Even though the comparison is taken to the extreme here between Omelas and the real world, you can still find children living in deplorable conditions in a very similar situation, like the children who mine mica. Mica is a mineral dust used in a ton of makeup products and is one of the most unethically gathered resources. Mica mining is a huge child labor institution. Small children go into these steep dark holes in the ground and dig for day in and day out for this mineral. They work all day just like their parents to be able to provide basic necessities. Most of them never receive an education. We as Americans don't think about where our products come from and how they are made. We love to play the good-guy role and pretend that we're more ethical than anywhere else, but our consumerism promotes shady business practices and companies in other countries who exploit their workers for our benefit. Factory workers in China make so much of what we use and we pretend like these people aren't people just like us who would rather be enjoying themselves. I do not promote socialism, but capitalism at the extreme is also horrible. The capitalism that we live by today as Americans can still be improved upon by adopting more ethical practices. Being ethical requires spending more money to not underpay workers. As Americans, we don't like the idea of paying more and supporting ethical practices so we choose to ignore those who suffer on our behalf. If we could just ban worker exploitation in one go and make it disappear, then it wouldn't be a problem, but most big companies will always find a way to exploit their workers when they can and we have to start recognizing where and how this occurs if we do not want to support it.

The people of Omelas can't even be bothered to clothe the child. I can't even imagine what the human body would look like if it never moved and sat in one place all day, eating corn meal and grease. The grotesqueness of this description is devastating.

The cheapest, most basic, bland, and unappetizing foods. There is no effort put into feeding this child.

This is such a powerful image used in itself. We empathize with the 85 year old woman who might be our grandmother, but then we understand that this is not the poet's fault, because they were driven to the brink of madness by that white woman's culture, by her ignorance and by the majority of her people who let oppression just happen over and over again without saying a word.

This one line is incredibly sad. This woman was obviously coerced by a system of oppression. This is actually really scary, how the justice system still does this. Still pretends to be fair and pretends to give people choices.

I think this is referring to the edge of whatever grows 1.9% annually so that whatever conflict/issue threatens people, people are 1.9% annually more likely to fall into whatever conflict is at hand.

I thought of these lines as saying it's better to have struggled and learned because of it rather than having everything easy and never understanding hardships and staying ignorant of the world's problems. People do their most growing when they have been cut down, unhappy, unfulfilled, and wronged. If everything were perfect, there would be no change and nothing is ever perfect.

I find it interesting that the poem's name is "Ways of Rebelling." I tried to find the ways that might be rebelling, and all I could come up with on my own are rebelling against common thought, against peace, against the easy route, against your country, or your country's wrongs. I also thought that maybe it's supposed to be sort of mocking the fact that the author themself can't find a way to "properly" rebel.

It's an interesting title for the poem. It implies love in or for urban America, which is something not many people have. Like Walt Whitman, most people love to escape from America's urban side.

I actually don't think this was a strong ending line for this poem. I think that the rest of the poem was a lot more powerful. Xavier went down a list of true things that apply to America today and the injustices everyone has to face. This line is a little too broad and I think it was added a little bit hastily. Not that it isn't good, but I think he could have made the ending just as powerful as his previous lines to leave the reader with a bigger punch.

I agree with Isabel, that it's so hard for people to live without fear of judgement. People are so sensitive as well, it's hard to say anything without it offending someone.

This can be applied to more than just authoring books. People who speak out on disreputable subjects in general are viewed as vagabond people. Their morals are questioned just for their simple thoughts and opinions.

I looked up this word and it means "an event, typically a sports contest, that is very exciting or intense."

This is a huge deal in a lot of religious families. Speaking from personal experience, my grandpa believes this and it's infuriating to deal with because no matter what you say, that type of thinking is just too stubborn to budge. I myself don't belong to any church, but that doesn't mean I don't think about religion or believe in it, because I do have my own thoughts and beliefs.

This line is worded really well. It plays on the fears of old American values, the people who judge others so harshly. The uber-religious hypocrites, and the non-religious who make fun of and chastise those who are all because they were hurt by it at one point. That's how I took this line, but it also is just a reference to the mixing of religion and pop culture that was once seen as incongruous and is still hard for people to accept.

This is such a jab at slut-shaming, which is huge. People like to insult other people's sexuality. It's even worse for people who embrace their sexuality and celebrate it as a responsible adult, because some people can't get over the fact that sex can still happen and not be embarrassing or wrong.

This is the one redeeming quality of America in recent years. Our only redeeming quality as a nation is that the majority have woken up enough and gained enough sense to treat people like they should be treated. As equals.

It's interesting that Xavier writes to Walt Whitman. It makes sense the further down you read, and from my understanding I think that Whitman who emphasized an escape to the natural world would be appalled at the lack of progress in America in a human sense. He would shake his head at the urbanization and the debri and the pretentiousness that covers up anything taboo, but be glad to see that things have at least changed to allow blacks to vote and hold great power, that there is still beauty in life.

Angelou builds a rhyme scheme as the piece goes, but it is sporadic. It reminds me of someone finding their voice, finding their rhythm as the poem goes, much like the caged bird.

There is a sort of helpless feeling from these lines. Even though all seems in vain, like no matter what the caged bird does there is no hope for escape, yet they persist. Enslaved people endured much of the same harsh reality and still fought and protested for their freedom which is amazing. It's sad that their pain was so great and passed down from generations of grief, but truly amazing that this hope endured.

When Angelou talks about this free bird, her words are lighter, more pleasant, flowery and pretty. The caged bird is talked about a bit more intensely and roughly so as to contrast the free bird's life of ease and the other's life of struggle.

Many people want things they do not have, cannot have, and don't know they want yet. People crave to become what they are not. Those who are oppressed wish to live like their oppressors. I don't mean this in a bad way, obviously people all want to have the same rights as those who have them. It's just that this is a never-ending struggle that has to do a lot with human nature.

Parallels can be made between this caged bird opening their throat and Angelou opening her own throat to find her voice after five years of being mute. It's a powerful image when seen in that way, as finding your voice to not just protest, but to sing.

"Stalks" is a word that holds intent. It creates an image of a bird who is not so complacent with their situation, almost like they're watching carefully and plotting their escape.

This line right here was very powerful to me. It makes me think of white slave-owners daring to own people and daring to claim lands that aren't theirs, and just being really ignorant in general. It can even be translated today in white culture appropriating things from other cultures.

This implies that free birds and free people do not have to struggle, that their lives are free of troubles. Oppressed people cannot just float downstream, they have to struggle against the current.

To me, leaping on the back of wind makes me think of those who are free having the support and backing of their community, the ease of just having opportunities at their grasp as opposed to those who do not.

It's interesting how Angelou chooses a caged bird as her focus because it implies that birds are meant to fly and in using this as her analogy to people who are enslaved and oppressed, it implies that these people are meant to be free like birds as well. I think that it works really well as the title and main focus of her poem. Birds are wild and meant to fly. They are no different from the birds outside their cage.