Nicole Lee
May 6, 2007
Draft 1
Doing the right thing the wrong way –
Analyzing Shadrach Cohen’s method of discipline
Everyone has parents. Most of us eventually become ones. They are the first people to shape a child’s life and often are very much influential. They teach their children a lot of things. Knowingly or unknowingly, they pass down their values to their children. There are times, though, that they may not be right. Or other times, they may not have the right method of teaching and disciplining.
In Bruno Lessing’s story The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen, we see a classic example of what to avoid in disciplining children. Shadrach Cohen might have been a father who meant well, but his approach was indeed not very good. The first and foremost problem was that Cohen did not communicate with his two sons when there were issues well. When he first realized the cultural barrier between his two so-called Americanized sons and himself, he first “shut his lips tightly”. Even in other incidents told in the story, Shadrach Cohen never attempts to discuss with his sons about the issues they had. By using a one-way commanding and demanding rather than a two-way communication method, he shut down many opportunities that would have prevented the “turning of a worm”.
Secondly, he pressed down his anger until it suddenly burst, instead of getting issues resolved each time one rose to the surface. The story tells us that Shadrach was “red in the face with suppressed rage”. Whenever his sons challenged his tenacity toward his origin and culture, he was upset but he “never lost his temper”. This may seem like a good thing, but he kept silent until one day his anger exploded. Particularly because Shadrach had failed to communicate well with his two sons, Abel and Gottlieb were left in bewilderment when Shadrach finally lost his temper. The explosion of anger and the “trigger” effect often leaves children wondering why the reaction is so big that particular time.
Lastly, he forced his ideas to his sons. Especially after his abrupt explosion of anger, Shadrach Cohen was austere and stringent toward his grown-up sons. The story even tells us “no prisoner with chain and ball was subjected to closer supervision than Gottlieb and Abel”, which clearly shows us that Shadrach took a rather harsh and compulsory manner.
Throughout the story, Shadrach Cohen is generally described as a good father who taught his sons not only business skills, but their own cultural background and the value of it as well. But Shadrach Cohen’s disciplinarian means of correction could have caused a negative outcome in his relationship with Abel and Gottlieb. We should be careful not to do the right thing the wrong way. Shadrach Cohen might have been a respected father, but his method should definitely not be copied.
Cover Letter
June 22, 2007
To the readers:
This is a selection of my writing works done for the Advanced Academic Writing class in the Spring semester of 2007. The writings were written after reading several stories presented in the textbook The International Stories.
The portfolio is consisted of a timed-writing, three versions of the essay and a reading log. Each of the timed-writing, the ssay and the reading log is a reflection of my thoughts from reading three different stories. You will be able to find a short plot summary of the stories at the beginning of each writing work. I have also presented three different versions of the essay, which is the main work I have in this portfolio. From looking at the three different versions of the essay, you will be able to see how my writing has been edited and improved.
I have thoroughly enjoyed working on these writings and I hope you will find them enjoyable as well. Thank you for taking the time to read my writings.
Sincerely,
Nicole Lee
Draft Three
Doing the right thing the wrong way –
Analyzing Shadrach Cohen's Method of Discipline
In Bruno Lessing's The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen, a Jewish father who has come to America to join his two sons is unpleasantly surprised to find out that they have left their traditions to adapt to the American norms. Although the story leaves us with a 'happy' ending, we see a classic example of what to avoid in disciplining children in it.
Everyone has parents. Most of us eventually become one. They are the first people to shape a child's life and often are very much influential. They teach their children a lot of things. Knowingly or unknowingly, they pass down their values to their children. There are times, though, that they may not be right. Or other times, they may not have the right method of teaching and disciplining. Shadrach Cohen might have been a father who meant well, but his approach was indeed not very good. I believe the method of discipline in the story used by Shadrach Cohen was bad, mainly in the following three ways.
The first and foremost problem was that Cohen did not communicate well with his two sons when there were issues. Often times, open communication prevents conflicts from becoming worse. But when he first realized the cultural barrier between his two so-called Americanized sons and himself, he first shut his lips tightly[46]. Even in other incidents told in the story, Shadrach Cohen never attempts to discuss with his sons about the issues they had, and he never gives his sons a chance to explain how they feel or why they think the way they do. By using a one-way commanding and demanding rather than a two-way communication method, he shut down many opportunities that would have prevented the "turning of a worm".
Secondly, he suppressed his anger until it suddenly burst, instead of getting issues resolved each time one rose to the surface. It is a widely known fact that suppressed rage gives birth to various kinds of negative emotions that could be avoided.Whenever his sons' behaviors challenged his tenacity toward his origin and culture, he was upset but he never lost his temper[47]. This may seem like a good thing, but he kept silent until one day his piled-up anger exploded. Particularly because Cohen had failed to communicate well with his two sons, Abel and Gottlieb were left in bewilderment when he finally lost his temper. Of course, one of the sons' refusal to show his fiancée to the father caused a huge shock and fury, but even if we take that into account, but it still was simply the 'trigger' or the brush of a fingertip that knocked down the immensely tall heaps of negative emotions. The explosion of anger left the children wondering why the reaction is so big that particular time.
Lastly, he used the 'money strings' to coercively demand obedience. At first, Shadrach Cohen seemed to take no interest in the business affairs and responded to all their requests of money[47]. However, this picture suddenly changes after the burst of anger. In fact, as Shadrach Cohen dictates that his sons go to bed, he threatens them by emphasizing that the house was "his" and that they would have to leave if they were to disobey. In addition, the text clearly shows us that even though they rendered their father respect for his "shrewdness" in business, they had refused to the integrity of his character and the nobleness of heart[50]. With the money strings in his hands, Cohen unyieldingly demanded from his sons… obedience and respect[50] and even obliged them to strictly observe every tenet of their religion[50]. No doubt, this method 'worked' and Cohen got the respect he wanted. But such harsh and compulsory means to bring forth obedience, largely supported by the money he had rather than the genuineness between him and his sons, should not be seemed as a healthy way of disciplining and leading children.
Throughout the story, Shadrach Cohen is generally described as a good father who taught his sons not only business skills, but their own cultural background and the value of it as well. But Shadrach Cohen’s disciplinarian means of correction could have caused a negative outcome in his relationship with Abel and Gottlieb. We should be careful not to do the right thing the wrong way. Shadrach Cohen might have been a respected father, but his method should definitely not be copied.
Draft Two
Doing the right thing the wrong way –
Analyzing Shadrach Cohen's Method of Discipline
In Bruno Lessing's The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen, a Jewish father who has come to America to join his two sons is unpleasantly surprised to find out that they have left their traditions to adapt to the American norms. Although the story leaves us with a 'happy' ending, we see a classic example of what to avoid in disciplining children in it.
Everyone has parents. Most of us eventually become one. They are the first people to shape a child's life and often are very much influential. They teach their children a lot of things. Knowingly or unknowingly, they pass down their values to their children. There are times, though, that they may not be right. Or other times, they may not have the right method of teaching and disciplining.
Shadrach Cohen might have been a father who meant well, but his approach was indeed not very good. The first and foremost problem was that Cohen did not communicate well with his two sons when there were issues. When he first realized the cultural barrier between his two so-called Americanized sons and himself, he first "shut his lips tightly". Even in other incidents told in the story, Shadrach Cohen never attempts to discuss with his sons about the issues they had, and he never gives his sons a chance to explain how they feel or why they think the way they do. By using a one-way commanding and demanding rather than a two-way communication method, he shut down many opportunities that would have prevented the "turning of a worm".
Secondly, he suppressed his anger until it suddenly burst, instead of getting issues resolved each time one rose to the surface. In short, Shadrach Cohen had "suppressed rage". Whenever his sons' behaviors challenged his tenacity toward his origin and culture, he was upset but he "never lost his temper". This may seem like a good thing, but he kept silent until one day his piled-up anger exploded. Particularly because Cohen had failed to communicate well with his two sons, Abel and Gottlieb were left in bewilderment when he finally lost his temper. Of course, one of the sons' refusal to show his fiancée to the father caused a huge shock and fury, but even if we take that into account, but it still was simply the 'trigger' or the brush of a fingertip that knocked down the immensely tall heaps of negative emotions. The explosion of anger left the children wondering why the reaction is so big that particular time.
Lastly, he used the 'money strings' to coercively demand obedience. At first, Shadrach Cohen "seemed to take no interest in the business affairs" and responded to "all their requests of money". However, this picture suddenly changes after the burst of anger. In fact, as Shadrach Cohen dictates that his sons go to bed, he threatens them by emphasizing that the house was "his" and that they would have to leave if they were to disobey. In addition, the text clearly shows us that even though they rendered their father respect for his "shrewdness" in business, they had refused to the "integrity of his character and the nobleness of heart". With the money strings in his hands, Cohen unyieldingly "demanded from his sons… obedience and respect" and even obliged them to strictly observe "every tenet of their religion". No doubt, this method 'worked' and Cohen got the respect he wanted. But such harsh and compulsory means to bring forth obedience, largely supported by the money he had rather than the genuineness between him and his sons, should not be seemed as a healthy way of disciplining and leading children.
Throughout the story, Shadrach Cohen is generally described as a good father who taught his sons not only business skills, but their own cultural background and the value of it as well. But Shadrach Cohen’s disciplinarian means of correction could have caused a negative outcome in his relationship with Abel and Gottlieb. We should be careful not to do the right thing the wrong way. Shadrach Cohen might have been a respected father, but his method should definitely not be copied.
Draft One
Essay Draft One
Final Timed Writing
0317607
Nicole Lee
June 21, 2007
Timed-Writing 3
Directions: In Dead Men’s Path the priest says “let the hawk perch and let the eagle perch.” Discuss what you think he means and what this saying reveals about him.
In Dead Men’s Path by Chinua Achebe, Michael Obi, a new headmaster of a school, is met with upfront oppositions as he decides to close down a path that has been used for reasons believed to be superstitious. Rather offended by Obi’s decision, a tribal priest comes to the school to tell Obi not to block the path. In the course of their conversation, he mentions a proverb that says: “let the hawk perch and let the eagle perch.” Why did the priest mention this saying? And what does that reveal about the priest himself?
I would like to explain this from the saying itself first. Both being birds with strength and speed, hawks and eagles are used as a symbol of parties with equal or similar amount of strength or abilities who might find themselves in competition. When they both perch, the tense competition comes to a cooling point. Often times in life, there could be different and even opposing ideas – or people who have different perspectives and viewpoints. Sometimes what is most needed to resolve the situation is not fierce arguments and clashing of ideas but rather a condoning attitude, even if it’s for a brief moment. It may calm down both parties and thus prevent further conflict.
By mentioning this proverb, the priest was probably suggesting that he was willing to overlook the “modern” ways of education Obi was trying to implement, although he may not have liked or agreed with it. Given that the Dead Men’s Path was protected, the priest was ready to compromise a bit. I believe this indicates his willingness to tolerate. He mentions that if the path is kept safe, they would have “nothing to argue about”, which tells us even more that he was not looking for battle. He acknowledged the differences they had, and yet he was willing to ‘sign a truce’.
Once a professor of mine said that even though many negative things have been said of the Cold War, it was definitely something that made an era of ‘long peace’ possible. Of course, Cold Wars should not be encouraged. But when it so happens that only a ‘closing of the eyes’ to each other would ensure the well-being of both parties, maybe we should just “let the hawk perch and let the eagle perch.” I only wish Obi had realized that earlier.
Reading Log for The Necklace
In The Necklace by Guy de Maupassant, Mathilde Loisel borrows a necklace from her friend for a party and then loses it. She works hard for years to pay off for the expensive necklace, only to find out that the necklace she had borrowed was a fake.
I both loved and disliked the story. I loved that it gave such vivid descriptions of the characters, especially Mathilde, and each scene she was involved in. I also enjoyed the strong irony that was presented in the story.
As I mentioned earlier, I think Maupassant has done a great job portraying a women who is rather full of herself. I almost felt like I personally know Mathilde. But I disliked the character of the heroin. As a girl myself, I empathized her desire for luxury and her longings to demonstrate her beauty, but Mathilde seemed to have a determined pride about her beauty. She seemed to feel that she was deprived of something - in this case, a higher class life - which she should be given. I can't help but ask myself, if it weren't for that arrogance, would she still have had to be driven to poverty like she was in the story?
The irony presented in the story reminded me of the movie Mystic River - The scene in which Jimmy Markum, after mistakenly killing his childhood friend David Boyle thinking David murdered his own daughter, finds out that he had killed the wrong person. They both remind me that sometimes what we believe without a doubt turns out to be not true at all.