Changing The Face Of Poverty Analysis

Time continues on, however, some thing’s never change. One of the things that seem to never change is poverty. Whether it is in the lifestyle in America and/ or Africa or in the school system. “Fremont High School” a report written by Jonathan Kozol, contains certain elements that are similar of those in “Changing the Face of Poverty”, a literacy narrative by Diana George, such as; the use of first person, strong diction, and the use of stereotypes. Both authors use first person in their writings “Changing the Face of Poverty” and “Fremont High School”. When using first person, the author has the ability to make the readers feel closer to the characters; such as when kozol speaks about“.. when I first meet them” and how they are, “ often
The similarity can be found in the use of persuasive diction. For instance, George speaks about the ideology used when speaking about, “poverty and immorality” and eliding it with, “laziness or criminality” (676) and Kozol quotes a student who attends Fremont High School, ‘“Why is it that students who do not need what we need get so much more? And we who need it so much get so much less?”’ (712). What is the purpose of this
In “Changing the Face of Poverty”, Diana George writes how the majority of ads in the magazines are of stores such as, "Eddie Bauer, Nordstroms, The Gap, and others like them whose polished and attractive images fill our days" (668). She then goes on to say that Habitat for Humanity, a nonprofit organization that "aims to eliminate poverty housing from the globe", may be working against itself. The problem, according to George, is it's publicity, "I would suggest that the way poverty continues to be represented in this country and on tapes like those videos limits our understanding of what poverty is and how we might address it" says George explaining why she thinks Habitat for Humanity isn't fulfilling their potential. Her reason suggests people may not recognize themselves in those representations and in return think that they will not qualify, or do not need the program as much as the people in the ads do. For example, they're ruining the organization work in America because Americans see the ads and think they don't have it as bad or won't qualify. In reality, America's poverty and Africa's poverty and two completely different types, but for their own country, are equally as bad. They are portraying the poverty as something it is not. The solution to the author’s stated problems being; to better understand poverty in the specific locations and work from there. There are still many