"My Two Lives" by Jhumpa Lahiri

          Not your typical American name, Jhumpa Lahiri, author of “My Two Lives” spoke about her quest to find her identity as a Indian America. Lahiri loved America, but she did not neatly fit into the average idealism of it. As a second generation immigrant Lahiri’s parents still practiced traditions from their own country, Bangladesh, India. From her name to her appearance, Lahiri, never quite felt she fit in anywhere. At home she tired so earnestly to please her parents. Even though in her heart her home was America, not Bangladesh. Once Lahiri entered school it became apparent to her that her traditions were not only different, but they also had to remain a secret. As time went on Lahiri realized being Indian American didn’t make her standout out, it set her apart.

           When one is migrating from one country to an other, sometimes there are barriers like language and cultural differences that make it hard to transition. In many cases these obstacles are to hard to over come. In fact some prefer not to change in any way to accommodate their new environment. Just as I take pride in being American;others, take pride in their country of origin. Lahiri’s parents strongly expressed pride in their country and traditions. Just as I expect my children to stand and hold there hand over their hearts when the national anthem plays; Lahiri’s parents expected certain things of her. This loyalty was not expected by force, but from admiration. Lahiri’s dilemma was that America had won over her heart.

            At home the language spoken was Bengali. Lahiri mentioned that she spoke perfect English, but her parents still had an accent. Her parents cherish the things of their past and their costumes like clothes, food and songs. I believe Lahiri cherished these things in her early childhood as well, but as time went on America and its wonders started to catch her interest. I don’t believe that Lahiri’s parents controlled her to the point that she didn’t make her own choices, but they did not support her enough in her development as a young women. When Lahiri stated, “According to my parents, I was not American, nor would I ever be no matter how hard I tried.” it was clear to me that her parents were not open to new things. Lahiri’s hunger to join the nation she had come to know as home had grown to a healthy appetite.

            As the story continues Lahiri highlights difficulties she experienced through out her life due to cultural practices. One that I found extremely interesting was the fact that she ate rice and lentils with her hands. In America to eat these types of foods with your hands can be thought of as uncivilized. I can not image that she had any friends over her house for dinner from school. To me these things would have been frustrating. It seems almost impossible to explore who you are in such small confines almost in a state of isolation. There is no freedom in secrecy, and no liberty in limitations. Lahiri should have had the room to blossom into a flower, not be molded into one.

              In the end she realize that she was a flower, and more importantly what kind. She was a Indian American. As time went by she came to understand that a persons approval was not necessary. She took comfort in knowing she was both Indian and American. Choosing at will when and where to incorporate values from each one. Instead of having to make a choice of one culture over the other she realized she didn’t have to choose. She became very close to her parents finally understanding their passion for their culture. It was what made them unique what identified them apart from others, and although she was different from them, in this aspect she was the same. Growing into her own identity cultivated by America, but nurtured by her parents all that she was had become one. Although I believe Lahiri was overly influenced by her parents. A bond between a child and their parents is inseparable, and will always be a contributing factor to the identity of a person.
  

         Brent Staple, author of “A Brother’s Murder” is a concerned brother who’s success had brought distance between him and his loved ones. Staple moved to Chicago after graduating college, then over time became a successful journalist. Living in a quiet area where whispers of winds created sounds of tranquility, inner city discord became a faint memory. Escaping the violent and disruptive city he was raised in, he left everything behind. Blake, Staples younger brother became a product of his environment, and was severely influenced by the streets of Pennsylvania. After Blake’s death Staple realized that he had not only left his past behind, but his brother too. Staple analyzed how things could have turned out differently. He wondered if his efforts to rescue his brother were enough.

           Staple was determined to become successful. It seemed to me that Staple had worked very hard to change the cards that life had dealt him. His motivation may have came from the violence and death he felt surrounded him. When one feels pressure to met a goal or a task that is important to them, they will work twice as hard to accomplish it. After gaining his career he completely submersed himself in his new life. His determination had paid off, and he was enjoying the rewards in peace. Staple stated, “Perhaps to protect myself, I added a psychological dimension to the physical distance I had already achieved. I rarely visited my hometown. I shut it out.” Using the phrase “physical distance I had already achieved” made it seem to me that one of Staples goals was to leave his home town.



           He was very descriptive about the violence and confrontation he had observed in his home town. He spoke about how Chester, Pennsylvania was an angry and heavily black populated place. He also mention countless acts of violence that he had witnessed and herd about. He expressed his distaste for the disregard of life by young black men who were being influenced by the streets. In a way I would venture to say that Staple was traumatized by this violence. In such a way it caused him to leave and not want to look back. With memories of pain and discomfort the past was not worth remembering.



            Blake also moved, but unlike his brother who moved to a tranquil place he moved to Roanoke, Virginia into public housing projects. The neighborhood was much like the one they had grown up in. Although Staple sought out change, his brother did not. Staple realized that Blake had become just like those young black men he once despised. Blake spoke about his run-ins with the law, and took pride in them. I’m sure it was surreal to Staple that they had turned out so differently. Staple’s determination led him to change the very thing that may have caused his brother to lose his life. He changed his environment. Although his environment did not have such a big roll in his success. Staple knew that it was a necessary change. For young Blake comfort was found in familiar situations and the life style he once embraced. Change was not something Blake was looking for.

              Staple had made an effort to help Blake change his circumstances. He pleaded with him to leave that place with the urgency he once had to leave Pennsylvania. He offered to buy him a plane ticket as long as he just got away from it all, but Blake blew him off. Staple’s attempt to help change his environment had failed. Blake was shot dead in his car by a person that use to be a friend. Through his success Staple had oppressed his passed selfishly thinking of his own well being. As time passed by he reached out to his brother after realizing the path he had chosen in life. Unfortunately it was to late. So wrapped up in the moment he had created Staple never stop to look back. Changing his environment allowed Staple to flourish in his success. In the end Blake’s environment caused his demise. Perhaps if Staple would have taken his brother with him from the beginning things would have turned out differently.

Martin Lindstrom, author of (What your supermarket knows about you) exposes secrets that will make you think twice at the grocery store.  For the working person money is what drives them to work more. So what is the motivation to spend the money one has worked so hard for? Necessity, things that would make life very difficult and or uncomfortable to go without.  In hard times do we simply buy what is necessary, or do over compensate?

            Work can be a great thing it allows independence to flourish extending opportunities in varies ways.  Although at times it can be tedious as well as strenuous hard work quite often leads to success. Success can be measured in many ways, but it is more commonly measured in wealth. For the average person money is at the top of the list of stress inducers. It is a known fact that money is what moves the economy. It is also statistically proven that people in poverty or below the poverty line are the ones who spend the most of it. In such dire positions one may ask themselves, why would they spend more? The answer is simply necessity.

           

            Things become necessary when we determine we need them. When a person is working to earn a paycheck to live week to week all the money they have becomes necessary! Every dollar severs a purpose in the everyday lives of the poor, and sometimes even the middle class. The flow of a good moving economy is comparable to the input and output of an impoverished man’s income.  As the money comes in it quickly goes out. Being that most of his money is tied up in prior commitments a greater concern arises from within this conflict. How can I save money!

            Good for the economy not so good for the working man. Cash flow management starts to become a priority when you barely have enough to get by. A good example of this would be the sale of gasoline. While the man in poverty can only afford to fill his gas tank half way. The better off man fills his tank completely. Known by most that a full tank of gas will last you longer than filling it periodically the man with more spends less. The gasoline station sells the gas regardless but when purchased by the man with less it sells more of it and more frequently.

            In this article Lindstrom unveils a wide range of tactics used by supermarkets, and their intentions behind them. Their main objective is to manipulate you into spending more. As stated by Lindstrom “there’s no way of getting away from our primitive survival technique of hoarding food to see us through lean times.” One of the tactics revealed in this article was the maximum three cans person with a sales price. This sign might have given the impression to shoppers that others thought it was it great deal. With this preset mind frame shoppers might think that the limit is due to people waiting in line to get it. Also they might think that there are not many left in stock because the deal is so good the product is flying off the shelf. In reality it’s all just to get you to buy more. Do you need all three cans? With the urgency instilled in the sign, and our desire to stretch our money you buy extra. Just like the man who is able to save on gas. Now you too get to save on food because you have more. So yes most of us do over spend, but justified in our minds money well spent is not money spent at all.