What is your view on the ending of the novel "The Skin I'm In"? Are there some aspects of the ending that should have been changed in a more positive or negative way? Is there a character that should have had a better or worse ending? Explain by making reference to the details in the text. Your response should be about 20 – 30 lines long

Answer and Explanation:

"The Skin I'm In" is a story about racism, prejudice, bulling, insecurity, white supremacy, impunity, self-esteem, support, sense of belonging and self-expression. The author uses Maleeka's life and all the problems related to it and its appearance to portray such important themes that are more present in reality than what we imagine.

In relation to these themes, I do not believe that the author should modify the end of the story, or even change the end of the characters. In order to achieve the objectives of the narrative and present all these themes in a realistic way, it is necessary that each character has the ending that he had. Especially Maleeka, who presents with her mistakes, embraces her own personality and speaks the truth about the things that are happening to her, without protecting anyone out of fear or the need for friendship.

The end of each character represents the end that each archetype they represent must be in real life, so the story is identifiable and personal for all those who read it.

no,

explanation:

because they are likely to use their corrupted thought process to get what they want. not what is better for the another reason they shouldn't is since they abused their rights as a us citizen they should have certain rights stripped away from them as punishment, such as the right to vote. due to the lack of proper behavior exemplified   from their actions , it would be hard for people to trust them because of their criminal record.   either directly (in the case of a referendum or ballot initiative) or indirectly (by choosing lawmakers and law enforcers). in fact, we do have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility and commitment to our laws that we require people to meet before they are given a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. people who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. and those crimes can include such “non-violent felonies” as, say, treason and espionage, or voter fraud and public corruption, white-collar crime and felonies merely “concerning drugs” — like trafficking in fentanyl-laced heroin and selling it to minors, for example. if you’re not willing to follow the law, then you should not have a role in making the law for everyone else.