have to have money to be happy. Down These Mean Streets also talks about a very hard headed boy who would do anything for respect. Piri was a very tough kid. He always felt that he should fit in regardless of where he was. The only way that he got reps in his neighborhood was through fighting. His father had always told him how he needs to man up and be a man in tough situations. He always hated his father for moving them to a almost Italian neighborhood. Over there, Piri had to show that he had heart and he could take away anybody, that landed him in the hospital but after that incident, he got his respect from the neighborhood bullies and he became a part of them. His family had decided to move because of all of this commotion. They moved to Long Island from the city. He hated Long Island. “No matter how much you busted your hump trying to be one of them, you’d never belong, they wouldn’t let you. Maybe they couldn’t. Maybe they didn’t belong themselves”.  He was fitting in in his new neighborhood and he hated one bit of it. He was so used to fighting and having heart and belonging in his old neighborhood, but not Long Island. “I can’t get along with anything, no matter what i do. Nothing falls right. I don’t like Long Island and los blancos, and this world full of shits”. Piri just was not feeling the vibe that he was getting from the city. He felt that it was nothing like Harlem. He wasnt used to this. Piri decided to leave Long Island because he said it wasn’t for him, he went back to Harlem without looking back reassuring his mother that he would come back and get her and even his father if his father didn’t mind moving back with him to Harlem.

Toulmins’ model include three main components: the claim, the data or reasons, and the warrant. According to Toulmin, the basis of all arguments is the claim, which is the writer’s (or speaker’s) statement of belief – the conclusion or point he or she wishes to prove. The data or reasons are the evidence or information a writer or speaker offers to support the claim. The warrant is a general statement establishes a trustworthy relationship between the data and the claim; it is a fundamental assumption on which a claim can be made and supported. In an argument the claim and data will be explicit, but the warrant is often implied, especially if the person making the argument assumes that the audience accepts the warrant. In that case the task is simply to present sufficient evidence to support the claim. However, if the audience disagrees with the warrant or finds it unacceptable, then the writer must defend it to make the claim. Toulmin argued that the syllogism was overemphasized in the study of logic. The difference Toulmins argument and Rogerian argument is that with the Rogerian argument, you kind of like reason with one another. You let the other person know that you understand where they are coming from before you make the claim. The Toulmins argument is different. You always state a claim with Toulmins argument and you have to have facts to back up your argument. You are always looking to winning and always looking at your side and why a certain situation has to be right. I think that the Rogerian argument is more useful because you cannot just start an argument without knowing where the other person is standing or coming from.  A successful argument most often acknowledges the other person perspective before they proceed to make theirs. I think that Toulmin’s argument is limited. Rogerian argument is better suited for my argument because I feel that I understand that argument better and I argue like that personally. It would also be easier for to incorporate that in my paper because I am very familiar with the Rogerian Argument.

Rogerian argument is arguing to negotiate differences. Carl Rogers emphasized the importance of communication as a means to resolve conflicts. Rogers believed that most people are so ready “to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove” that they fail to understand what others think. He argued people to “listen with understand” and recommended a model for communication in which listeners are required to restate what others have said before offering their own views.  Even though it is very hard to use this method of arguing, it shows maturity and presidents and governments usually use this method. I think that it would be useful for me to use Rogerian argument because you would have to understand the other person’s perspective before you could proceed to argue your point.

Both of these two readings that I just read had similar meanings to them. They both talked about the way people regarded you due to your skin color. In “Racial Identity in Adulthood”, the contexts talked about how black people are automatically put in a certain category and how they are inferior. It also talked about how black people would usually sit with their own type in cafeterias and so forth and how they are always extra careful working at predominantly white factories because they feel that whatever they do are being very well observed. The author verbalized about the hardships that come to being black. It is not unproblematic being Black. This reading was similar to “Complexion”. Because the author was dark, he was considered inferior. He was not beautiful because of his complexion, even his family talked about how being light was sexy and how they wished their families would turn out with a lighter complexion. These two readings tally along very well because it talks about the importance of being Black and how one has to go through with it day by day.

Looking at them individually

Whiles reading “Racial Identity in Adulthood”, the author states that just being black makes it hard, because people look at you like you are not as good as they are, like you are a second class citizen or something like that on pg. 85. In “Complexion”, the author also stated on pg. 113 how his mother would talk angrily about his complexion because he was dark. These extracts from the readings are comparable. Because being black is hard, the author in “Complexion” mother did not want her son to go through it so she would be very upset when talking to him about his color because she does want his son to be labeled inferior because of his color and treated unfairly.

In these two works the patterns include similar views on language and culture. Both include various types of English;for example English spoken on the streets and English spoken in the house. Also the way races interpret English. Some Hispanics speak “Spanglish” and some African- Americans speak ” black English.” Language can be used to express ones self. Language can also cause one to have their own identity. It is a form of assimilation or uniqueness. “Searching For New Models of Identity in Spanglish,” is related to the Spanglish language and assimilating to one culture. In Bootstraps, Spanglish is a language that you could get in trouble for speaking at home or can make you different on the streets. Speaking “white English” is the norm. The authors would probably say that ethnicity, race, and culture are alike. Rodriguez would probably give a different insight, commenting on the fact that speaking in a Spanglish tongue or dialect is affiliated with American culture and is common amongst the people. He might state that it is assimilation. Villanueva, on the other hand, would respond with conforming to American society means that you don’t speak Spanglish or any other form of English, only “white English” is allowed. The vitality of having the knowledge of many dialects, Villanueva would say, is to fit in with different groups of people. The fact that race is not affiliated with language whatsoever is the viewpoint Rodriguez would most likely have and Villanueva would say the exact opposite. He would say that race and language are directly related. Both authors would come to peaceful compromise about their beliefs. In conclusion, both authors and works illustrate similar points and views about language, ethnicity, and culture.

Historical Presence: No other immigrant group in U.S. history has asserted or could assert a historical claim to U.S. territory. Mexicans and Mexican Americans can and do make that claim. Almost all of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah were part of Mexico until Mexico lost them as a result of the Texan War of Independence in 1835-1836 and the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. Mexico is the only country that the United States has invaded, occupied its capital – placing the Marines in the “halls of Montezuma” – and then annexed half its territory. Mexicans do not forget these events. Quite understandably, they feel that they have special rights in these territories. “Unlike other immigrants,” Boston College political scientist Peter Skerry notes, “Mexicans arrive here from a neighboring nation that has suffered military defeat at the hands of the United States; and they settle predominantly in a region that was once part of their homeland…. Mexican Americans enjoy a sense of being on their own turf that is not shared by other immigrants.

Paraphrase I

Historical Presence: There are no other set of people who migrated to the United States in U.S. record has declared positively or could declare a positive chronological claim to U.S. territory. Mexicans and Mexican Americans are capable of and do make that claim. Greater part of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah were once included in the  Mexican territory until Mexico lost them as a effect of the Texan War of Independence in 1835-1836 and the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. Mexico is the only country that the United States entered for pillage, resided in its capital – placing the Marines in the “halls of Montezuma” – and then incorporated within half its territory. Mexicans do not overlook these events. Quite plausibly, they feel that they have exceptional rights in these territories. “Unlike other people who migrate to the United States,” Boston College political scientist Peter Skerry notes, “Mexicans gets here from a bordering land that has endured military defeat at the hands of the United States; and they settle predominantly in a region that was once part of their homeland…. Mexican Americans take pleasure in being on their own sod that is not distributed by other immigrants.

Paraphrase II

Historical Presence: No other migrant in U.S. record has asserted or possibly will assert a past claim to U.S. territory. Mexicans and Mexican Americans know how to and do make that claim. Mainly part of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah were a fraction of Mexico until Mexico mislaid them as a result of the Texan War of Independence in 1835-1836 and the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. Mexico is the only fatherland that the United States has intruded, absorbed its capital – placing the Marines in the “halls of Montezuma” – and then attached half its territory. These events are still fresh in Mexican minds. Fairly understandably, they believe that they have unique privileges in these territories. “Unlike others who move in to the U.S,” Boston College political scientist Peter Skerry notes, “Mexicans land here from a nearby homeland that has suffered military defeat at the hands of the United States; and they inhabit chiefly in a region that was once a portion of their motherland…. Mexican Americans love  being on their own grass that is not joint by additional immigrants.

Paraphrase III

Historical Presence: No other settler in U.S. past times has asserted or may perhaps assert a previous allege to U.S. area. Mexicans and Mexican Americans are able and do make that claim. Majority of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah were a fraction of Mexico until Mexico lost them as an outcome of the Texan War of Independence in 1835-1836 and the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848. Mexico is the only realm that the United States has entered by force for conquest, takes up its capital – placing the Marines in the “halls of Montezuma” – and then appended half its territory. Mexicans do remember these events. Quite reasonably, they sense that they have particular rights in these territories. “Unlike other migrants,” Boston College political scientist Peter Skerry notes, “Mexicans come here from an adjacent land that has experienced military defeat from the United States; and they stay mainly in a region that was once part of their homeland…. Mexican Americans like being on their own soil that is not contaminated by other immigrants.