Practice Paper 1 Essay

Audience and Purpose:

• Type of text: The text is an autobiography of Mary Seacole. 
• It aims to inform the reader of the dire circumstances faced by the English settlers in Jamaica (yellow fever). It recounts the influential events of her time in Jamaica. Her experiences inform the reader of the (maybe overlooked) non-idealistic life as a colonist. 
• Maybe for those interested in British imperialism and life on the colonies. 

Content and Theme:

• The text is about Mary Seacole, a woman we assume is a nurse, living in Jamaica during the time of the yellow fever. She discusses her experience working in close proximity to death and suffering. 
• 1. “Indeed, the mother country pays a dear price for the possession of her colonies” → Great Britain has lost many lives due to this fever (gained territory, but lost lives) 2. Message about Death that she had learnt through her experience to meet “him with a brave, smiling face, and this he taught me” 

Tone and Mood:

• The tone is serious and filled with emotion. 
• The mood is melancholy. She is not grieving for those who died, so much as telling a sad tale of loss that was one of her experiences. However, she still feels sad when she thinks of those who died. “the thought of which stirs my heart now” 

Style and Structure:

• Biased, her viewpoint is the only one considered, not purely ideological but states that how we bear death depends “on the aweful and important question of religious feeling”.
• Uses first person pronouns.
• She directly states her residence in Jamaica and draw the reader in with strong words “gloom” “suffering”.
• The selection has 4 paragraphs. She uses mainly imperative sentences. She states her experiences plainly. 
• The effect of gloominess is created by lexis with strong connotation: words such as suffering and gloom strong imagery: “to see young people in the youth and bloom of life suddenly stricken down” figurative language:”a little distance on their way into the Valley of the Shadow of Death” (also allusion to Psalm 23)

Written Task 1 Draft

Now, let’s talk China’s 60 year hidden ‘cultural genocide’ in Tibet. The Merriam-Webster definition of cultural genocide is “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group.”

In world history, language is maintained for not just communication but for national identity; it defines a culture. In many societies throughout history, the suppression of languages of minority groups has been used commonly-especially by conqueror- as a deliberate policy in order to suppress them. Resulting in a large number of the world's languages lost with the processes of colonization and migration.

It has been estimated that approximately 10,000 spoken languages have existed throughout human history. Today, only about 6,000 languages are still spoken and many of these are not being taught to children. About 2,000 of those languages have fewer than 1,000 speakers. It is predicted that more than half of these languages are unlikely to survive the next century.

The current cultural genocide of the Tibetan language by the Chinese government is through the removal of Tibetan language from schools replaced with Chinese; to make Chinese children out of Tibetan children.

Buddhism and culture depend on Tibetan. It is a rich and developed language with a complex and intricate history that could all be gone in just a few generations by Chinese policies in schools.

Beijing alleges that it has “liberated” Tibet from feudal theocracy and serfdom, propelling it into a “golden era”. However, the only feudal slavery the Tibetans have suffered is the present one where “progressive” reforms have imposed systematic destruction of the Tibetan people and their unique culture.

The genocide of the Tibetan language is an abuse and a humiliation. The Chinese communist authorities in Tibet do not accept and respect the Tibetan language as a mother tongue; this means that the authorities act like USSR dictators, who prohibited the languages to be used in the occupied states.

At least 1 million, a sixth of the entire population have been cruelly slaughtered, among hundreds of thousands of monks. Practically all of Tibet’s magnificent temples, monasteries, its ancient cultural artifacts and libraries, everything sacred to their civilization, their culture, their identity has been methodically razed and pillaged in a cracked frenzy of extermination.

There are no human rights for the Tibetans. They are forgotten people like many before. Out of sight, out of mind. At least a third of the people reading this would not have heard of the Tibetans before. But you have heard of China and despite being a growing nation and vast area, many of you do not know the different cultures and identities interspersed. Tibet emerged in the 7th century, a culture so old, rich and profound. They may be a minority but they are part of humanity, they still have identities, culture, belief and most importantly knowledge.

We as humans have evolved to not just using language as a form of communication for survival but to the extent where we have created. Now, knowledge is passed down in culture. The knowledge of Tibetan not only contributes to world peace and harmony but also one’s Dharma study and practice. To study Tibetan is to essentially practice the soul of Buddhism, which even many scientists say potentially have an important and productive influence on modern science.

Texting has become a widely used communication system within our generation. Is it accepted? Even now when I'm typing the word 'texting', it is underlined in red, claiming to not be in our universal dictionary. I have no doubt many linguists have started dissecting and analyzing the global phenomenon known as texting, eager to understand the depths of this recent happening.

Both widely known linguists, John McWhorter and David Crystal have distinctive theories the phenomenon Crystal has labelled as Textspeak. Here we'll discuss textspeak, comparing both McWhorter and Crystal's theories.

How did textspeak come to life? Texting is 'fingered speech'. McWhorter states that language is speech and that writing is 'a kind of artifice'. He then goes on and discusses the history of language. In distant era, it was common for people to speak like they were writing. It was formal and structured and perfectly natural at that time. But, could we write like we speak? At that time, no. We were limited in a 'material, mechanical sense' and thus communication was limited. However, as the new dawn of mobiles came along, he concludes that "Once you have things in your pocket that can receive that message, then you have the conditions that allow that we can write like we speak. And that's where texting comes in." So texting had initiated to finally allow humanity to write how we speak.

Crystal, on the other hand, finds that we have adapted our communication to suit our growing and new found demands. He claims that our 'linguistic creativity' is evolving and thus the need for a new system was in place. He suggests that our new technology has created a new medium for language which is why is grabbed soo much attention. However, with the constraints of a small-screen, the result was 'one of the most idiosyncratic varieties in the history of language'. Both McWhorter and Crystal conclude that technology as new medium has aided in evolving a new language. However, while Crystal suggests that this is an evolutionary extension to our language, McWhorter finds this new phenomenon as an entirely new language created by the young generation.

Who knows, maybe one day we'll see textspeak in Google Translate.

The Issue Of Cultural Appropriation

Dear Editor,

I completely disagree with your opinion. People should not be forced in their own cultural homogeneous bubbles just because racism hasn't been eradicated yet. Your article includes many examples through pop culture but you poorly prove and conclude your argument.

You ask "Why shouldn't I be allowed to twerk, or wear a kimono, or call myself a sassy, black woman or do whatever else the f** I want." or that you "think that it’s bull** to have to uphold values or beliefs that are not my own." What you should ask yourself is why there's soo much uproar.

You should first look at the line between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation. Although there has been drastic change with views on different races, the movement still hasn't completely dwindled. The fact is, Western culture invites and, at times, demands assimilation. “Ethnic” clothes and hairstyles are still stigmatized as unprofessional, “cultural” foods are treated as exotic past times, and the vernacular of people of color is ridiculed and demeaned. So there is an unequal exchange between Western culture and marginalized cultures. There are those of us who have been forced and pressured to change our identity just to earn enough respect to stay employed and safe and gain acceptance into society. Using someone else’s cultural symbols to satisfy a personal need for self-expression is an exercise in privilege.

Further, people shirk “ethnic” clothes in corporate culture, but wear bastardized versions of them on Halloween. There is no exchange, understanding, or respect here – only taking without permission. This is what cultural appropriation is. Cultural appropriation is itself a real issue because it demonstrates the imbalance of power that still remains between cultures that have been colonized and the ex-colonizers.

Going back to your claim of dividing races as a solution, you have to think about race itself. Race is a socially constructed concept. It derives from people's desire to socialize and classify. The current mainstream view in the social sciences and biology is that race is a social construction mainly based not in actual biological differences but rather in folk ideologies that construct groups based on social disparities and superficial physical characteristics. The official position of the AAA, adopted in 1998, finds that advances in scientific knowledge have made it "clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups" and that "any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations [is] both arbitrary and subjective."

Really, this is a discussion of a very narrow definition of a phrase which actually has a much broader meaning. It doesn't attempt to be a comprehensive argument but as a simplistic little rant about Taylor Swift twerking while black people are shot behind. You completely disregard the concept of mixed race.

What you should be doing is not arguing but starting an actual conversation with both sides. Until then, there won't be any unity. There won't be communication and no compromise.  We have to stop fighting and talk and humanity won't be able to come to the conclusion that we have to unite as a species and stop dividing ourselves into races.