English Lang. & Lit. Blog | Tómas Egilsson

If the text had been written in a different time or place or language or for a different audience, how and why might it differ? In the opinion column "Here's something I'd be thankful for: Ridding football of racial slurs" written by Jefferson Keel, he explores how the use of sports mascots depicting Native Americans is racist. In our current time period, this article would be read with respect and an open mind for the most part, depending on the political views and beliefs of the reader. However, had this article been written a hundred years prior, the views and opinions of Keel would not be taken seriously, as American readers at the time did not have the same racial tolerance as they do now, not having gone through the civil rights movements, and overall shifts in morals that come with time. Furthermore, the article would likely not have been published considering the racial prejudices at the time towards Native American Indians. This helps to showcase how a tex

1. How could the text be read and interpreted differently by two different readers? The New York Times article "For women under 30, most births occur outside marriage" written by Jason DeParle and Sabrina Tavernise could be read and interpreted differently by varying audiences. This all depends on things like their age, political beliefs, gender, as well as their personal values and opinions. Looking at this text from the conservative perspective with a middle to middle-high social status, and focus on traditional values; that reader will mostly agree with the opinions presented in these articles, and the certain biases. However, a younger and more liberal person in a lower and similar social status, with a relatively high education will most likely pick up on these biases, and disagree with the biggest statements made in this article. The focus on these perspectives will help illustrate the certain dichotomy between these two political beliefs, as well as provide an examp