Taking a Look at Chalino Sanchez - 1959 Words

I. Background Chalino Sanchez was born and raised in la Chilla known as â€Å"el rancho† the ranch. Chalino had six brothers, and a sister, named Juana. Chalino lost his father at age six, and lived in poverty at a young age with his mother Sannorina Felix. and siblings. It was always a struggle they either had to pick tomatoes or become a drug trafficker in Sinaloa. Chalino would tell his mother â€Å"don’t worry, with my body and voice in California you will not be without† page 23 in the book â€Å"A Chronicle Play of Fulgor and Death†. In a world so cold that â€Å"blood burns like fire† and the only way to get someone back is to revenge. Chalino never thought his arrival to California was going to be in a blink of an eye. Chalino persuaded the American dream he promised his mother that when he moved to California he would make it to the spot light, using his voice and body. Keeping in mind his sister’s rape. He wanted a better life, for his family than living the life in Mexico. Julian Camacho Segura is the author of â€Å"A Chronicle Play of Fulgor and death.† Julian Camacho Segura journey began from Mexico, back to the United States. Julian was born in El Centro California in 1969, raised in Inglewood, California in the rancho Del Cantinela. â€Å"Julian says† Most of the book is fiction but a lot is not because Chalino did, for example, buy cassettes in Lennox where his grandfather saw him because the ladies would sell in front of the laundrymats where he worked,† recalled Segura. Julian

A Critical Essay Free Essays

If the above quote is to be examined, it actually says the opposite of this thesis statement; that art, such as music, theater and the like are expressions of society’s creativity. Ironically, though, it also bolsters it by saying that the personal expression of the artist, although not necessarily a reflection of society’s collective creative process and experience is actually the very basis from which society itself is being drawn into, modified, classified, shaped, molded, awakened, and finally, defined. Art after all, beginning from the artist’s own personal creativity, was created due to the artists reaction to, or personal reflection of a stimulus that came from his dealings and living in his environment and society; coming full circle when society shares and identifies with the artist’s own significant human experience. We will write a custom essay sample on A Critical Essay or any similar topic only for you Order Now History is replete with artistic expressions of a group of people’s own intrinsic expressions of individuality and affinity among the members of the same group or community. This is in tune with the artist’s search for a sounding board within the society, and thus, shaping and reforming his own society. Art, being larger than the life that it supposedly mirrors does not only remain confined within the artist’s personal sphere. It seeks far wider audience, even beyond the community or society. It seeks the world to find a collectivity with the universal human experience. Folk art is one among the many forms where art is being elevated as a voice of a society, a generation or a community. Here it ceases to be a mere personal expression of the artist but becomes a societal expression of creativity and significance. Art also functions as a chronicle of the human spirit, as well as the development of society as a whole. The songs, dances, poetry, paintings and other artistic expression serve as testament to the development of society. A society’s greatness, or otherwise is reflected in the art forms and expressions that would surface during one given time. It goes without saying therefore that a study of art would reveal much of a society’s soul. It is imperative therefore that art should be studied, understood, encouraged, cultivated and empowered. The clearest and most direct way to attain this of course is to go back to the source and soul of art; the artist and his interaction with life and the world he lives in. If art is to be cultivated, then we must create an environment that would be conducive and supportive of the artist. We must awaken the sense of artistry and the zest for artistic expression in every one of us, so that we will stand as chroniclers each, of the society we live in at our given present time. Let it flourish and be a collective expression that would stand time and in the process, enrich the future with a ready reference that would mirror our present society, and in effect serve as lessons for the future generations. Such is the irony of art that Johann Wolfgang Goethe once said there is no surer method of evading the world than by following Art, and no surer method of linking oneself to it than by Art. (Goethe, 1749) Such is the paradox that is art; one that is a personal expression but then again – art (and science) belong to the whole world, and before them vanish the border of nationality, (Goethe, 1749) as a matter of fact. The famous Latin expression says everything, after all; Vita Brevis, Ars Longa. Life is short, Art is song References Miller, H. (n.d.). Henry Miller. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from http://www.henrymiller.org/ Von Goethe, J. (2008). Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Retrieved February 22, 2009, from http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/goethe.htm How to cite A Critical Essay, Essays

Mitchell V. Wisconsin Essay Example For Students

Mitchell V. Wisconsin Essay Word Count: 3746On June 11, 1993, the United State Supreme Court upheld Wisconsin?s penalty enhancement law, which imposes harsher sentences on criminals who ?intentionally select the person against whom the crimeis committed..because of the race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person.? Chief Justice Rehnquist deliverd the opinion of the unanimous Court. This paper argues against the decision, and will attempt to prove the unconstitutionality of such penalty enhancement laws. On the evening of October 7, 1989, Mitchell and a group of young black men attacked and severely beat a lone white boy. The group had just finished watching the film ?Mississippi Burning?, in which a young black boy was, while praying, beaten by a white man. After the film, the group moved outside and Mitchell asked if they felt ?hyped up to move on some white people?. When the white boy approached Mitchell said, ?You all want to fuck somebody up? There goes a white boy, Go get him.? The boy was left unconscious, and remained in a coma for four days. Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery, which carries a two year maximum sentence. The Wisconsin jury, however, found that because Mitchell selected his victim based on race, the penalty enhancement law allowed Mitchell to be sentenced to up to seven years. The jury sentenced Mitchell to four years, twice the maximum for the crime he committed without the penalty enhancement law. The U.S. Supreme Court?s ruling was faulty, and defied a number of precedents. The Wisconsin law is unconstitutional, and is essentially unenforceable. This paper primarily focuses on the constitutional arguments against Chief Justice Rehnquist?s decision and the statute itself, but will also consider the practical implications of the Wisconsin law, as well as a similar law passed under the new federal crime bill (Cacas, 32). The Wisconsin law and the new federal law are based on a model created by the Anti- Defemation League in response to a rising tide of hate-related violent crimes (Cacas, 33). Figures released by the Federal Bureau of Investigation show that 7,684 hate crimes motivated by race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation were reported in 1993, up from 6,623 the previous year. Of those crimes in 1993, 62 percent were racially motivated (Cacas, 32). Certainly, this is a problem the nation must address. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States and both the Wisconsin and federal governments have chosen to address this problem in a way that is grossly unconstitutional. ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.? The most obvious arguments against the Mitchell decision are those dealing with the First Amendment. In fact, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the state statute was unconstitutional in their decision, which the U.S. Supreme Court overruled. The Wisconsim Supreme Court argued that the Wisconsin penalty enhancement statute, ?violates the First Amendment directly by punishing what the legislature has deemed offensive thought.? The Wisconsin Court also rejected the state?s argument ?that the statute punishes only the conduct? of intentional selection of a victim?. The Court?s contention was that ? the statute punishes the because of? aspect of the defendant?s selection, the reason the defendant selected the victim, the motive behind the selection.? The law is in fact a direct violation of the First Amendment, according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said ?the Wisconsin legislature cannot criminalize bigoted thought with which it disagrees.If there is a bedrock principal underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable?. The Supreme Court was heard to utter such noble phrases as recently as 1989, in Texas v. Johnson. Unfortunately these idealistic principles seem to have been abandoned during Wisconsin v. Mitchell. Sleep deprevation EssayPossibly more important, and certainly more recent, is the precedent established in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, a 1992 case. This case involved a juvenille who was convicted under the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance for burning a cross in the yard of a black family that lived across the street from the petitioner. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of a unanimous Court, but the Court was divided in its opinions for overturning the St. Paul statute. Scalia argued that the city ordinance was overbroad, because it punished nearly all controversial characterizations likely to arouse resentment among defined protected groups, and under-inclusive, because the government must not selectively penalize fighting words directed at some groups while not prosecuting those addressed to others, which is where the problem lies in the logic of the Mitchell decision. Though Rehnquist argued that Wisconsin v. Mitchell did not overturn R.A.V. v. St. Paul, If a hate speech law that enumerated some categories is invalid because, in Justice Antonin Scalias opinion in St. Paul, government may not regulate use based on hostility- or favoritism- toward the underlying message involved, how can a hate crime law be upheld that increases the penalty for crimes motivated by some hates but not those motivated by other hates? In other words, if the St. Paul statute is determined to be under-inclusive, how can we include every conceivable hate within the context of any statute. To be consistent, legislatures must now include other categories, including sex, physical characteristics, age, party affiliation, anti-Americanism or position on abortion.(Feingeld, 16)More interesting (and Constitutional) than the majority opinion in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, is the concurring opinion written by Justice White, with whom Justice Blackmun and Justice OConnor join. White writes, Although the ordinance as construed reaches egories of speech that are constitutionally unprotected, it also criminalizes a substantial amount of expression that- however repugnant- is shielded by the First Admendment Our fighting words cases have made clear, however, that such generalized reactions are not sufficient to strip expression of its constitutional protection. The mere fact that expressive activity causes hurt feelings, offense, or resentment does not render the expression unprotected The ordinance is therefore fatally overbroad and invalid on its face Rehnquist argues that whereas the ordinance struck down in R.A.V. was explicitly directed at expression, the statute in this case is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment. Nevertheless, had Mitchell not stated, There goes a white boy; go get him, his sentence would not have been enhanced, he would have instead received the maximum sentence of two years in jail for his crime, instead of four. Therefore, the Wisconsin statute does not only punish conduct, as Justice Rehnquist suggests, but speech as well. The Wisconsin v. Mitchell decision cannot simply be viewed as one that does harm to racists and homophobics. There are much broader costs to society than the quieted opinions of an ignorant few. First, laws which chill thought or limit expression detract from the goal of insuring the availability of the broadest possible range of ideas and expressions in the marketplace of ideas. Second, the Mitchell ruling not only affects eveyones free speech rights with a general constriction of the interpretation of the First Amendment, but the ruling makes way for further constrictions. Third, penalty enhancement laws place the legislature in the position of judging and determining the quality of ideas, and assumes that the government has the capacity to make such judgements. Fourth, without the expression of opinions generally deemd unacceptable by society, society tends to forget why those opinions were deemed unacceptable in the first place. (More specifically, nothing makes a skinhead seem m ore stupid than allowing him to voice his opinion under the scrutiny of a national television audience.) Finally, when society allows the free expression of all ideas, regardless of its disdain for those ideas, it is a sign of strength. So when a society uses all its power to suppress ideas, it is certainly a sign of that societys weakness (Gellman, (381-385). The United States Supreme Courts unanimous decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell is incorrect for a number of reasons. Constitutionally, the decision fails to comply with the freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment, and the guarantee to all citizens of equal protection under the laws, listed in the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision also arguably overturns R.A.V. v. St. Paul, and suggests that the Court may be leaning towards a new fighting words doctrine, where unpopular speech equals unprotected speech. The decision also damages societ as a whole in ways that are simply immeasureable in their size, such as those listed in the preceding paragraph. Wisconsin v. Mitchell is a terribly flawed Supreme Court decision, which one can only hope will be overturned in the very near future. The freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere sahdow of a freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion -Justice Jackson in W.V. Board of Education. v. BarnetteBibliography Cacas, Samuel. Hate Crime Sentences Can Now Be Enhanced Under A New Federal Law. Human Rights 22 (1995): 32-33Feingold, Stanley. Hate Crime Legislation Muzzles Free Speech. The National Law Journal 15 (July 1, 1993): 6, 16Gellman, Susan. Sticks And Stones. UCLA Law Review 39 (December, 1991): 333-396Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire R.A.V. v. St. PaulTexas v. JohnsonU.S. v. OBrienWisconsin v. MitchellWooley v. MaynardW.V. State Board of Education v. Barnette