Friday, October 30, 2015

Prada or Nada

Who are you?


All these dressing styles are categories of their own, however, they can be mixed and matched leading to sub-categories which in turn create more specified sub-categories of their own!

The results and outcomes are limitless.

I, for one, am the sophisticated and sporty, with a hint of trendy and a sprinkle of preppy.

If you were to portray yourself through your clothing and your clothing only, how would it speak for you?

Today, we see more then ever, the array of ways we can choose to express ourselves.

Clothing, nonetheless, has been a staple way to demonstrate our constant shift in emotions.

If we are feeling joyful we find clothing that portrays this; maybe an expressive T-shirt the color of sunshine and pants with patterns of flowers. If we feel gloomy we do the same; we wrap ourselves up in XXL sweaters the color of cadavers, sweatpants, and a pair of fuzzy socks to keep the blues out.

Not only do we express our emotional state of mind, but the brands of clothing we buy, show the world our status. Do you buy Emilio Ferragamo, Tory Burch, Urban Outfitters, Forever 21, Goodwill or Salvation Army?

It is automatically assumed that those buying high end brands are wealthy to affluent, those buying commercial brands are middle class to lower-middle class, and those buying hand-me-downs are un-favored to being extremely limited.

Here, it is practically human nature to organize ourselves and others into categories we wish to place ourselves and others in.

If their clothing expresses a certain idea to us, we automatically accommodate this information into current schemas of what being rich, average or poor is.

What an unfortunate thing to assume others are anything but human.

Yet, we unconsciously judge others on trivial aspects such as these.

In a more macro- overview of our current world, this is also done.

We judge others on the products they buy and the clothing they wear and label them in several ways:

Bad or good

Animal lovers or killers

Republican or democrat

Affluent or poor

Etc., etc.

Its easy to forget, however, that with the desire to express yourself through your clothing and other things, you must be at some economic level stable enough to sustain a changing emotionally expressive lifestyle and people’s perceptions of you.

If how we dress is really who we are and who we wish to show the world, given the fact that we have a way to afford this, who are those who cannot afford to express themselves the way they want to? Is it fair to place them under a label they did not create for themselves?

For instance, I remember when I was a little girl I was told I was pretty. I was constantly conflicted whether to consider this a compliment or an insult because I believed I was strong and that is what I wanted to demonstrate to the world. Though my clothing was not as expressive here (due to the fact that my mother would dress me) my actions during recess were suppose to compensate for this. I would cross the monkey bars back and forth hundreds of time, I would jump rope like no other kid on the block, I would run at the speed of light and bet all the boys I could beat them.

Nonetheless, I was placed under a category I did not choose: pretty.

If I consider how we judge others today based on what we see, I feel a petty about how we have chosen to give others labels they would not consider themselves.

Should we consider those who choose more limited circumstances less fortunate? Is that what they portray themselves as? Or are they the penniless fortunate people who fall off the spectrum of judgment over trivial aspects.

We should bring in awareness as to what we consider others, our words today more then ever have such a huge impact that calling people ‘needy’, ‘less fortunate’, ‘poor’, makes them seem like money is all they need to find a way out of these labels and categories.

The richest men in the world could be poor as well- emotionally, sympathetically, through their absence of kindness or love.

Money is of such importance now that we even found ways to categorize people like clothing styles.

Sad isn’t it?


In my opinion, Kindness makes you the most beautiful person in the world, no matter what you look like, what you wear, where you’re from, how much you have or who you are.

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

America, The Land of the Free-Loaders


Los Angeles, California and New York, New York.

Two cities of global recognition with distinct qualities. However, one of their characteristics is strikingly similar.


Photo Credit by: Josh Williams
As the Hollywood sign overlooks the city, an essence of glamour lingers in this environment. Super stars in convertible cars driving under the warm California sun along the Pacific coastline is nothing less than abundant in the West Coast. Fame and fortune are staple characteristics of this wondrous city. Some of the hottest most well renown artists live here, making it a haven for aspiring talent. Nicknames characterize the city as The City of Angels, The City of Flowers and Sunshine, and most characteristic of all: La La Land. Hopes and dreams are washed ashore here.


Credit to: Yann Arthus-Bertrand
The concrete jungle, buildings that scrape the surface of the sky cause a feeling of exhilaration. A sort of electrifying force penetrates your skin and blows you hair backwards as you stand admits a crowd of people. Bustling city streets filled with a hum from mutter speech and yellow taxies honking at jay walkers. They nicked name it The Capital of the World to signify its global importance. Nestled in east coast surrounded by a body of water the island of Manhattan draws in more people daily then does half of the united states yearly. This city is known for liberty, expectations, and status.

If you’ve been to either of these places or not, even through the glitz and glamour of it all there is one piece of the puzzle I have yet to mention.

However many differences these cities have, they meet at a cross-roads when it comes to one unfortunate quality–their abundance of homeless people.

Both cities have an estimated amount of 60,000 homeless people each.

Remember that figure is encompassed in a single city not state.

These two cities are the basis of my explanation because they are well the most populated locations in the country.

Nonetheless, The United States of America is a nation seen for its prosperity, morale, abundance and charity. So, why is it that out of its 320 million inhabitants, 3.5 million of them are homeless?


But, above all of these factors is the perception that the 317 million people who are not in a penniless situation hold of the homeless.

A negative stigma has blinded most of Americans from their charitable nature. Due to a few bad seeds, with bad intentions, – people who pretended to be homeless to earn effortless cash from gullible strangers– good-hearted people began to grow skeptic of the indigent and their so called neediness.

Therefore, homeless people in America are now treated like freeloaders. This stands for those who take advantage of others generosity without giving anything in return. Though the term freeloader has a negative connotation, it should be treated neutrally as is needy or less fortunate. 

When facing poverty, a person owns nothing but their dignity and at times that is too costly to maintain. so, freeloaders are people who take advantage of others generosity and cannot give anything in return not that they are unwilling to give back. 


These few bad people ruined the credibility of the homeless causing less coins to land in tin cans held by hopeful hands rather than on floors abandoned by man.

Because my main focus when speaking of poverty is in countries out of our reach, it’s easy to hold the phrase ‘out of site out of mind’ before our eyes. But, before you continue to grasp onto your pocket change tightly, keeping it from seeing the light of day, unveil your eyes from this invisible blindfold and realize that it could be making a difference for someone else.

Poverty is happening here –from our largest cities to our smallest towns.

 It is not a foreign concept.


The only way to contribute to its reversal is to change for change.