Youth Suicide

Youth/Teen Suicide- PSA

Thesis/Introduction: Although youth/teen suicide is a serious and complex epidemic, most attempts and successes can be hindered (obstructed) with the right knowledge and preventative measures.

Area of Support 1: What is suicide? Understanding the reasoning behind people’s choices to consider or follow through with suicide. Statistics- Third leading cause of death among those between the ages of 15-24. It’s the fifth leading cause of death among those between the ages 5-14.

Area of Support 2: Factors that contribute to suicide/suicidal thoughts. Some factors include: alcohol/drug use, family dynamics, sexual and mental abuse, friendships/peer relationships (including boyfriends/girlfriends), depression (major contributing factor, usually associated with an underlying issue), bullying/peer pressure and mental illness (Bipolar, Schizophrenia, ADHD, etc.).

Area of Support 3: Signs and Symptoms- Isolated behavior, talking about death and wanting to die, previous suicide attempts, writing notes, etc. Symptoms of depression- loss of interest in things/people/events, lack of energy, feelings of worthlessness or hopelessness, etc. Symptoms of alcohol/drug abuse-memory lapses, illness, weight changes, mood swings, sleep disturbances, etc.

Area of Support 4: What can be done to prevent youth/teen suicide? Community participation, family awareness, school faculty being knowledgeable and providing easily accessible information and assistance (including therapy/group discussion).

Conclusion: Youth/teen suicide is an unfortunate occurrence. With the right knowledge, participation, and care, we can help prevent it from taking place and make the people we love and care for one less horrible and unnecessary statistic.

Unspeakable Conversations

“Unspeakable Conversations” by Harriet McBryde Johnson is truly an amazing piece. This account was written with such heart and strength; I couldn’t help but feel like I was fighting against pro-euthanasia with her. Johnson’s description of her daily activities, like eating, going to the bathroom, and using her wheelchair, provided a better understanding of the difficulties disabled people face every day. Although she struggled, she never let her disability affect her quality of life. In fact, she thought, that it allowed her to see things and experience things in a much different way. Almost, as if, she was more appreciative and grateful than the average person.




Prof. Peter Singer, although controversial, seems to have a way with words that Johnson takes a liking to. Though she does not support his philosophy, she understands some of his work. What’s difficult for most to comprehend is that although Singer’s philosophy basically states that Johnson should’ve been killed as a child, his reasoning isn’t entirely off from what a portion of society thinks and feels towards disabled people. Some believe that life for disabled people isn’t worth the money, care, and emotional stress. They are blinded so much by the actual disability that they fail to realize that disabled people are people too, who live, laugh, love, accomplish, and succeed.



In the end, Johnson has a conversation with her sister about her previous engagements with Singer. Confused and rather defensive, her sister Beth tries to figure out why she chose to handle herself the way she did. When Beth mentioned that Singer was advocating genocide and that she fears what will happen if he convinces people that his philosophy is correct, Johnson states that his talk won’t matter in the end. (101) Johnson then states that Singer “doesn’t propose killing anyone who prefers to live.” (101) Beth replies by saying, “So what if that view wins out, but you can’t break disability prejudice? What if you wind up in a world where the disabled person’s ‘irrational’ preference to live must yield to society’s ‘rational’ interest in reducing the incidence of disability? Doesn’t horror kick in somewhere? Maybe as you watch the door close behind whoever has wheeled you into the gas chamber? (101) Johnson, knowing very well that this has happened before, is left with nothing but a practical need for definitions that she can live with, knowing that belief and hope would not do much justice.



Johnson’s conversation with her sister Beth was rather overwhelming. Just the thought that at some point a society’s view on disabled people could lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people forcibly without consent is shocking.

What Did You Do in the War, Grandma?

Zoe Tracy Hardy’s “What Did You Do in the War, Grandma?” is an interesting essay. Similar to Laurence’s essay about the bombing of Nagasaki, Hardy describes how she took part in helping to end World War II. At the age of 18, Hardy was determined to go “where something real was being done to end the bitter war.” (366) It was because of this determination that she decided to leave her hometown in Iowa to work for the Glenn. L Martin Company in Omaha. While there, she worked with blueprints that were used to create the B-29’s that carried and dropped the bombs in Japan. Hardy described the people that she met, and the environment of the factory, including details about the B-29’s framework and the time and effort that went into creating them.

Throughout the essay, it seems that Hardy is confused about the exact part she is playing in helping to end the war. At first she seemed eager; she felt a sense of pride and togetherness. While observing other workers in the factory she stated, “I cheered myself by thinking how we were pouring it on, a multitude of us together creating this great bird to end the war.” (368) It isn’t until the end that Hardy truly feels uneasy about her decision. I found this to be true when Hardy stated,

“If he [President Truman] had asked me whether I would work very hard to help bring this horror   into being, knowing it would shorten the war but put the world into jeopardy for all time, how would I   have answered? I would have said no. With all due respect, Sir, how could such a thing make a just end to our just cause?” (373)

Although both Laurence and Hardy describe moments in which they took part in the bombings of World War II, I feel that Hardy did a better job in describing the actual complexity of feelings that people felt during that time.

Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki

In reading "Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki Told by Flight Member" by William Laurence, I was overcome with a sense of sadness. Although much of Laurence’s story focused primarily on the planning and dropping of the bomb over Nagasaki, I couldn’t help but envision the death and destruction that the bombing had created. This destruction, murderous in intent, was easy to picture based on the description that Laurence provided of the bomb itself and its ability to destroy. The conversation between the radio operator, Sergeant Curry and Laurence helped describe the mentality of the crew at the time. Sergeant Curry questioned, "Think this atomic bomb will end the war?" Laurence replied, "There is a very good chance that this one may do the trick, but if not then the next one or two surely will. Its power is such that no nation can stand up against it very long.” (389) When Laurence went about describing the bomb as “a thing of beauty,” it led me to believe that he had almost favored the decision to drop the bomb. (387) This assumption was, in my opinion, confirmed when he stated, “Does one feel any pity or compassion for the poor devils about to die? Not when one thinks of Pearl Harbor and of the death march on Bataan.” (390) I enjoyed reading this piece, aside from it being rather depressing. Laurence was lucky, in a controversial sense, to be part of such a unique experience.

Graduation

When I first began reading “Graduation” by Maya Angelou, I assumed that her experience in graduating was similar to that of most. Angelou’s emotions of anxiety and excitement described initially compared to those that I felt when I had graduated from the 8th grade myself. As I read further along, I started to realize that her graduating class’ experience was much different. Instead of being told that they would go on to do just about anything they put their minds to, they were told that they would only amount to what was expected of them. This “expectation” was brought about by racism and segregation.


In the beginning of the story, Angelou exudes a sense of self pride and accomplishment. It is only when the white man, Mr. Donleavy presents his speech, that she feels as if her efforts were in vein. After making reference to two black graduate students who became great athletes, the only black successful students mentioned, Angelou can’t help but feel insulted. She stated, “What school official in the white-goddom of Little Rock had the right to decide that those two men must be our only heroes?” (49) Why can’t a black student become a doctor or a scientist without having to work twice as hard for even less recognition? Angered and saddened, she goes on to explain her grief towards being black. She mentions “how awful it is to be a Negro and have no control over her life” and how difficult it is to hear “charges brought against her color with no chance of defense.” (50) Graduation, in her mind, was ruined.


Angelou only came to accept herself again and take pride in graduating when the class valedictorian, Henry Reed, finished his speech with the Negro National Anthem. As the auditorium filled with voices, tears streamed from her eyes. She realized that even battered and broken, the black race would continue to live on and strive for greatness because that’s what they were meant to do. She realized that she wasn’t alone, and that she wasn’t just a member of a proud graduating class. Angelou was someone who would fulfill her dreams no matter the judgment or obstacle.

This story was not only well written, but easily understood by most. Angelou’s vivid descriptions and word choice made it easier to distinguish between the way blacks and whites lived during the 1940s.

Shooting an Elephant

In reading “Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell, I felt a sense of complexity about the emotional turmoil that the officer felt. Trapped by his insecurities, he felt forced to prove his power only through the act of brutal assassination. Yet his attraction to the violent action could easily be understood as justice to avenge the death of the Indian. The convenience of justification, however, didn't settle as an ideal alibi in the officers head. I felt that as a reader, I was experiencing the moral and emotional battle that the officer was going through as if I had been present. The killing of the elephant wasn't so much a personal issue between the officer and the animal but rather between the officer and the idea of himself that he conceived through the pressures and expectations of the native people. This can be better understood by taking into consideration the passage, “Suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it." (Orwell 357) Followed by, "I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy. For it is the condition of this rule that he shall spend his life trying to impress the "natives" and so in every crisis he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him." (Orwell 357) The officer knew very well that the animal had deserved to live, but chose to kill it to satisfy the demand of the natives. In my opinion, Orwell did an impressive job presenting a situation in which moral and social expectations and ideals can obscure those of an individual.