Before I get to the main point of this post, I just want to say that I can't believe this is my last TOW. It has been a long year of TOW writing, but it went so fast. Is this really TOW #30 already?
Dear New APELC Student,
So you have decided to take AP English Language and Composition this year. Good for you! This is a valuable and interesting class that will greatly help you improve your understanding of written English and your skills as a writer. It may be challenging at times but it will also be very rewarding.
AP courses are unique in that they have two goals: preparing you for the AP exam in May and educating you to have a lasting mastery of the subject matter. This means that while you will be discussing and learning about aspects of writing, you will also be practicing to be able to apply those to the essays on the exam. Prepare yourself to write a lot. There will be a handful of longer-term, take home essay assignments throughout the year, but there will be a lot of practice timed-essays in the style of the AP exam. You will have these several times a month, even multiple days a week at some points in the year. And then there are the Text of the Week assignments, which, as the name reveals, are due every week. (This right now sounds like an overwhelming amount of writing and work, but trust me, it is completely manageable.) This constant writing gives you so much opportunity to practice and improve your skills, to apply the concepts discussed in class. If, at the beginning of the class you find yourself struggling and not receiving the results you want on graded assignments, keep pushing forward. This class is designed to foster growth over the course of the year. Your writing will improve through practice and being in class.
I honestly think that if you put in the work and focus on learning, the grades will take care of themselves. And you will learn a lot this year. If you do the readings for homework, put effort into your practice essays, and pay attention and participate in class, you will be rewarded with deeper understandings, different perspectives, and new skills. My experience with all my AP classes has been that you get out of the course what you put into it. All the effort and handwork you put into your homework and projects and writing during the year will pay off not just on exam day but in all the growth you will notice in your writing and your understanding. Try not to stress yourself out, and in those moments when you do feel stressed, think of how rewarding it will be the day you walk out of that exam room feeling confident about how you did. (Being done with the AP exam is one of the best feelings in the world.)
You can do this! Don't forget to have fun with this class. Yes, it can be fun! For every boring essay prompt there is something interesting to discuss. And just wait until Toga Day.
Good luck!
Sincerely,
Former APELC Student
Monday, June 9, 2014
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
TOW #29 Food Inc. Documentary Argument
The documentary Food Inc. reveals what the public doesn't see about the food production industry. Many of the practices used by corporations are hidden from the public because they have negative effects. Though the development of new food production practices over the past 50 years has increased efficiency and production, the implementation of these practices by current corporations are undeniably harmful to society.
Industrial production of food can have wide health risks. As shown in the documentary, food poisoning is a serious possibility. Feeding cows the cheaper option of corn rather than grass has increased the development of E.coli in cows, and when those animals are taken to slaughterhouses to be killed and their meat processed, this bacteria can spread to meat that will be shipped all over the country, and it can effect other foods to. Companies have had to recall products from ground beef to peanut butter: in the early 2000's, a batch of Peter Pan Peanut Butter was recalled because of the presence of salmonella. This potentiality of food poisoning is dangerous for all members of the population, and often tragically reaches young children.
Furthermore, the rise of industrial food production has changed the culture surrounding American food for the worse. Companies producing food used in fast food restaurants are often subsidized, making it easier for chains such as McDonald's and Burger King to buy cheap chicken and ground beef and sell it at incomparably low prices. This has been happening since the rise of fast food in the 1950's and has driven much of the United States away from the home grown healthy foods and to the drive-thrus. Because unhealthy food is cheaper than unhealthy food, many people, especially those low on the socioeconomic ladder, opt for the former. This increases health risks and perpetuates the unhealthy American attitude towards fast food.
It is true that new industrial practices have made food production more efficient. Mechanical processes and genetic engineering have allowed the US to produce more food than ever before, enough to feed the whole world. However, this has not been beneficial because of the dangers these processes can pose to workers, and the lack of responsibility with which this power is handled. Industrial food processors have some of the long, hard, and most dangerous jobs in the world, and the food corporations do not improve these conditions because they are focused solely on profits. When the meat-packing industry was gaining power in the early 20th century, it had enormous influence, and was focused on making profits, making their workers work in horrible conditions as revealed in Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. Food corporations, like the oil, steel, and railroad corporations of the Robber Baron days, create monopolies and use government influence to maintain their freedom from regulation and increase their profits. The few people in power control a majority of the resources and how they are produced, and motivated by the desire for money, little care is given to the quality and benefit of current industrial food practices.
Industrial production of food can have wide health risks. As shown in the documentary, food poisoning is a serious possibility. Feeding cows the cheaper option of corn rather than grass has increased the development of E.coli in cows, and when those animals are taken to slaughterhouses to be killed and their meat processed, this bacteria can spread to meat that will be shipped all over the country, and it can effect other foods to. Companies have had to recall products from ground beef to peanut butter: in the early 2000's, a batch of Peter Pan Peanut Butter was recalled because of the presence of salmonella. This potentiality of food poisoning is dangerous for all members of the population, and often tragically reaches young children.
Furthermore, the rise of industrial food production has changed the culture surrounding American food for the worse. Companies producing food used in fast food restaurants are often subsidized, making it easier for chains such as McDonald's and Burger King to buy cheap chicken and ground beef and sell it at incomparably low prices. This has been happening since the rise of fast food in the 1950's and has driven much of the United States away from the home grown healthy foods and to the drive-thrus. Because unhealthy food is cheaper than unhealthy food, many people, especially those low on the socioeconomic ladder, opt for the former. This increases health risks and perpetuates the unhealthy American attitude towards fast food.
It is true that new industrial practices have made food production more efficient. Mechanical processes and genetic engineering have allowed the US to produce more food than ever before, enough to feed the whole world. However, this has not been beneficial because of the dangers these processes can pose to workers, and the lack of responsibility with which this power is handled. Industrial food processors have some of the long, hard, and most dangerous jobs in the world, and the food corporations do not improve these conditions because they are focused solely on profits. When the meat-packing industry was gaining power in the early 20th century, it had enormous influence, and was focused on making profits, making their workers work in horrible conditions as revealed in Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. Food corporations, like the oil, steel, and railroad corporations of the Robber Baron days, create monopolies and use government influence to maintain their freedom from regulation and increase their profits. The few people in power control a majority of the resources and how they are produced, and motivated by the desire for money, little care is given to the quality and benefit of current industrial food practices.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
TOW #28 Food Inc. Documentary
Beginning with the rise of the fast food restaurant in the 1950's, the way we produce and market food has changed dramatically in the past half-century. Food Inc. is a documentary directed by Robert Kenner about the food industry of the United States. The film, targeted at the general American consumer public, presents a look at the story behind the products that sit on our supermarket shelves. It reveals the methods that are used by the big food corporations and the adverse affects these often have on public and environmental health, including how the companies treat their workers and the animals, as well as the increasingly mechanized and biologically engineered ways of raising and processing animals and plants.
The main purpose of the documentary is to inform consumers of the unpublicized ways that their food is produced and to encourage them to take make choices to prompt food companies to make safer and healthier decisions. Throughout the documentary, the giant food corporations are characterized as powerful, profit-hungry, bullies. As stories are told during the film, the actions of the corporations are described in plain white font that appears on the screen over simple background music. This makes the corporations seem like giant, faceless, impersonal organizations, and makes their actions seem more dramatic by presenting them in an understated way. Often throughout the film the phrase "[This corporation] declined to be interviewed for this film," appeared after the discussion of questionable methods and practices. The repetition of this statement emphasizes how the corporations are trying to keep information from the public and makes them look like the guilty ones. The power of the corporations is further demonstrated by the images of government officials influential in the food production are such as head of the FDA, who are then shown to have been lobbyists for or in other ways connected to the food companies themselves.
This characterization of the giant food corporations is contrasted with the presentation of regular people who reflect the ideals of traditional farmers and the average consumer. During the film, a number of farmers and growers are interviewed, many of whom resist the practices that have become standard in the larger corporations. They are filmed on their own land, in their own barns or houses, talking to the camera in between nature shots, contrasting starkly to the footage of the machinery and labs of the corporations. The documentary also focuses on a woman whose son died from food poisoning, using the story to get the audience motivated to take action because of the threat current production methods potentially poses to their own families. The documentary begins with a lot of shots of grocery stores and their aisles of products, connecting the information the audience is about to receive to their daily life, and it ends with the insistence that consumers have the power to make choices about what they eat and buy, encouraging the audience to use its power to influence the corporations and change the system.
The main purpose of the documentary is to inform consumers of the unpublicized ways that their food is produced and to encourage them to take make choices to prompt food companies to make safer and healthier decisions. Throughout the documentary, the giant food corporations are characterized as powerful, profit-hungry, bullies. As stories are told during the film, the actions of the corporations are described in plain white font that appears on the screen over simple background music. This makes the corporations seem like giant, faceless, impersonal organizations, and makes their actions seem more dramatic by presenting them in an understated way. Often throughout the film the phrase "[This corporation] declined to be interviewed for this film," appeared after the discussion of questionable methods and practices. The repetition of this statement emphasizes how the corporations are trying to keep information from the public and makes them look like the guilty ones. The power of the corporations is further demonstrated by the images of government officials influential in the food production are such as head of the FDA, who are then shown to have been lobbyists for or in other ways connected to the food companies themselves.
This characterization of the giant food corporations is contrasted with the presentation of regular people who reflect the ideals of traditional farmers and the average consumer. During the film, a number of farmers and growers are interviewed, many of whom resist the practices that have become standard in the larger corporations. They are filmed on their own land, in their own barns or houses, talking to the camera in between nature shots, contrasting starkly to the footage of the machinery and labs of the corporations. The documentary also focuses on a woman whose son died from food poisoning, using the story to get the audience motivated to take action because of the threat current production methods potentially poses to their own families. The documentary begins with a lot of shots of grocery stores and their aisles of products, connecting the information the audience is about to receive to their daily life, and it ends with the insistence that consumers have the power to make choices about what they eat and buy, encouraging the audience to use its power to influence the corporations and change the system.
Monday, May 19, 2014
TOW #27: TOW Reflection
Looking at my first and last TOWs and the progression in between, one thing that stands out to me is the change in structure and organization of content (also the length, but I'll get to that later). My TOWs for the first half of the year were also written in single paragraphs, but by the time I got to marking period three I started experimenting with organization and multiple paragraph structures. My first TOWs follow more closely the instructions and steps listed on our original assignment sheet for giving a little summary, identifying the author and audience etc. while my more recent TOWs are written more freely, more like a mini analysis essay that identifies the purpose and analyzes the piece in the way that it applies to this purpose, while including anything I thought that was worth noting. My later TOWs also presented more of a cohesive thesis.
After reading through many of my TOWs from over the course of the year, I noticed that there was a development of my understanding of how argument works, and its complexity. With most of my TOWs I was able to pretty clearly identify the purpose of the piece I was analyzing, but my earlier TOWs focused on a much more simple, easily stated purpose while in my later TOWs I tended to delve into the complexities of the purpose that interacted more with the context and the topic. Similarly, my understanding of how the author built his/her argument developed to be more complex. Much of my analysis in the beginning of the year is devoted to explaining the appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos, because these are the patterns I knew how to recognize. Over the course of the year I expanded my knowledge of and ability to recognize how different devices and strategies are used by authors, and I also began to move away from the idea of specifically labeled "devices" and analysed the ways I saw the authors developing their arguments based on the topic, their audience, the context and other relevant aspects. I definitely noticed the influence of the concepts we studied in class when I began seeing how arguments were based on certain assumptions and used other arguments to prove their own (Inductive/Deductive reasoning and Toulmin Model!).
Despite all this development, I have to say that I honestly think some of my earlier TOWs were of better quality. My more recent ones tend to be more rambling; some of them got pretty long, and they were less thought out before I started writing them. I think over the course of the year my ability to recognize and understand how arguments are put together improved, but the amount of effort I put into each individual TOW declined.
Overall though, I'm pretty happy with the progress I've noticed in my understanding and my ability to apply new ideas to my writing. The TOWs were good practice and I am pleasantly surprised at the visible indication of how much I have actually learned this year!
After reading through many of my TOWs from over the course of the year, I noticed that there was a development of my understanding of how argument works, and its complexity. With most of my TOWs I was able to pretty clearly identify the purpose of the piece I was analyzing, but my earlier TOWs focused on a much more simple, easily stated purpose while in my later TOWs I tended to delve into the complexities of the purpose that interacted more with the context and the topic. Similarly, my understanding of how the author built his/her argument developed to be more complex. Much of my analysis in the beginning of the year is devoted to explaining the appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos, because these are the patterns I knew how to recognize. Over the course of the year I expanded my knowledge of and ability to recognize how different devices and strategies are used by authors, and I also began to move away from the idea of specifically labeled "devices" and analysed the ways I saw the authors developing their arguments based on the topic, their audience, the context and other relevant aspects. I definitely noticed the influence of the concepts we studied in class when I began seeing how arguments were based on certain assumptions and used other arguments to prove their own (Inductive/Deductive reasoning and Toulmin Model!).
Despite all this development, I have to say that I honestly think some of my earlier TOWs were of better quality. My more recent ones tend to be more rambling; some of them got pretty long, and they were less thought out before I started writing them. I think over the course of the year my ability to recognize and understand how arguments are put together improved, but the amount of effort I put into each individual TOW declined.
Overall though, I'm pretty happy with the progress I've noticed in my understanding and my ability to apply new ideas to my writing. The TOWs were good practice and I am pleasantly surprised at the visible indication of how much I have actually learned this year!
Sunday, May 4, 2014
TOW #26 "Letting Citizens Decide"
 |
| North Carolina's 4th Congressional District |
Lowenthal starts off his article by comparing the drawing of congressional districts to an unfairly run baseball game. He writes "Can you imagine a baseball game where... the rules are not just set by the home team, but that the home team players are also the umpires[?] This is what is happening in nearly every state in the nation when it comes to drawing congressional district maps," (Lowenthal par. 1). With this analogy Lowenthal attempts to make a connection to his general audience right away, by attempting to explain the unfairness of this issue in terms that a person not associated with politics is more likely to understand. However, I think the analogy serves less to clearly explain the complicated process of drawing congressional districts and more to get the audience to react to the issue by linking it to something that many Americans get emotionally invested in: namely, sports. This intro helps to prime the audiences emotions to react with indignation towards the unfair aspects of the issue discussed in the article.
Through the body of the article, Lowenthal gives examples of who draws the districts now and how, citing the illogical shape of North Carolina's Fourth District (pictured above). He then explains the bill he proposed which would create standards for drawing the districts and allow committees of citizens to be in charge. Throughout these explanations, the article is infused with diction that appeals directly to the citizens ideas of their rights and freedoms to be involved in the government. For example, words like "control", "unfair", "undemocratic", and "electoral advantage" inspire resentment towards the current political practice and phrases such as "transparent, accountable, and democratic", "rebuild people's trust", and "fair and equal voice" help to encourage support in the audience for this legislation that the author believes will give them greater influence on the way the government is run.
I was left wondering at the end of this article why a California congressman would put this in a Philadelphia newspaper. It was personalized with the line "redistricting in most states, including Pennsylvania" but the rest of the article was about the country as a whole. This makes me wonder if this congressman is attempting to promote this legislation across the country and is submitting articles to cities in multiple states. The article appeals to Americans as a wider community who, as Lowenthal writes, "deserve true representation".
Sunday, April 27, 2014
TOW #25 "Should You Go With the Flow?"
Our language is full of overused sayings that we here all the time in everyday life. Sometimes they may seem appropriate for a situation, but other times they may seem to be contradictory or have negative implications. For example, Ronald Pies notes that the saying "go with the flow" can "become an excuse for apathy or indifference." In order to counteract this sense of the saying, in this essay from Tuft's University's Magazine, professor of psychiatry Ronald Pies analyzes the meaning and origin behind the concept of "going with the flow" to discuss how it applies positively to our lives.
Pies first explores the themes of going with the flow emphasized in ancient traditions such as Taoism and Buddhism. He quotes a Taoist name Elizabeth Reninger who defines the central concept as "'“a state of being in which our actions are quite effortlessly in alignment with the ebb and flow of the elemental cycles of the natural world.'" What this saying really means is that we should live in harmony with the natural order of things. This idea is spiritual in nature but has been secularized in our society today as the cliché "go with the flow."
Pies then applies this idea to real life by presenting a personal anecdote. He writes about a time when his mother was seriously sick and he needed to take care of her. The uncertainty of his situation was difficult as he didn't know when he would be needed. Pies uses this situation to show how the idea of "going with the flow" can be applied positively to our lives. During the time when his mother needed him, Pies just went with the natural order of his life; a child cares for his sick parent. This helped him to be flexible and adapt to the uncertainties of the situation.
But Pies explores the idea further by asking rhetorical questions. He began in the introduction of the essay by asking "How can we apply this phrase wisely?" As his personal anecdote showed, the idea can be encouragement in times of uncertainty and struggle to help oneself be flexible and do what needs to be done. But Pies recognizes that this saying can be used to support inaction where action is necessary and he asks, "But what does a morally responsible person do when confronted with prejudice, injustice, or hatred? Should one go with the flow, saying 'Oh, well, that’s life'?" These questions serve to stimulate the readers own internal contemplation of the idea before Pies gives his own answer. Pies then cites examples of nonviolent resisters such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi who may have went against the flow of injustice but by resisting injustice were going with the flow of order and reason and human connection. Ultimately Pies concludes the essay by answering his first question but in a way that leaves the readers minds wide open to consider the implications of the idea of "going with the flow" in their own lives.
Article: http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/winter2014/think-tank/mind.html
Pies first explores the themes of going with the flow emphasized in ancient traditions such as Taoism and Buddhism. He quotes a Taoist name Elizabeth Reninger who defines the central concept as "'“a state of being in which our actions are quite effortlessly in alignment with the ebb and flow of the elemental cycles of the natural world.'" What this saying really means is that we should live in harmony with the natural order of things. This idea is spiritual in nature but has been secularized in our society today as the cliché "go with the flow."
Pies then applies this idea to real life by presenting a personal anecdote. He writes about a time when his mother was seriously sick and he needed to take care of her. The uncertainty of his situation was difficult as he didn't know when he would be needed. Pies uses this situation to show how the idea of "going with the flow" can be applied positively to our lives. During the time when his mother needed him, Pies just went with the natural order of his life; a child cares for his sick parent. This helped him to be flexible and adapt to the uncertainties of the situation.
But Pies explores the idea further by asking rhetorical questions. He began in the introduction of the essay by asking "How can we apply this phrase wisely?" As his personal anecdote showed, the idea can be encouragement in times of uncertainty and struggle to help oneself be flexible and do what needs to be done. But Pies recognizes that this saying can be used to support inaction where action is necessary and he asks, "But what does a morally responsible person do when confronted with prejudice, injustice, or hatred? Should one go with the flow, saying 'Oh, well, that’s life'?" These questions serve to stimulate the readers own internal contemplation of the idea before Pies gives his own answer. Pies then cites examples of nonviolent resisters such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi who may have went against the flow of injustice but by resisting injustice were going with the flow of order and reason and human connection. Ultimately Pies concludes the essay by answering his first question but in a way that leaves the readers minds wide open to consider the implications of the idea of "going with the flow" in their own lives.
Article: http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/winter2014/think-tank/mind.html
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
IRB Intro Post: Fourth Marking Period
For my last and final IRB I have chosen to read When Languages Die by David Harrison, which explores the human knowledge that is an integral part of language and how that knowledge is lost when languages die out. I came across this topic when my eye was caught by an article about endangered languages in the April edition of American University's magazine. The article mentioned David Harrison, who is a linguist and professor at Swarthmore College, and described his work through the Living Tongues Institute to preserve languages who have few speakers left. As someone who is passionate about foreign languages, the idea of endangered languages intrigued me and I decided to pursue the topic further by selecting this book as my IRB.
TOW #24 IRB Post
Reading goal: understand how the arrangement/progression of the book helps tie the message together
Writing goal: effectively and cohesively explore both overarching strategies used throughout the memoir as well as specific devices used in specific instances
When I last posted about my IRB Dreams from My Father, I had only read the first section, titled Origins, in which Obama describes his early life with his mother and maternal grandparents in Hawaii. By now, I have finished the book, which consisted of two more sections called Chicago and Kenya. As in the first part of the book, Obama continues to explore the family history that played a role in developing his identity as well as the social relationships he experienced in the beginnings of his career as a community organizer in Chicago.
By arranging the book in three parts, Obama reflects the progression of his personal journey. First comes Origins, introducing Obama's family history and heritage, the influences on the development of his identity. Next is Chicago, in which Obama decides in college that he wants to become a community organizer and moves to Chicago to work in the lower-economic African American communities on the South Side. In this section, Obama shows how his struggles with his identity were influenced by the issues the African American communities he worked with faced: the discrimination, the poverty, the lack of means and opportunity. The last section, Kenya, brings the book towards its culmination and Obama's realization of the meaning of his connection to his family in Kenya. Obama describes his visit to Kenya to meet his father's family and how the relationships he developed and experiences he had with his relatives allowed him to come to a point of acceptance of his families past and his identity as a part of that story. Thus the arrangement follows Obama's journey from the joy and confusion of childhood to the frustrations and dreams of becoming an adult to the acceptance and realization of coming to his family.
Following the idea of a return to origins, reflected in the title of the first part and the stories of Obama's visit to his family in Kenya, throughout the text Obama uses a number of images and allusions that reference the beginnings of humanity and human community. For example, Obama writes of the pastor of a Chicago church who watched wealthier African Americans move out of the inner city communities. With the loss of these people "the link to the past would be finally broken, [the reverend feared] that the children would no longer retain the memory of that first circle, around a fire..." (Obama 274). Obama watches the struggles of a community in which the wealthier members move, leaving the community to the poor and unprivileged, perpetuated in its troubles. He faces the frustration of the conflicting interests of people who are essentially brothers and sisters, who come from the same ancestors way, way back, the first humans who sat around a fire together. Later, describing a safari trip during his visit to Kenya, Obama writes "There in the dusk, over that hill, I imagined the first man stepping forward... If only we could remember that first common step, that first common word - that time before Babel," (Obama 356). Examining himself in a divided world, Obama refers back to the idea of a time of unity, a state from which everyone originated with the same needs for life, the same dangers to face and the same joys.
Following the idea of a return to origins, reflected in the title of the first part and the stories of Obama's visit to his family in Kenya, throughout the text Obama uses a number of images and allusions that reference the beginnings of humanity and human community. For example, Obama writes of the pastor of a Chicago church who watched wealthier African Americans move out of the inner city communities. With the loss of these people "the link to the past would be finally broken, [the reverend feared] that the children would no longer retain the memory of that first circle, around a fire..." (Obama 274). Obama watches the struggles of a community in which the wealthier members move, leaving the community to the poor and unprivileged, perpetuated in its troubles. He faces the frustration of the conflicting interests of people who are essentially brothers and sisters, who come from the same ancestors way, way back, the first humans who sat around a fire together. Later, describing a safari trip during his visit to Kenya, Obama writes "There in the dusk, over that hill, I imagined the first man stepping forward... If only we could remember that first common step, that first common word - that time before Babel," (Obama 356). Examining himself in a divided world, Obama refers back to the idea of a time of unity, a state from which everyone originated with the same needs for life, the same dangers to face and the same joys.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
TOW #23 "Multicultural President Should Be Celebrated, Not Investigated"
Reading goal: read for the purpose
Writing goal: use effective organization
Since the presidential campaign of 2008, some people have challenged the fact that President Obama was born in the US. A poll from 2011 showed that one in four Americans believed that he was born outside the United States. So that year President Obama addressed these rumors by releasing his full birth certificate, proving that he was in fact born in Hawaii. Denizen, an online magazine for Third Culture Kids, or kids who spend a significant number of their developmental years outside their parents culture, presented their views on the issue in the article "Multicultural President Should Be Celebrated, Not Investigated". Denizen writers Steph Yiu and Suzanne Leung argue that whether Obama was or wasn't born in the US should not be a big deal and that a president who does have experience of other cultures and countries should be valued as one who is better equipped to lead a country in our increasingly globalized world.
A lot of this post's argument rests on the assumption that the audience shares most of the writers' points of view. Yiu and Leung write that this controversy "reveals a disappointingly narrow-minded way of thinking and, in our opinion, veiled racism. To us, one’s birthplace is really just that — a geographic location, and one of many that one will live in throughout life. True allegiance and love for a country is so much more sophisticated and complicated than a birth certificate." Denizen magazine is created and consumed by a community of people who have spent parts of their lives living in multiple different countries. They presumably feel the same way about a birthplace and understand that you can love a country (or multiple countries) no matter where you are born.
Obama is a Third Culture Kid himself, as he lived for some time in Indonesia. Denizen argues that even if Obama hadn't been born in the US, it should not be such a point of controversy. Instead of challenged, international experience like Obama had in Indonesia should be valued in a leader. As Yiu and Leung state "We do not live in an one-culture world, and neither should our political leaders who must make decisions that have a global impact." This argument again is held up by their assumption that those reading this post have had their own experiences in other countries and understand that it is important in our globalized world to have contact with and understand other cultures.
Finally, Yiu and Leung support their argument that Obama's birth certificate should not matter by asserting that the challenges to his birth place are not questions of legitimacy for the presidency but are rather attacks born of racism and xenophobism. They cite how Obama's birth was questioned while the fact that John McCain was born in Panama never came up in the 2008 election, and how John Kerry is not examined for spending part of his childhood in France while Obama is for his time in Indonesia. Through this they imply that Obama's US birthplace is questioned because he is African American, and that this is a disturbing and petty prejudice.
Were Yiu and Leung writing to a wider audience, they would need to more strongly support their argument. However, as their post is targeted at a community of Third Culture Kids who relate to the experiences of both the authors and President Obama and to the argument that is expressed, their simple denouncement and call for a greater acceptance of multiculturalism is enough to be effective.
Here is the post from Denizen magazine: http://www.denizenmag.com/2011/05/multicultural-president-should-be-celebrated-not-investigated/
Writing goal: use effective organization
Since the presidential campaign of 2008, some people have challenged the fact that President Obama was born in the US. A poll from 2011 showed that one in four Americans believed that he was born outside the United States. So that year President Obama addressed these rumors by releasing his full birth certificate, proving that he was in fact born in Hawaii. Denizen, an online magazine for Third Culture Kids, or kids who spend a significant number of their developmental years outside their parents culture, presented their views on the issue in the article "Multicultural President Should Be Celebrated, Not Investigated". Denizen writers Steph Yiu and Suzanne Leung argue that whether Obama was or wasn't born in the US should not be a big deal and that a president who does have experience of other cultures and countries should be valued as one who is better equipped to lead a country in our increasingly globalized world.
A lot of this post's argument rests on the assumption that the audience shares most of the writers' points of view. Yiu and Leung write that this controversy "reveals a disappointingly narrow-minded way of thinking and, in our opinion, veiled racism. To us, one’s birthplace is really just that — a geographic location, and one of many that one will live in throughout life. True allegiance and love for a country is so much more sophisticated and complicated than a birth certificate." Denizen magazine is created and consumed by a community of people who have spent parts of their lives living in multiple different countries. They presumably feel the same way about a birthplace and understand that you can love a country (or multiple countries) no matter where you are born.
Obama is a Third Culture Kid himself, as he lived for some time in Indonesia. Denizen argues that even if Obama hadn't been born in the US, it should not be such a point of controversy. Instead of challenged, international experience like Obama had in Indonesia should be valued in a leader. As Yiu and Leung state "We do not live in an one-culture world, and neither should our political leaders who must make decisions that have a global impact." This argument again is held up by their assumption that those reading this post have had their own experiences in other countries and understand that it is important in our globalized world to have contact with and understand other cultures.
Finally, Yiu and Leung support their argument that Obama's birth certificate should not matter by asserting that the challenges to his birth place are not questions of legitimacy for the presidency but are rather attacks born of racism and xenophobism. They cite how Obama's birth was questioned while the fact that John McCain was born in Panama never came up in the 2008 election, and how John Kerry is not examined for spending part of his childhood in France while Obama is for his time in Indonesia. Through this they imply that Obama's US birthplace is questioned because he is African American, and that this is a disturbing and petty prejudice.
Were Yiu and Leung writing to a wider audience, they would need to more strongly support their argument. However, as their post is targeted at a community of Third Culture Kids who relate to the experiences of both the authors and President Obama and to the argument that is expressed, their simple denouncement and call for a greater acceptance of multiculturalism is enough to be effective.
Here is the post from Denizen magazine: http://www.denizenmag.com/2011/05/multicultural-president-should-be-celebrated-not-investigated/
Sunday, March 23, 2014
TOW #22 Visual
Since the horrible shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary a year and a half ago, gun control has been a high profile issue in American society. Shortly after the tragedy, the organization behind this ad campaign, Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America, was formed. I saw this ad a while ago and found it striking. The image combines effective appeals to pathos and logos in order to argue for stricter gun control.
The main device used by this ad is juxtaposition. The two items the children are holding, a Kinder Surprise egg and an assault rifle, are not items that would usually be seen together. The Kinder Surprise egg, next to the large, black, frightening gun, looks completely harmless. And yet the audience knows that the chocolate eggs are banned in the US for child safety while guns are not.
The ad is made more powerful by the fact that the gun is held by a child. The disturbing idea of a little girl holding an assault rifle appeals to the emotions of the audience, attempting to convince them of the urgency of the need for gun control. The serious faces of the children and the familiar but dull, shadowy schoolroom surroundings add to this disturbing atmosphere. Also, the stark text above the children's heads contributes to this sense of urgency with its white and red font and all capitals.
This text points out the irony of the situation by inviting the audience to pick which one of the items has been banned for the safety of children. The creator of the ad can assume that most people reading the ad will know that Kinder eggs are illegal in the US because of their potentiality to be choking hazards for small children. The audience is then forced to look at the much, much more dangerous item and recognize that it is legally sold despite the much more potent danger it poses for children in American society. Making an effective appeal to logos, the ad argues that if we outlaw chocolate eggs because the small plastic toy inside could be a choking hazard, then it certainly follows that we should outlaw assault rifles that can and have killed not just children, but people of all ages.
As a supporter of gun control and also as someone who used to eat Kinder eggs as a kid, I found this ad compelling because it laid out clearly ideas that I already agreed with. However, the logic of this argument cannot be argued even by someone who holds the opposite biases of me, which is what makes it so effective. The idea that chocolate eggs are outlawed for child safety while lethal weapons are not is absurd and cannot be disputed. This ad combines juxtaposition and an ironic situation with visual and verbal elements of urgency and danger to not just call for, but, as it says in the bottom right hand corner, demand action for gun control.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
TOW #21 "The Individual and the Pattern of Culture"
In her essay "The Individual and the Pattern of Culture", anthropologist Ruth Benedict begins by stating that society is not antagonistic to the individual. This idea is a misconception, she argues, because society is built by the contributions of its individuals, and the individuals rely on the society to build their lives. Then Benedict goes on to explore the place of the individual within a society, and how individuals who embody traits not valued by the society function within that society. "The Individual and the Pattern of Culture" is a chapter from a larger work by Benedict, Patterns of Culture, written in 1934. Throughout the chapter, Benedict compares the traditions and ways of life of multiple Native American tribes to each other as well as to contemporary American culture to explore how their is not one set of true normal standards for a society. Ultimately, she concludes that recognition of this "social relativity" as she calls it will help us to better understand and tolerate other cultures.
Benedict describes how individuals who behave in a way that may be seen as unacceptable in one culture may have characteristics that are prized in another. For example, she compares the way people in two different Native American tribes are expected to deal with frustration and despair: "Those who, in a situation in which they are frustrated, naturally seek ways of putting the occasion out of sight as expeditiously as possible are well served in Pueblo culture... On the other hand, those who react to frustration as to an insult and whose first thought is to get even are amply provided for on the Northwest Coast," (Benedict par. 9-10). In the two cultures, it is considered acceptable to react in two different ways, and the opposite behaviors would be unexpected and even shocking to the opposite tribes. Thus Benedict demonstrates how each culture believes their standards for behavior to be universal, and yet there is no single set of "correct" standards.
Benedict also shows how individuals who do not have the characteristics valued by their own culture are not supported by their society. Often these individuals in the end are force to conform. This situation can occur, Benedict notes, as a society changes over time. She cites the example of literary figure Don Quixote, who subscribed to the ideas of chivalry after that era had passed, and this behavior discredited him in the eyes of his society.
Sometimes individuals may be better suited for a culture that is not their own. However, because of distance or the passage of time, individuals can not necessarily relocate to different societies until they find a culture that fits them. Benedict argues that because customs differ from community to community and even individuals within a community differ, we need to accept that there is not one single set of standards that are normal. This recognition will help tolerance inside and between cultures, and will help foster better coexistence.
Benedict describes how individuals who behave in a way that may be seen as unacceptable in one culture may have characteristics that are prized in another. For example, she compares the way people in two different Native American tribes are expected to deal with frustration and despair: "Those who, in a situation in which they are frustrated, naturally seek ways of putting the occasion out of sight as expeditiously as possible are well served in Pueblo culture... On the other hand, those who react to frustration as to an insult and whose first thought is to get even are amply provided for on the Northwest Coast," (Benedict par. 9-10). In the two cultures, it is considered acceptable to react in two different ways, and the opposite behaviors would be unexpected and even shocking to the opposite tribes. Thus Benedict demonstrates how each culture believes their standards for behavior to be universal, and yet there is no single set of "correct" standards.
Benedict also shows how individuals who do not have the characteristics valued by their own culture are not supported by their society. Often these individuals in the end are force to conform. This situation can occur, Benedict notes, as a society changes over time. She cites the example of literary figure Don Quixote, who subscribed to the ideas of chivalry after that era had passed, and this behavior discredited him in the eyes of his society.
Sometimes individuals may be better suited for a culture that is not their own. However, because of distance or the passage of time, individuals can not necessarily relocate to different societies until they find a culture that fits them. Benedict argues that because customs differ from community to community and even individuals within a community differ, we need to accept that there is not one single set of standards that are normal. This recognition will help tolerance inside and between cultures, and will help foster better coexistence.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
TOW #20 Visual
Reading goal: understand what makes the advertisement effective
Writing goal: effectively analyze examples to show how they contribute to the overall purpose
Writing goal: effectively analyze examples to show how they contribute to the overall purpose
This year while watching the winter Olympics, I discovered this advertisement for General Electric, and I think it's probably one of the most effective ads I've seen in a long time. The advertisement is called "Childlike Imagination - What My Mom Does at GE". It features a little girl describing in childlike terms what her mother makes at work, exploring some of what GE does through the eyes of a child. It is also unique as an advertisement because its purpose is slightly different than most; this ad is not trying to get the audience to buy something. Rather, the advertisement serves to promote
General Electric to the wider public audience to generate interest in and support for what they are doing. It does
this by explaining and emphasizing the imagination of what GE creates.
The main strategy behind this advertisement is its child's perspective, as the whole premise of the ad is the comparison of "childlike imagination" to the imagination of GE. The voice of the little girl who narrates the video conveys a sense of innocence and wonder, associating those qualities with the company in the minds of the audience. The whimsical images which are simultaneously described by the little girl and pictured on the screen contribute to this childlike view of the technology GE develops. For example, the images of planes with wings like birds and trees that walk around and wave to trains are fantastical and appealing, yet they represent the real technology that GE actually develops. GE's use of the child's view is effective because the audience understands that what the child describes is not literally true but is an imaginative interpretation. Trees are not literally friends with trains and actual hospitals do not fit in your hand as described in the ad, but using this perspective to show how they develop environmentally friendly trains and hand-held medical resource devices is more imaginative and appeals to the audience.
Another strategy the ad uses is its environmental message. GE emphasizes their environmentally-friendly work by specifically highlighting their environmentally-friendly trains, but also implicitly by including naturalistic themed images. For example, the scenes of the moon powering the underwater turbines, the planes flying on birds wings through the clouds, and the little girl sitting among the waving trees associate GE technology with nature and help them appear environmentally friendly. This helps boost GE's ethos as a company by showing that it cares about the environment, which would help promote the company to a wider audience.
This ad also personally appealed to me and effectively appeals to an audience of mothers and daughters by having a little girl talk about her mom. The ad reinforces the idea that women are just as valuable in the areas of engineering and technology as men, and it helps to promote the company by showing that GE embraces that.
Overall the advertisement is artfully crafted and visually appealing. It effectively promotes General Electric to a wider public audience by emphasizing the childlike imagination of the company.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
TOW #19 IRB Post
Reading goal: read for the overall purpose
Writing goal: effectively analyze examples to show how they help the author achieve his/her purpose
Race and family heritage play a substantial role in the formation of self-identity as it affects how we see ourselves as well as how others see us. In his memoir Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama examines how this issue developed in his own life. The first four chapters of this book, part of the first section titled Origins, detail the beginning of Barack Obama's life and a little of his family history. He first goes back to his Kansan grandparents experiences and the life of his mother's family. Then he describes how his mother, whose family had finally settled down in Hawaii, fell in love with and married a Kenyan student, his father. Throughout the course of Barack Obama's childhood his father left, his mother remarried and moved them to Indonesia, and eventually he came back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents and go to school. In these chapters, Obama develops portraits of family members, uses a lot of personal anecdotes (as it is a memoir), and compares his experience as a young black man with his friend's to explore the family and personal history that shaped his struggles with his own racial identity.
Obama talks a lot about his grandparents who helped to raise him. He gives a lot of background on his grandfather to show the kind of person that raised him. For example, he writes "...my grandfather, always searching for that new start, always running away from the familiar... he had come to consider himself as something of a freethinker - bohemian, even," (Obama 1). The description presents Obama's grandfather as someone always searching for the new, with typical American ideals such as individualism and freedom, but also someone who thought his own thoughts and lived his own way. This portrait helps Obama to show that he grew up in an open minded family that accepted people despite racial differences in ways others at the time didn't, but at the same time was raised by people who had a different perceived status in the contemporary American society because of the color of their skin.
As this is a memoir, Obama mostly uses anecdotes to portray his ideas. Some describe his experiences at the almost all-white private school he attended in Hawaii, including his first day when his teacher asked him about his Kenyan father. Obama describes how the other kids asked him questions and how he felt isolated at school. These anecdotes showed how as a young kid Obama was singled out as different as a black boy in a world of white children.
And yet, Obama also felt out of place among his black friends. He writes "Sometimes I would find myself talking to Ray about white folks this, or white folks that, and I would suddenly remember my mother's smile, and the words that I spoke would seem awkward and false," (Obama 81) and later "I was different, after all, potentially suspect; I had no idea who my own self was," (Obama 82). Obama contrasts his experiences with his friend Ray's, who seems to have solidified his identity as a black man in a white man's world. Obama, as the son of a white mother and grandson of white grandparents, did not have the same security of identity as his friend, which complicated his issues.
Obama has so far effectively weaved all these elements together to create a compelling and engaging memoir which helps the reader to think about the way race affects our personal and public identities.
Writing goal: effectively analyze examples to show how they help the author achieve his/her purpose
Race and family heritage play a substantial role in the formation of self-identity as it affects how we see ourselves as well as how others see us. In his memoir Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama examines how this issue developed in his own life. The first four chapters of this book, part of the first section titled Origins, detail the beginning of Barack Obama's life and a little of his family history. He first goes back to his Kansan grandparents experiences and the life of his mother's family. Then he describes how his mother, whose family had finally settled down in Hawaii, fell in love with and married a Kenyan student, his father. Throughout the course of Barack Obama's childhood his father left, his mother remarried and moved them to Indonesia, and eventually he came back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents and go to school. In these chapters, Obama develops portraits of family members, uses a lot of personal anecdotes (as it is a memoir), and compares his experience as a young black man with his friend's to explore the family and personal history that shaped his struggles with his own racial identity.
Obama talks a lot about his grandparents who helped to raise him. He gives a lot of background on his grandfather to show the kind of person that raised him. For example, he writes "...my grandfather, always searching for that new start, always running away from the familiar... he had come to consider himself as something of a freethinker - bohemian, even," (Obama 1). The description presents Obama's grandfather as someone always searching for the new, with typical American ideals such as individualism and freedom, but also someone who thought his own thoughts and lived his own way. This portrait helps Obama to show that he grew up in an open minded family that accepted people despite racial differences in ways others at the time didn't, but at the same time was raised by people who had a different perceived status in the contemporary American society because of the color of their skin.
As this is a memoir, Obama mostly uses anecdotes to portray his ideas. Some describe his experiences at the almost all-white private school he attended in Hawaii, including his first day when his teacher asked him about his Kenyan father. Obama describes how the other kids asked him questions and how he felt isolated at school. These anecdotes showed how as a young kid Obama was singled out as different as a black boy in a world of white children.
And yet, Obama also felt out of place among his black friends. He writes "Sometimes I would find myself talking to Ray about white folks this, or white folks that, and I would suddenly remember my mother's smile, and the words that I spoke would seem awkward and false," (Obama 81) and later "I was different, after all, potentially suspect; I had no idea who my own self was," (Obama 82). Obama contrasts his experiences with his friend Ray's, who seems to have solidified his identity as a black man in a white man's world. Obama, as the son of a white mother and grandson of white grandparents, did not have the same security of identity as his friend, which complicated his issues.
Obama has so far effectively weaved all these elements together to create a compelling and engaging memoir which helps the reader to think about the way race affects our personal and public identities.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
TOW #18 "Can a Woman Be a 'Great American Novelist'?"
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2010/09/can_a_woman_be_a_great_american_novelist.html
This is an article from the online magazine Slate by Meghan O'Rourke. Published in 2010, the article explores an issue that has been and continues to be a troubling one in our society: the literary gender gap. The article begins by referencing a cultural debate that had sprung up at the time, centering around the novel Freedom, which had been recently released at the time, and its author Johnathan Franzen. O'Rourke then poses the question of whether the book would have received the same praise and attention had it been written by a female, and arguably, she writes, it would not. The article then goes on to describe how gender bias affects who we tend to attribute merit to. O'Rourke effectively uses the contemporary example to start the discussion, and then incorporates other examples of female and male authors and how their work is received. She also includes several anecdotes to show how gender bias is present in how women are viewed and treated in the literary world. For example, O'Rourke writes "to sit with female writers... is, inevitably, to trade war stories...There's the author who sent out a proposal about John Lennon and learned that editors worried readers might not believe a woman could write with authority about a musician" (O'Rourke 2). These personal and all-to-real stories demonstrate how ensconced bias is in our society and how it influences the way editors and publishers, the media, and the general public view female writers. O'Rourke also connects the issues she explores in this article to how the implementation of blind auditions improved the representation of female musicians in orchestras. This was something I found very interesting, as it was an issue described in Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink which I read as my IRB last semester (http://rebekahapengblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/tow-14-irb-post.html). As O'Rourke shows, we tend to think highly of a man's ability quicker than we are of a woman's, whether it be in writing or in music or some other area entirely, and I already know from Gladwell that it is because our unconscious thinking can easily be influenced by prejudice and stereotypes. Ultimately, O'Rourke points out how gender bias is active in the way we view and treat books and their authors. Though not trumpeting a call to action, O'Rourke does imply that we should be aware of this and work on counteracting it.
This is an article from the online magazine Slate by Meghan O'Rourke. Published in 2010, the article explores an issue that has been and continues to be a troubling one in our society: the literary gender gap. The article begins by referencing a cultural debate that had sprung up at the time, centering around the novel Freedom, which had been recently released at the time, and its author Johnathan Franzen. O'Rourke then poses the question of whether the book would have received the same praise and attention had it been written by a female, and arguably, she writes, it would not. The article then goes on to describe how gender bias affects who we tend to attribute merit to. O'Rourke effectively uses the contemporary example to start the discussion, and then incorporates other examples of female and male authors and how their work is received. She also includes several anecdotes to show how gender bias is present in how women are viewed and treated in the literary world. For example, O'Rourke writes "to sit with female writers... is, inevitably, to trade war stories...There's the author who sent out a proposal about John Lennon and learned that editors worried readers might not believe a woman could write with authority about a musician" (O'Rourke 2). These personal and all-to-real stories demonstrate how ensconced bias is in our society and how it influences the way editors and publishers, the media, and the general public view female writers. O'Rourke also connects the issues she explores in this article to how the implementation of blind auditions improved the representation of female musicians in orchestras. This was something I found very interesting, as it was an issue described in Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink which I read as my IRB last semester (http://rebekahapengblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/tow-14-irb-post.html). As O'Rourke shows, we tend to think highly of a man's ability quicker than we are of a woman's, whether it be in writing or in music or some other area entirely, and I already know from Gladwell that it is because our unconscious thinking can easily be influenced by prejudice and stereotypes. Ultimately, O'Rourke points out how gender bias is active in the way we view and treat books and their authors. Though not trumpeting a call to action, O'Rourke does imply that we should be aware of this and work on counteracting it.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
IRB Intro Post: Third Marking Period
For the third marking period I have chosen to read Barack Obama's memoir Dreams From my Father for my IRB. Though Obama is obviously well known as the current president of the US, he wrote this book before he was even elected senator. According to the book flap, Dreams From my Father is "the story of Obama's struggle to understand the forces that shaped him as the son of a black African father and a white American mother." My parents happen to own this book and I have been meaning to read it, so I thought I would take the opportunity to do so with the new marking period. President Obama is arguably the single most important person in American society today and I am interested to read the story of his personal journey before he rose onto the US political scene. Dreams From my Father has been highly praised and I am looking forward to reading it.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
TOW #17 "This Is Irrefutable Evidence Of The Value Of A Humanities Education"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/28/the-unusual-college-major_n_4654757.html
In our society today, higher education in the humanities is often looked down upon in favor of areas such as law, business, medicine, engineering etc. These are considered successful career areas because they are money-makers, while an education in the humanities is associated with unemployment and lack of income. This article from the Huffington Post by Carolyn Gregoire challenges these stereotypes by demonstrating how education in the humanities is important and leads to success. First, the author points out that future income is not necessarily the best way to determine what is a good major, and that it is more important for students to study what they love as they will be more likely to work to success in that area. Then Gregoire spends the rest of the article supporting her argument with 10 examples of well-known figures who were humanities majors in college and who have since been very successful. Some of the people she cites include 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (English major), former CEO of HP Carly Fiorina (Medieval History and Philosophy major), famed author J.K.Rowling (French and Classics major), director Steven Spielberg (English major), and host of "The Daily Show" Jon Stewart (Psychology major). For each example, Gregoire included a picture of the person and a brief education and career history. Some of the people ended up in successful careers very different from what they actually studied in college. As Gregoire shows, the background education in an area of humanities gives students and wider experience base to build on later in life, one that can be applicable to many different areas. Philosophy major and co-founder of Flickr Steward Butterfield, another featured person, is quoted as saying "'...if you have a good background in what it is to be human, an understanding of life, culture and society, it gives you a good perspective on starting a business, instead of an education purely in business,'" (Gregoire par. 24). This quote helps to demonstrate how an education in the humanities can be important and useful no matter what career a student may end up in, while other career specific skills can be picked up in later training. Gregoire uses these ten people as living and, as the title says, "irrefutable" evidence that a humanities education is important to the future success of a student.
In our society today, higher education in the humanities is often looked down upon in favor of areas such as law, business, medicine, engineering etc. These are considered successful career areas because they are money-makers, while an education in the humanities is associated with unemployment and lack of income. This article from the Huffington Post by Carolyn Gregoire challenges these stereotypes by demonstrating how education in the humanities is important and leads to success. First, the author points out that future income is not necessarily the best way to determine what is a good major, and that it is more important for students to study what they love as they will be more likely to work to success in that area. Then Gregoire spends the rest of the article supporting her argument with 10 examples of well-known figures who were humanities majors in college and who have since been very successful. Some of the people she cites include 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (English major), former CEO of HP Carly Fiorina (Medieval History and Philosophy major), famed author J.K.Rowling (French and Classics major), director Steven Spielberg (English major), and host of "The Daily Show" Jon Stewart (Psychology major). For each example, Gregoire included a picture of the person and a brief education and career history. Some of the people ended up in successful careers very different from what they actually studied in college. As Gregoire shows, the background education in an area of humanities gives students and wider experience base to build on later in life, one that can be applicable to many different areas. Philosophy major and co-founder of Flickr Steward Butterfield, another featured person, is quoted as saying "'...if you have a good background in what it is to be human, an understanding of life, culture and society, it gives you a good perspective on starting a business, instead of an education purely in business,'" (Gregoire par. 24). This quote helps to demonstrate how an education in the humanities can be important and useful no matter what career a student may end up in, while other career specific skills can be picked up in later training. Gregoire uses these ten people as living and, as the title says, "irrefutable" evidence that a humanities education is important to the future success of a student.
Monday, January 20, 2014
TOW #16 "A Time to Break Silence"
Today being Martin Luther King Day I decided to read one of his speeches. The "I have a dream" speech immediately comes to mind at the thought of Dr. King, but I wanted to read one of his less famous speeches, so I chose an excerpt from "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence". In this speech, Dr. King protests the war in Vietnam and calls on the government and people of the United States to bring an end to it. He begins by explaining why he protests the war. Among his reasons he lists that the expense of the war is detrimental to the attempts to help the poor in the United States, that it forces the poor to fight in Vietnam for rights or privileges that they don't have at home, and above all that the fighting is not on behalf of the Vietnamese people and it is destroying their society. After enumerating the crimes of the war, Dr. King calls on the US government to put an end to the war. He lists five steps to achieving this goal, to show that it can and must be done. He also appeals to the American people and asks them to peacefully protest to pressure the government to end the war. Throughout the speech, Dr. King uses many rhetorical questions. For example, he asks "What do they [the Vietnamese people] think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building?" (King par. 19). These questions serve to drive home the points to the audience, to get them to seriously consider the US actions in Vietnam and what should be done about them. They also question the motives and morality of the US government, and call for change. Ultimately, they help Dr. King connect to the thoughts of the audience and to call them to help bring an end to the war.
Here is where I found the excerpt of the speech: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm
Here is where I found the excerpt of the speech: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2564.htm
Sunday, January 12, 2014
TOW #15 "The Book of the Future" Visual
Sunday, January 5, 2014
TOW #14 IRB Post
In the second half of Blink, Malcolm Gladwell continues to explore how the brain's unconscious thinking works, as well as the power and implications of this kind of thinking. Though the unconscious has the ability to pick up on details and rapidly make accurate assessments, there are times when it can be wrong. Gladwell explains how one can become "mind blind" when one's thinking narrows during high stress situations, or how judgement can be influenced by stereotypes and prejudices unconsciously. Again, Gladwell uses anecdotes from real events and evidence from studies to convincingly support his ideas. Each chapter in the book is organized around one main story that deals with an aspect or idea of unconscious thinking, and then throughout the chapter it is analyzed with support from other anecdotes, events, or research. For example, in the chapter "Seven Seconds in the Bronx", Gladwell tells the story of a police shooting in New York City in 1999, in which a young man was killed by the police because they thought he was acting suspiciously and they thought he had a gun. In the chapter, Gladwell goes into depth on the story, then cites cases of other police brutality stories and introduces the idea of mind-blindness. Ultimately, he analyzes the anecdote to show how our unconscious can drastically mislead us in fast moving situations of overwhelming stress, and how we need to understand this and be able to control it. In the conclusion of the book, Gladwell writes about a female trombonist who made it into the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra in a blind audition, but was demoted and discriminated against when it was discovered that she was female. With this story he explores the issue of the lack of women in professional orchestras before the blind audition process was established. When the judges could see the performers, their opinions were unconsciously influenced by the gender of the performer, as well as their posture and demeanor, and their instrument, thus letting their personal prejudices affect their decisions. The important part of this story, Malcolm Gladwell emphasizes, is that the problem was fixed by the implementation of blind auditions. This story at the end of the book, ultimately reinforces Gladwell's purpose: to make the audience aware of how their unconscious thinking works so that they can understand it and train it to use it better. He gets his message across strongly and effectively because his evidence and research and his analysis of these shows the reader the ideas and how they are influential in real life.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)