Critical Analysis Post #2

“Third world agriculture faces unfair competition from first world,” by Bhagirathi Lal Das is an article that explains the means of why third world countries are not treated fairly. Das explains in great detail how and why this problem takes place in society. Das includes that because many third world countries are trying to develop; they are used by other developed countries as ‘factories’ so to speak. Then they are paid in extremely low wages and only the developed countries benefit. To add to that, those developing countries like Bangladesh are treated unfairly because they are thought to be a country solely used for work. The press in developed countries almost never hears about the developing countries. For example have you ever heard of the Bangladesh factory collapse that happened in May? I didn’t even hear about it until at my school, we learned about it while reading a teen magazine. Word doesn’t really get around in the US, an example of a first world country.

I think that Das wants the reader to think about how they are treated in difference of how third world countries are treated. Also through this, Das wants the reader to feel concerned about the fact that third world countries don’t get treated fairly. Das uses craft moves like a rebuttal, certain important dates, and using certain important data to support the claim. One example of a piece of data used is, “An April 2001 study of the OECD secretariat – a developed countries’ organization – indicates that the developing countries provide domestic subsidy to the extent of about 40% of their agriculture production,” this supports his claim on how developing countries have to give 40% of their agriculture away.

In my eyes, as someone from one of the largest developed countries in the world, I think that we should be the ones to be giving our stuff to the countries that need to develop. Developing countries are the ones not able to keep developing because they have to give their stuff to developed countries. 

"The Catcher in the Rye" - Answering Inquiry Question #2

The book, “The Catcher in the Rye,” written by JD Salinger is about a teenage boy dealing with teen angst and maturity. The teen, Holden Caulfield, throughout the book deals with many academic and societal obstructions. Holden is expelled from his former prestigious school, and wanders around New York City, experiencing life as an adult. Holden has to consider what he should do for the rest of his life. A long the way, love, friends and family are interfered with.

Holden struggles with past lovers and recent admirers. Holden also reflects the memories of past friends, respectable and disreputable. He doesn't want to return home, in case his parents discover his academic dismiss. His parents are one of the characters that are often thought about throughout the book, but almost never introduced.

The reason why Salinger does not include his parents’ perspective is because the book is about how mature and independent Holden’s choices are. It is not about how Holden is controlled by his parents. Holden has an endless supply of freedom. An example is when after Holden is expelled, even though his parents aren’t informed yet, he can roam around freely through NYC. Holden also has the idea of living in a secluded area with his lover Sally Hayes, which in turn she declines. But Holden had the freedom of actually having the opportunity to do so at only seventeen years of age.

Even if these seem like mature choices, Holden only thinks about them because he wants to be a rebel. Holden wants to escape society, although he says he wants to fit in. He is a hypocrite, and the ironic thing is, he despises hypocrites. Holden’s choices put him in a awkward position as a teen. He doesn’t try when it comes to academics. Love is his priority at seventeen. He could easily devote his life to both.

This goes back to the perspective missing. His parents don’t censor him at all. Through dialogue between Holden and his younger sister, I can infer that his parents are strict enough to be able to look after him. But since there isn't any real proof, Salinger leaves the reader unable to concur if his parents are even able to take care of him.