Ironically, I prefer having my writing pointed strictly to information-centered content. I suppose I’m a bit like stoic philosophers, believing that personal emotions cloud and hinder one’s ability to work – hence, I prefer not to throw in a personal touch to writing. History provides all the example one needs, and I have many examples to pool from when comparing ideas, people, and courses of actions.
For example, Ramos’ piece reminds me of German and French citizens living in opposite countries before the outbreak of World War 1. Of course, the diplomatic situation with the US and Mexico would never be so tense as an all-out war, but our brief focus is on the people who were forced to walk back to their homeland. If a German citizen married a French woman and the two lived in France, then some gendarmes escorted the German back to Germany, how is this much different to Ramos having to return to Mexico should the border policy become too strict for her to stay. What if she is no longer eligible for her visa? She’ll have to leave behind friends and colleagues she could never see again, and lose out on the educational opportunity that is offered here.
In terms of writing style, I found Ramos’ to be the most involved – I consider nations to be a more easily understood creature than a people. I certainly did not like the fetish article by the NYT. If I had to ask, I’d ask Ms. Keenan “Why?” For an explanation, I would call myself like many Americans and view the article’s content of sexual nature as taboo in normal discourse.
Onto personal notes, I hope to write well in this class. It’s quite interesting that we’re meeting once a week, but I hope to do well regardless. Carpe diem et cape Noctem, magistra.