Brandt Response
Our readings for unit one focus on understanding how people's individual literacy trajectories develop. Your response for the readings must closely examine the arguments presented by Deborah Brandt in her article titled "Sponsors of Literacy" and consider how the experiences presented by both Sherman Alexi and Malcolm X could somehow fit within Brandt's argument. How might the stories of Sherman Alexie or Malcolm X complicate the claims Brandt puts forward? It is not acceptable to simply say that Alexie and Malcolm X had sponsors and therefore fit into Brandt's argument. You must consider one of the three separate subsections Brandt presents and fit either Alexie or Malcolm X into a particular section. Make sure your synthesis ties either Alexie or Malcolm X to one of Brandt's sub-arguments (Sponsorship and Access, Sponsorship and the Rise in Literacy Standards, or Sponsorship and Appropriation in Literacy Learning).
This task calls you to deeply analyze Brandt's arguments and then synthesize a new set of data to help extend Brandt's argument. It is important that you integrate the experiences of Alexie and Malcolm X. Build context for your claims by delivering a sense of Brandt's claims. Add new evidence from the experiences of Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie. Analyze the new evidence and connect it to Brandt's claim(s).
The best posts will demonstrate critical thinking and will thoroughly address the prompt. The most sophisticated postings will demonstrate an ability to synthesize Alexie's and Malcolm X's experiences with some of Brandt's claims. Postings that demonstrate innovative and unique approaches to this synthesis task will be rewarded.
In order to address this discussion board, you must complete readings on the following pages:
331-362
Jeffrey Rancourt:
ReplyDeleteAs I began my writing process for this blog entry, I read, and re-read, a few specific excerpts from the Brandt essay “Sponsor of Literacy”, only to realize that I was trying too hard to find convincing evidence for my audience. What was now seemingly obvious to me, when taking a more holistic look at the paper, did not come easy at first. The ‘obvious’ conclusion which I will discuss here, came only after some tough realizations and explorations about my own literacy, and maybe economic status. My initial summary, which actually made it to a rough draft format, included some internal skepticism about this essay which I couldn’t shrug. I was not convinced myself that Brandt was entirely correct. Here, a literacy expert, a college professor, offers conviction and support in her findings, theorizing that Literary ‘Sponsorship’, and ones means to literacy, is directly impacted by social status and economics. As I read her essay a second time, with lingering internal skepticism about her conclusions, most specifically the idea that somebody’s economic status means that their literacy is not their own destiny, I found it to be rather ironic that the book (I purchased) for this English course was entitled “Everything’s an Argument”. Will I make the argument that the author is right in some ways but wrong in others? Do I want to be that guy??
It seemed to me, initially, that I could easy support my opposing conclusions. Simply to site our current U.S. President would mean to disprove parts of Brandt’s’ theory. But, as I continued with the assignment, I began to realize that my interpretations of the assignment, certainly of her essay and even of reality in some ways, were initially void of context. As I finished reading both “Learning to Read” from Malcolm X and “The Joy of Reading and Writing: Superman and Me” by Sherman Alexie, I instantly identified and found parallels from these stories back to the character studies which Brandt discussed in her essay. Context was formed. Namely, the references of Dora Lopez, who overcomes a language barrier, and leverages a small advantage made available to her as a youth to pursue her literacy. Another parallel to Dwayne Lowery, whose economic circumstance and challenge differ, but also becomes self-taught due to circumstance and need to thrive, or perhaps in his case a sense of rise of Literary Standards. Finally, Brandt highlights the stories of Sarah Steele and Carol White, which to me are not only the most (personally) relatable, but perhaps the true embodiment of my aforementioned ‘obvious conclusion’. In a time when women in the workforce lack education compared to men, who essentially learn second hand applications from men, it is clear that stories describe a time of misappropriation.
ReplyDeleteMisappropriation is a harsh theme covered by Brandt’s essay. This challenge ultimately ties to Malcom X and Sherman Alexie almost precisely. To summarize the parallels, here are a large collection of people, across these three readings, which range in economic status. Each site sponsors as guides, who lead them and inspire them to overcome, learn or self-educate in some way. Each receive their empowerment thru sponsorship, regardless of their social status, to learn more, to do more, even while others around them in their community regress. Sherman Alexie sees youth within his community intentionally hold themselves back, on purpose, to comply. He sets an example to others as a sponsor; much like his father did to him. At the same time, Malcom X must have encountered prison fights, guys who focused on shooting dice or playing cards day in and day out. He was his own inspiration. This leads to one complication to the argument, which is, whether it is the literacy itself, or the literacy sponsor who makes the greatest impact?
ReplyDeleteIn the case for Malcom X and for Sherman Alexie, I believe it was their Literacy. Malcom X was envious of Bimbi’s knowledge, but his true inspiration came from another sponsor, Elijah Mohammad. While he was certainly an inspiration, it was Malcolm’s his own thirst to better himself and his race which led him to transcribe the dictionary to eventually self, and then mass educate. The same can be said for Sherman Alexie. He chose to follow a literacy path which leads him back to encourage children, much like himself, to stand up and take charge of their education. He serves as a fantastic literacy sponsor.It was here in my analysis when I reflected upon the glaring double standard, identified by this assignment, which can be used to describe my learning situation. If you recall, my early conclusion in the notes for this blog entry was host to skepticism, which first led me to (internally) conclude that someone from a lower economic class, who does not have “multiple and redundant contacts as a routine part of their economic and political privilege”, should perhaps pursue “Mark Twain or Edgar Allen Poe” thru many of available means. Google, Yahoo, etc. This is similar to the thought process, (which incidentally I do not share) that leads people to want the homeless to “go get jobs”.
ReplyDeleteMy experience, unique to me in some ways, very similar to others in many, takes my perspective from a white, middle-class upbringing. From a series of literacy sponsors who, to this point, did not lead me to think maybe it was ME WHO SHOULD HAVE, (before Tuesday 8/27/2013) Googled ‘Malcom X’. This is just as much, if not more, a misappropriation of my own education. To re-iterate a point in his writing, which Malcom X identifies an education system built to void black history. The fact is, aside from what relatively little I know of Malcom X, I knew him only to be was a very intelligent, a dominant and perceived radical black figure. How much do I waste educational opportunity and informational freedom? After all, it is afforded to me and millions of Americans daily, of all races, creeds and ethnic backgrounds. Am I that victim to too many distractions, too much panty-raiding, fraternity and boola-boola and all of that? Or more importantly, do my literary sponsors control what I read WAY more than I think?
ReplyDeleteAs Brandt outlines, and I tend to agree, sponsorship for literacy is personal first, then economic. Sponsorship will always mean different opportunity to different people. It will create unique perspective, interest, and drive. It will lead to different opinions, conclusions, comprehensions and writing styles. It may create or destroy opinions and relationships. Ultimately, self-education, self-direction and personal drive may be the only true way one can achieve true personal literacy, even with guidance from a sponsor, good or bad; regardless of their economic condition.
ReplyDeleteToday, more than ever, determining the motives of some of our literary agents is a very hard thing to do.
After fully grasping all three of the readings, I saw a major connection between "Learning to Read" and the section titled "Sponsorship and Appropriation in Literacy Learning" in "Sponsors of Literacy". Malcolm X, a black man born in the 1920's, went from an uneducated street robber, to one of the most intelligible black leaders of the 1960's. He spent seven years in jail and made the best of his situation by exposing himself to a wide array of books in the library. He took what his sponsor (the jail) gave him and educated himself. His project didn't stop there. Malcolm X went on to educate others and lead the civil rights movement. Like the two secretaries described in Brandt's "Sponsors of Literacy", Malcolm X took the information he had absorbed and became a sponsor himself to his family, friends, and followers. Those that learned from Malcolm X passed on what they learned to their children, they will pass it on to their children, and so on. Without this chain of sponsors the civil rights movement might not have occurred and African Americans would not have the rights they have today. A connection is also made with this topic and Sherman Alexie in "The Joy of Reading and Writing: Superman and Me". A small Indian boy longing to learn overcomes the discouragement of those around him. Following in his father's footsteps, he begins to read at a young age. Despite the stereotypes that make Indians believe they are not smart, Sherman Alexie becomes a brilliant writer and speaks out to young children. He, as a sponsor, teaches them to stop resisting and allow themselves to grow, as he once did. Sponsors of literacy are everywhere and they are what shape our world for the future.
ReplyDeleteTREVOR KHAN - ENC 1101-442
ReplyDeleteAmong the three sections in Brandt’s “Sponsors of Literacy”, I only found two these sections to be constantly applicable to all three of the readings. The first section “Sponsorship Vs. Access” is a clear factor in Malcolm X’s autobiographical account, “Learning to Read” and Sherman Alexie’s “The Joy of Reading And Writing: Superman and Me”. Malcolm X, once a convicted robber, states in his article that his current education is due entirely to his prison studies. Malcolm X did not have access to an education beyond the 8th grade until he reached the prison library much due to social and economic factors such as his family’s race or income, directly substantiating Brandt’s claim that “Poor people and those from low-caste racial groups have less consistent, less politically secured access to literacy sponsors”. X goes into detail saying that he spent much of his time reading in his cell (even after “lights out”) and in the library and that many of the other prisoners did so as well. Sherman Alexie also ties into the first section of Brandt’s “Sponsors of Literacy” because Alexie states that he and his family were also at a social and economic disadvantage. Alexie shares his family’s struggle with finances and their reliance on hope while living on the Spokane Indian reservation in Washington. He continues to say that while they struggled financially, his father continued to get books for his collection. Alexie eventually begins to read these books and develop higher knowledge than most of the students at his age.
This brings me to the second section of Brandt’s essay, “Sponsorship & The Rise In Literacy Standards”. During Malcolm X’s incarceration period, he states that many of the other prisoners indulge in reading and some were even considered “walking encyclopedias”, something which went against the current expectations of a prisoner’s educational level. Alexie, too, shares that he was reading at a much higher level than all the students at his age. He says that “We were Indian children who were expected to be stupid. Most lived up to those expectations inside the classroom but subverted them on the outside.” Alexie shares that his higher knowledge made him an “oddity” amongst the others. Brandt’s themes hold up in consistently throughout the readings and proves Brandt’s thesis that “sponsors deliver the ideological freight that must be borne for access to what they have”.
Deborah Brandt’s Sponsors of Literacy discusses the idea of “sponsorship and access”; which is the idea that literacy is affected by ones socioeconomic majority-race status. Brandt states “…affluent people from high-caste racial groups have…powerful literacy sponsors…”, while “Poor people and those from low-caste racial groups have less consistent, less politically secured access to literacy sponsors.” (Brandt 170). This concept proves to be true in both Malcom X’s Learning to Read and Sherman Alexie’s The Joy of Reading and Writing: Superman and Me. Malcom X was an African American street robber from a poor socioeconomic background and had never had an education past the eighth grade. Similarly, Alexie was also a minority group with a poor socioeconomic background with a very limited access to “sponsors” as Brandt would say. However, I think Brandt could go further as to say that although sponsorship and access do relate to socioeconomic statuses, it does not fully restrict one from a poor background to gain access to sponsors and use them in any way that they can. Such as Alexie whom read countless books that his father found, “I read books late into the night, until I could barely keep my eyes open.”(Alexie 13). Similarly, X became the most educated he could ever be in prison; a place his socioeconomic conditions put him in, “No university would ask any student to devour literature as I did…” (X 2). Though both Alexie and X came from poor backgrounds they were self-motivated and used the sponsors they did have (Alexie’s being his father and X’s being the Prison) to lead successful lives as a civil rights leader and a writer. This ties in to Brandt’s third idea of “sponsorship and appropriation in literacy learning” as X used his prison sentence to his advantage by fully educating himself in the history of African Americans. This led him to become one of the most recognized civil rights leaders of the 1960’s and went on to influence others as well; becoming others sponsors of literacy. Equivalently, Alexie, despite the odds, became very well educated in both reading and writing and went on to influence other Indian children like he once was “I visit schools and teach creative writing to Indian kids.” ;becoming their sponsors (Alexie 14). As one can see there is a definite connection between background and literacy and how that literacy is passed on through the generations. Both circumstances of Alexie and X allowed them to find access to literacy and also pass that literacy on to others and allow literacy to grow in the future.
ReplyDeleteSeongeun Woo
ReplyDeleteDeborah Brandt’s piece “Sponsors of Literacy” made it clear that we all have some kind of sponsors to our literacy. Because Brandt had distinctly defined the word ‘sponsor’, I was able to depict the sponsors from both Alexie’s and Malcolm’s pieces. First, in “Learning to Read”, Malcolm told us that he struggled with his English skills, vocabulary to be specific. Therefore he started studying and memorizing the dictionary, and continued to read, as he grew older. His passion for reading was immense. Even when he went to prison, he not only persistently read but also expanded his knowledge on many subjects. He said “I knew right there in prison that reading had changed forever the course of my life.” From this excerpt, I realized that Malcolm’s sponsor was the prison. There was another quote from Malcolm that mentioned how the prison had influenced him academically. He quoted “In fact, prison enabled me to study far more intensively than I would have if my life had gone differently and I had attended some college.” Malcolm’s sponsor was not a living human being however Alexie’s sponsor was. He grew up as a little Indian boy who was labeled by others as uneducated Indian. Alexie’s father loved to read which eventually influenced Alexie as well. He was ambitious towards reading, and he never stopped just like his dad. He even ended up reading the books that his father had bought. Alexie’s sponsor was his father. Alexie always had a view of his father reading all the time, which gave him a sturdier desire for literacy. Both Alexie’s and Malcolm fit into Brandt’s argument of sponsorship. For Malcolm, the argument of sponsorship and appropriation fits right in. The prison helped him to organize and administer opportunities and sometimes hindered the activity. For Alexie, he fits into the argument of sponsorship access. Alexie had access to all the books that his father had bought. He tells the reader that his motivation for reading started as loving his father, therefore loving the books as well because his father loved to read.
Despite the rather tedious, dry and repetitive nature of the material assigned, the message managed to sink its itself into my mind with a modicum of clarity; especially the relatively clear correlation between the "Sponsorship and Appropriation in Literacy Learning" section and "Learning to Read". Both Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie start with similar backgrounds, when one considers not only the place, but also the financial situation they grew up with. As a youth Malcolm X did not have consistent access to reading material, or live in a highly educated family where education was emphasized. Sherman Alexie likewise grew up with the stigma of living in a place where the children were not expected to become well educated. In fact he went so far as to say that they were, “expected to be stupid” in “The Joy of Reading And Writing: Superman and Me”. Both Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie had this same typecast held over their heads by society from day one. Although they had similar beginnings, the route they took after this point to rectify their lack of education, differed in both time scale and how they achieved it. Malcolm X was incarcerated before he even attempted to begin educating himself, while Sherman Alexie on the other hand, utilized his father’s book collection to the best of his ability at a much younger age. The prison was Malcolm’s sponsor in a sense that it gave him access to knowledge that he never would have had the time or ability to use before his imprisonment. Sherman Alexie’s sponsor was his father’s influence, which is a more common type of literary sponsor. In the end, whether it was a jail or a parent’s book collection, Brandt’s idea that Literacy Sponsors are needed to further personal education in reading, writing and other areas was thoroughly proven in each case as both went on to become much more than they would have been if those stimuli had not been introduced.
ReplyDeleteHaving read Brandt's claim to "Sponsorship and Access" relates to both Malcolm's and Sherman's stories. Sherman clearly states that the love he had for reading came from his father, the obvious sponsor int his reading in his story. Thus, he taught himself how to read. Sherman describes his father's love for books to be substantial and although their economic status wasn't so great, Sherman's father put effort into filling their house with books of many sorts. Having that around we can assume that Sherman becomes susceptible to reading and writing because of this. I can also infer that not only did this push him into furthering his curiosity of knowledge but so did his ethnicity. Indians living in America , in that time frame , found it out of place or unnatural to be outspoken well educated. For that, Sherman wanted to be so much more and do so much more with this education along with expanding his ideas and teachings to those within his culture. We can say the same about Malcolm X. He was a street runner of African America descent who finds himself in prison and one day just starts filling his notepads of every word in the dictionary. Teaching his-self how to read and write. Soon enough critiquing what he started to the point where he was always trying to satisfy his hunger for curiosity of his ethnic background and the history of it. He mentions many times that Mr. Muhammad being some sort of teacher for him along the way. He attained so much about his cultural background that he wanted to use that to reach out to other African Americans. Although Sherman and Malcolm had different beliefs, they did share one in common that could relate to Brandt's " Sponsorship and Access " claim . Brandt also states about the difference between being of poor caste and being of a rich caste to make a difference to obtaining sponsors following up to literacy and i would have to disagree with that. Both Malcolm And Sherman were of low income standards but that did not limit them to becoming anymore successful as to Raymond Branch who was mentioned earlier on in Brandt's article. Raymond Branch may have had the financial stability to join universities and become as smart as he did , but Malcolm X has made history along with his infamous speeches. Seeing that Brandt based all her claims and evidence within the twentieth century,I would like to expand her claims by stepping into the 21st century. To explain my choice , by saying how having technology can increase the chances of sponsors and access to literacy. How does this relate to "Sponsorship And Access"? The reasons to support my ideas would be that of online tutors, online teaching , etc. Our whole lives are almost set around technology and what we attain from it, receiving data from all parts of the world. As we grow in technology so does literacy.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all three excerpts given, I discovered how clear Brandt’s “Sponsors of Literacy” related to Malcom X’s “Learning to Read”, and Alexie’s “The Joy of Reading and Writing: Superman and Me”. Majority of the comparisons made, come from the section, “Sponsorship and Access” from Brandt’s selection. Brandt believes that literacy is affected by that person’s socioeconomic majority race status. This means that people from high-case racial groups have great literacy sponsors, compared to those from low-case racial groups that have less access to literacy sponsors. Due to Malcom X’s socioeconomic status, he did not receive any education higher than the 8th grade. X didn’t receive any higher education until he was incarcerated. While X was in prison began reading perpetually. X took advantage of the library he had available to him in prison, and through all of his reading while incarcerated, he became educated. Although X was at a socioeconomic disadvantage he still managed to educate himself using prison as a sponsor. Alexie also came from a socioeconomic disadvantage but still manage to become educated using his father as a sponsor. Alexie’s father loved to read which eventually rubbed off on Alexie. Just like X, Alexie loved reading. Even though X’s sponsor was a prison and Alexie’s sponsor was his dad, both arguments are examples of “Sponsorship and Access”.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Watkins
ReplyDeleteDeborah Brandt poses a compelling argument in the section “Sponsorship and Appropriation In Literacy Learning”. She argues that sponsors, whether helping or hindering, can also divert the one’s their sponsoring to ulterior motives. This was clearly the case in my opinion in the case of Malcolm X. Malcolm X’s prison sentence and communications with Elijah Muhammad sponsored him in his self-education greatly improving his reading and writing. This pushed Malcolm X into reading documents of Mr. Muhammad about history being “whitened”. Much like Carol White’s sponsors leading to her role in Jehovah Witness, Malcolm X’s sponsors led him being a disciple of Elijah Muhammad. Thus, the document and Malcolm X’s life in general greatly supports Brandt’s argument. On the other hand, Sherman Alexei’s sponsors of his literate father, his racial background, and the struggles he received of being a smart Native American led and diverted him into becoming an author pushing literacy among Native Americans. Much like Sarah Steele’s experience in the bookstore brought her understanding of economy as a ulterior motive of the money of the job, Sherman Alexi’s sponsors led him into becoming the author he is.
In my study of Deborah Brandt's essay, I have found her points to relate thoroughly with Malcolm X's literacy story, however, her logic respecting “literacy sponsorship” is frequently incompatible in contemporary society. Being in prison with very little connection to the outside world seems like an ideal environment for the practical study and application of Brandt's arguments regarding literary sponsors. Since Malcolm didn't mention any other contacts outside of prison, besides the very articulate Elijah Muhammad, this reasoning is further justified. The context she creates from her interviews is very compelling for her conclusions as well, but not enough I feel to adequately support every one entirely and in reality, many things persistently derail us from our pursuit for learning.
ReplyDeleteMalcolm X's history is a rare exception. Being in prison, he relates to the apprentices of the printing workshop environment in the antebellum United States. They both had access to and were secluded enough to inspire literary material on their own terms and learned in a very decentralized way many intricacies of reading and writing. They weren't exposed to the huge economic and political forces that dictated literacy in the 20th century. There were no conglomerations of sponsors coercing them to read or write in a certain ideological or cultural manner. In the case for Malcolm, he had an extensive library of books and material he could choose from and had a couple very well versed sponsors.
Since being in prison meant Malcolm had very little to do, it actually benefited him since he could devote all his time each day to reading and learning. One of his sponsors was a prison inmate named Bimbi who evoked envy in Malcolm. This inspired him to pick up a dictionary and copy every page onto his tablet while memorizing the definitions. A new world was opened to him once he learned how to read and understand books. After a while, Malcolm's motivation for improving his literary skills came from a sense of self-worth because of the vast knowledge base he had acquired and for even more discoveries. Malcolm X wasn't constrained by what Brandt suggests are the snares of misleading rhetorical advertisement so commonly employed during this time. He had very little to no exposure to corporate markets and their very broad, devious strategies and while imprisoned, he wasn't an ordinary citizen constantly centralized around the everyday trade of goods, information, pressure for employment, and social status. He merely was in pursuit of enlightenment. He didn't necessarily want to read and write because he had a desire for monetary gain. He did for the sake of learning and developed an inherent joy for doing so. Malcolm's seven years in prison were, in a very pure sense, an embodied form of literacy learning.
ReplyDeleteNowadays and in the 20th century, reading and writing for most people is merely a means for commercial benefit and social status. Malcolm X began to understand that this fierce competition is what makes the pursuit of literacy in the outside world so turbulent and precarious for so many blacks. His obligation to one of his seemingly only sponsors in prison, Elijah Muhammad, did run deep. Elijah was a very independent thinker and instructed Malcolm X to adopt more fervently his cause to bring civil and human rights to blacks in America. Their ideological acquaintance formed, as Brandt argues, from their racial minority's need to better manage scarce resources in a world of white dominance and to contribute to the promotion of political stability for their race. Consequently, his ideology was slanted towards a strong hatred for what whites have done to blacks and other non-whites in the world historically. He sought out the books that interested him accordingly and was lucky enough to find them at the prison school.
Malcolm relates to Carol White and Sarah Steele in his appropriation of literacy. Their understanding they acquired, with the help of sponsorship teachings, enabled them to be very innovative with the literary resources available to them without ignorantly succumbing toward recruitment into ideological burdens created by sponsors with differing agendas. Malcolm, Carol, and Sarah began to understand not only the value of literacy in how crucial it is for economic and political well being, but also the persistent lengths and works the powerful forces accomplish to conscript and ration the gift of literacy in order to subdue unfortunates and to preserve their status as overlords. Malcolm learned to use his literary resources for the benefit of his own race by becoming a spokesperson. Just from reading his mini autobiography, its apparent that he was not obliviously influenced from devious sponsors, but that he was a very independent thinker. He was also able to overcome the inherent disadvantages of his race in regards to literary access and potential. His life in prison gave him a new ability to seek out and find new avenues of literacy which were otherwise suppressed, hidden, and discouraged by most sponsors.
ReplyDeleteThe same disadvantages applies to these women in the form of sexism. Carol White converted the initial purpose of the anecdote technique into religious advertisement, while Sarah Steele made use of skills learned in an accounting environment for the benefit of her family.
I can grasp Brandt's reasoning that if people don't learn it's because of the lack of sponsor encouragement or sponsors withholding education, but I don't think she conveys strongly enough the thousands of distractions occupying people that can potentially evoke the feeling of not needing to develop literary skills. Furthermore, many of us think we can pursuit our goals with just vocal communication and without a need for much literacy and therefore are indifferent to or aren't even literate enough to comprehend the encouragement from sponsors. These misconceptions in life can make analyzing literacy sponsorship extremely hard and can constrain many conclusions made to be too general
I have doubts about the credibility of Brandt's arguments when it's applied to her case examples because of the lack of a controlled, secluded environment in their lives. I think it's too difficult to keep track of the weight of ordinary people’s sponsors versus the weight of distractions in their hectic existence. It is ostensibly possible that the interviewees had trouble remembering everything that could have significantly affected them. Malcolm X however, is more likely to accurately recall his literary development being in prison since almost everything that happened there centered on that activity.
While Deborha Brandt makes the compelling argument that “…affluent people from high-caste racial groups have…powerful literacy sponsors…”, while “Poor people and those from low-caste racial groups have less consistent, less politically secured access to literacy sponsors.” (Brandt 170). I do not Believe this has to be true. Dora Lopez is referenced in "sponsors of Literacy." She overcomes a language barrier which draws the parallel to Malcolm because he overcomes his barrier with literature. In the case of Malcolm X even in the hardest of times he still managed to find a sponsor, jail. Being in Jail and needing to communicate to the outside world sparked his interest to invest his time into a homemade eduction. The library that he found is what he used as a baseline for all of his literacy interests. It is here that he began to check out books and mildly start to comprehend what words were being conveyed over paper. He spent hours and hours in his cell reading and losing sleep over his goal. Despite Brandt's belief that literacy is affected by that person’s socioeconomic majority race status, Malcolm seemed to defy those odds and get what he sought after so badly. Similarly enough the story of "The Joy of Reading and Writing" also proved Brandts standpoint wrong. Despite location, both Malcolm and Sherman Alexie were in the same situation. Both were ranked low economically and a different race. Alexie's sponsor was his father, even though it was not he that taught him how to read. He served as his sponsor strictly because he was the one who kept the books in the house. Since Alexie saw his fathers passion for reading he decided it was in his best interest to start reading too. Both Malcolm X and Alexie made what you could call a homemade education which could draw a parallel to the reference of Dwayne Lowery in "Sponsors of Literacy". Alexie attended school but it was at home that he first taught himself to read using a super man comic book. Since he lived on a reservation with other children of the same race they all were assumed to meet the same expectation. They were indian so they couldn't be smart, right? Wrong, Alexie kept badgering the teacher with questions despite the rude remarks made by his peers. Alexie just proved to me further that Brandts assumptions were not true. Although things like socioeconomic status and race could play a role in determining ones future, it doesn't have to. I believe that literacy is never out of a childs reach. Attitude is everything, if a child goes after what they seek, they are bound to be successful.
ReplyDeleteBrandt analyzed the significance of sponsors upon ones literacy development and progression. Literal development are composed of several sponsors influence. These sponsors can derive from anything in life, it's impact in a person writing depends on the sponsors significance in some ones life. Sherman Alexi first contact with literature was a Superman comic book. Ironically he mentioned he mention his motivation was to save himself, where the superman was a hero that saved many. His first reading was an undercover motivating force that made him want to advance in his knowledge. In Sherman writings he describe how his fellow classmates conformed to the "white man" opinion on them by behaving stupid. This shows that their sponsor, which was the want to stay unnoticed impeded their literal development. Another example of Brandt belief of the strong influence a sponsor has on ones writing is Malcolm. Malcolm had many sponsors when he went to prison. Seeing his friend being able to grasp anyone into a conversation and his yearn to want to be able to convey a message that would hole meaning and weight in ones live motivated him to learn to read and write. The books he read heightened his knowledge on black history and Muhammad which formed his strong opinions that will be shown in speeches and writings. Brandt said sponsorship can come from struggles and both Malcolm and Sherman had the struggle of being minorities in a majority white world. This struggle sponsorship pushed them to quench their thirsts for knowledge and understanding.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteOut of the sections in Brandt's "Sponsors of Literacy" i found that it is compatible with the first section, "Sponsorship vs Access". there are many ways. in the first section when Brandt says "Poor people and those from low-caste racial groups have less consistent, less politically secured access to literacy sponsors", i find this to be true and not true at the same time, yes it is true that you see less writers with sponsors that have came from poor families because maybe they joined in a gang or have never had any influential guidance so they never think to pick up a book and read it or write a story, or like Malcolm X says in his story he went to jail for robbery and got his education in the prison library,which comes to my next point, even if you are poor person or minority you still have a vast accesses to books and education to where you can educate yourself like Malcolm X did. Alexie in "The Joy of Reading and Writing: Superman and Me" also ties into this because he says he is from a poor family also. Alexie says he lives on an Indian reservation in Washington, he claims his father brings him books home and he begins to read all of them and starts learning more and more, both Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie came from poor or bad circumstances.
Reading " Sponsors of literacy " by Deborah Brandt, " Learning to read " by Malcolm X, and " The joys of reading and writing : Superman and me" by Sherman Alexie gave me this insight : In " Learning to read", Bimbi , someone in the same prison as Malcolm, would be considered an indirect sponsor, not teaching him but, Malcolm learning on his own through Bimbi. this would be so from Malcolm's action of copying Bimbi when Bimbi spoke. In Malcolm's autobiography, Malcolm described Bimbi's conversations as intellectual. So,Malcolm began reading a dictionary to try to understand words Bimbi would say in conversations, writing down words and rehearse the meaning of the words to get to Bimbi's level of knowledge, to understand conversations of high intellectual level he did not understand before. This is how Brandt's sponsorship ties to Malcom X' autobiography about how he learned to read, he examined his prison mate Bimbi and learned on his own words he did not understand to get to an intellectual level. This goes with Alexi as well. Alexi's sponsor was his father. In Alexi's autobiography, Brandt's sponsorship vs access can be located. Sponsorship vs access is described as how sponsorship can be affected if there is an economic backround. If there is someone of a low class, they may not "qualify " to have a sponsor due to thier low economic status. So a person of low class has less chances of access to a sponsor to teach them, and therefore is iliterate. Alexi in his autobiography explains how in his Native American town, there are children of low economic class that do not have the opportunity to have someone teach them to read or write. This goes into Brandt's sponsorship vs access because the children in this town do not have that opportunity to have a sponsor, someone to teach them to read or write, due to low class conditions.
ReplyDeleteKayla Collins - ENC
ReplyDeleteComing to an understanding after reading Deborah Brandt’s article “Sponsors of Literacy” it is clear to me that both Malcolm X’s “Learning to Read” and Alexie’s “The Joy of Reading and Writing: Superman and Me” closely relate to Brandt’s writing as well as the point being made. Malcolm X started as a street thug and says now that is it wasn’t for prison he wouldn’t have excelled in the world. He got the motivation and began copying the dictionary and reading his own sentences in order to teach himself how to read and understand. He pushed himself to read and write and do things others struggled at. His story fits perfectly in Brandt’s writing. Both emphasize the importance of literacy and the impact of having the skills to rise above others. Malcolm X comes closely related to Brandt’s paragraph about the two secretaries; Malcolm X educated himself to a higher power then others; learning from his sponsors and becoming his own sponsor to others. As for Sherman Alexie’s story, he begins learning at a very young age as an Indian boy on a reservation. He taught himself to read just by knowing what he saw in the Superman Comic. Alexie wanted to be smart. Even though smart Indians were looked at as dangerous people, he still prevailed. Writing was beyond Indians but Alexie never let that stop him from reading everything he could. Both of these stories fit extremely well in Brandt’s writing. Brandt says “More people are being expected to accomplish more with reading and writing” which I completely agree with. She also argues that literacy resource comes to ordinary people by powerful sponsors and access to them, which fits with both Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie’s stories. Both men had the resources available to them and used everything they had as sponsors and then become their own sponsors to others.
In “Sponsors of Literacy” by Deborah Brandt, one of her main points is about how the economy can play a role in our advancements in literacy. She talks about how if you are born into a family with a lot of power and money, your literacy rates will probably be much higher than compared to someone else born into a poor, low-class family with little opportunities to advance their literacy performance. If you focus Brandt’s Sponsorship and Access portion of her paper and compare that to Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie’s stories, you can see how Brandt’s explanation of money and political influence’s role in literacy does not match up.
ReplyDeleteIn Sherman Alexie’s story about his experience of learning to read and write, he states how his family was a poor Indian family living on a Reservation. If you are going off of Brandt’s explanation of how the economic status would play a role on Alexie, you would immediately assume that he does not get many opportunities or ever advance his literacy ability. If you continue to read Alexie’s story on how he learned to read and write, you will learn about the admiration Alexie had towards his father which matches up to Brandt’s explanation of how “obligations towards one’s sponsor run deep, affecting what, why, and how people read and write” (Brandt 168). Since Alexie’s father had a love for books, Alexie was given the opportunity at a young age to be able to learn how to read and write. Alexie talks about how the Indians were expected to be stupid and not understand but he was trying to save his life to be able to advance to something greater than what the average Indian was on his Reservation.
Malcolm X had started off his life as someone from the streets who had been sent to prison for seven years without ever getting a full education. It was while Malcolm X was in prison that he taught himself to read. If you had known Malcolm X before prison, you never would have guessed that he would eventually become a powerful leader during black America in the 1960s. Malcolm X was not exposed to a powerful economic or political advantage at an early age while he should have been learning his reading and writing, but instead it was later on in his life that he had to teach himself and help pull himself out of the hole that he was in which lacked literacy. The story of Malcolm X does not match up with what Deborah Brandt says about literacy and the importance of money and power. Malcolm X was in a jail while he taught himself out of a dictionary; he was not surrounded by people with power or a lot of economic or political influence. The story of Malcolm X is the exact opposite of what Brandt talks about during Sponsorship and Access.
If you take the two stories of Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie, you see how the stories are more about people who are given little to work with and how they can make the best out of what they are given. Both these people have sponsors in their lives with Malcolm X having the jail and Sherman Alexie having his father to influence and help them advance their literacy. Deborah Brandt’s Sponsorship and Access does not really support these two stories because these two people made something out of themselves despite their positions in life with little money and opportunity towards education.
Deborah Brandt's "Sponsors of literacy" and the two passages correlate within each other giving examples of her explaining the low class and giving the reader true definitions of a literate sponsor. In Malcolm X's case,excerpts from his autobiography he explains that he had an eighth grade education and couldn't write without taking up all the lines. malcolm X was a hustler, and professional criminal who had no intentions on changing or improving his situation as far as education goes until he met his "sponsor" Bimbi. Bimbi was very articulate and was able to carry an intellectual conversation with anyone which inspired a young malcom's vicious appetite for knowledge.Bimbi and Elijah Muhammed influenced malcolm so much that he was reading for at least fifteen hours a day and until his death gave him a non stop journey for information. The case of Sherman Alexie's "Superman and me" shows how a comic book became the initial staple in his literacy development,. In this passage we find that his "sponsor" happens to be his father who has an extreme reading habit which inspires his son who looks up and adores his father. The passage further explains Deborah Brandts case of low-class because Alexie (a Native American) becomes bigger than the stereotype given towards him and his people. Both Malcolm and Sherman contrast because both eventually become extremely great writers and show strong literacy even though not coming from the best backgrounds. These passages gives the reader great insight that although your beginning may be small and humble, anything is achievable...
ReplyDeleteAlthough I found Deborah Brandt's "Sponsors of literacy" boring and difficult to understand, It wasn't untill I read the Malcolm X and Sherman Alexie's piece that Deborah's writings became a little easier to understand. She basically in my own words believe that depending on ones stature in life wheather rich or poor or maybe even middle class, Is what shapes there future literacy in life. Its up to the person to want to reach farther to educate their self if not born into a privledge family.
ReplyDeleteMlcolm X for example here is a young man with only an eigth grade education, who on the streets as a hussler was respected and treated like somebody. It wasn't untill he went to prision that he relized that being educated was of more value and freedom than anything he could get on the streets. which lead him to be his own sponse of litercy. He even went as far as copying the entire dictionary just so he could understand the books he read and so that he could write to his other sponser Elijah muhammed. Because of his thirst for knowledge and his drive to reach beyond his eigth grade education is why he was the most powerful black leader in the 1960's. Then you have Sherman Alexi's piece "Superman and me" Here was a young indian boy who's sponse for literacy was his father. He wanted to be just like him so through that longing started to read all the material his father would bring home. The sterotype back then was that idians were stupid but in truth were acutally very smart though they would not perticipate in class in fear of the white man they could come up with the most elabrate stories when around their own kind which took imagination and thought. Sherman like malcom X did not have a privledged up bringing but also proveld through self drive and thirst for knowledge for wanting to be like his dad which lead him to self teach himself how to read and eventually writting his own books and help teach other little indian children that its good to be smart. He was a role modle for them.