Analysis Of Barbara Ehrenreich's Cultural Baggage

She explained how an African-American woman would not get hired because of her gender and even the color of her skin. Both were a problem because black women were stuck in between those two issues. When she named those victims of police brutality she wanted everyone to know how black women are not represented. Those women she was showing during her speech I have never seen on the news, never heard about them in social media.

Barbara Ehrenreich 's showed that she didn't have the mind set or worries of a working class person by reminding us as readers the fine line between the kind of performance she is doing and the kind her fellow coworkers do every day on the job. Time and again she lets us sink into her new world of a low-wage worker, only to pull us back with a reminder of the act. 1 She does this experiment to determine whether or not she could both live off the money earned and have enough money at the end of the month to pay the next month's rent. Working class people depend on the money they make on these jobs to survive and provide for their families. She could drop all these jobs she experimented with and go back to her real life without a worry in the

Barbara Ehrenreich uses very specific techniques (“moves”) to convey her message to her readers: for instance, the approach she uses in the first part of her essay is an ‘objective approach’ which relied upon citations from published works. She drew upon statistical data and information and used extensive quotations extracted from experts who have written on the subject. The other important device used in her essay (the other side of the same coin, so to speak) is the ‘subjective approach’ that she undertook to convey her message of “white-collar downward mobility.” Examples of the objective approach is found in this passage taken from the published work of the Bureau of Labor Statistics: “In Late 2003, when I started this project, unemployment

Humanitarian, community advocate and aid to immigrants, Caroline Chisholm spent her life in the service of others. Her legacy of good will and economic empowerment spans several continents and several decades. Mrs. Chisholm advocated for immigrant women and girls in India, England and Australia. Because of her faith, Mrs. Chisholm was met with much opposition. As a Catholic in a time where Catholicism was viewed with mistrust and disdain, she had to overcome barriers simply because of her belief system even though if anything, her beliefs helped to motivate her to do all the great work she did for immigrant women and girls.

Her speech was mostly drawn from her experience of racism, racial injustice and poor treatment of women when she lived in the South. Her belief in the ending of these injustices was based on her religion and belief in Christianity and then natural rights of all individuals. Her motives to write the speech was based on changing the thinking of other people into acknowledging that all humans were equal despite their race, gender or ideologies. They were therefore supposed to be treated as the same irrespective of their social classes. Some of her personal details could have influenced the speech that she wrote. Among them is gender since she was a woman and her beliefs in Christianity through reading the Bible that championed that all people were the same

against lynching and created an impact on slaves. People who did not agree with her were

Her path became rocky quickly. At first she wanted to make the students in her school aware of the mission/goals of the Black Lives Matter. She was met with dismissal of this movement by students, as well as, teachers. She was shunned by some she considered her friends. She felt an issue so important to the safety of her fellow students and those in her community would be embraced. It wasn’t, but this did not deter her from continuing to share the voice the movement, even when she stopped being so popular.

This article written by Mark Nathan Cohen, who is an anthropology professor in the State University of New York; talks about how race does not define human diversity. In the article, he also mentions that in school students learn the definition of race based on “biological variation” and not based on their culture. The professor Cohen says that studies on human family tree that were based on their genetic analysis of traits do not show any relation of who those traits belong to. He gives an example by stating that even skin color is not a god indicator of who it relates to because the “traits occur independently in several different branches of the human family.”

To begin, Europeans lived under a system called feudalism which was important to their social status. “Feudalism was a political, economic, and social system in which nobles were granted to use of land that legally belonged to the king”(Doc1).The kings provided money for the knights(Doc1). Then the knights provided protection and military services for the serfs,nobles and kings(Doc1). The serfs farmed the land. Lastly the nobles gave land to the serfs, collected food from them, and reported to the king (Doc. 1). These roles were important because their rank in feudalism controlled their social status.

paved the way for religious freedom. She was a great leader in the cause for

She showed them that they could be equal. The only difference was the color of the skin. She taught them that that wasn’t even a big difference. She fought segregation her entire life.

     Her parents nurtured the background of this crusader to make her a great spokesperson. She also held positions throughout her life that allowed her to learn a lot about lynching. She was

You would think the middle ages were a time where everyone had money and rode dragons. However, the middle ages were a time where you were either part of the rare rich life or down by the pigs. During the Middle Ages, Europeans social, economic and political life was defined by feudalism. Feudalism was the social system in medieval Europe, when knights would fight for nobles, lords, and kings in exchange for land (OI).

"We have met here today to dicuss our rights and wrongs, civial and political, and not, as some have supposed, to go into the detail of social life alone." She strarts off her speech by telling the audience she isnt here to talk aboutthe minor parts of the whole women rights movement, but instead is going to talk about something very important and major to the womens right movement. The civil and political rights of women. In this she makes a bold move and steps out of what most

She is very much a common sense figure. It also goes so far as to parallel the two voices for the black community at that time. One voice was proactive and wanted to march for freedom and the other wanted to kneel and pray rather than stand up for their rights.