To each their own

I think that Soto did a fine job of useing a little Hispanic boy to depict the seemingly "idealic" nature of a white family. Soto was able to keep my attention better by using a story line rather than the factual writing of "What we really missed about the 50's. however both writings were very interesting to me and opened my eyes to not only family but how everything is not always what it seems.
In the first essay, it took me back to where I spent a couple years of my life, the Gillbert Isands. I remember seeing some of the very first television's arrive in those Islands and that was in 2004! crazy. The shows they watched were fairly violent and they believed everything they viewed to be REAL. I remember one instance as We were walking down the street and there were a group of people huttled around a grass hut watching Die Hard. One of them saw us and yelled, "Imatang, nako mai taraia te bwai aei!" or "White kid get over here and check this out!" they were all wound up and they asked me, " Is this what Americans do? Just drive around in really fast vehicles and shoot people?" then someone got shoot in the movie and everyone went, "AAAAHHH, he just shot that guy! now he is really dead!" I had to explain to them how it was not really dead but it was just a movie and was not real but for "Entertainment." I saw a lot of the same thing in Sotos message. how you can see things on tv and think that that is the way it is or supposed to be. when in reality all it has to be is what you want and feel good about.
I think that the 50's article could both challange or critique cultural beliefes depending on who is reading it. whether that is someone who grew up during the time or some one like myself who did not. I really enjoyed reading this article though. I, like most people i guess, thought that the 50's were great and a fairly idealic time to grow up. but after reading, it opened my eyes to all the problems hidden on the inside. how pople carried their problems differently and coped with more. It was Shocking to read all the facts about the 50's and and how the author came to the conclusions that he did. things were quite different then than they are now and people reacted differently because of diffent ideals and upbringings that doesent meen that it was bad or good, but it was how it was then.
I feel that both authors were driving at the same point. That is, as my title states, "To each their own." No matter what ethinic background, color of skin, place of residence, or decade/ time period people grow up in it will always have its goods and bads. there are good things about the 50's and some not so good. there are good things and values about today and some that are not so good. The grass is not always greener on the other side, and what we see or think we see is not always right. I think that it is good for us to allways being improving on what we have and be happy with that. I think both authors did this or tried to get us to see that there is not really anything that is perfect or idealic and that dosent necessaraly mean bad but that there is allways pros and cons to every part of life.