I haven't really done anything except think about my ideas. I'm leaning toward the field trip one. Arguing for a swimming pool isn't going to work. Arguing for the renovation idea would be either too complicated (with a lot of mini-proposals in one) or too simple (I can't write that much on how we should build a roof). And the bonus with the field trip idea is if I argue it well enough, someone in charge here might actually think about doing it.
But I'm still thinking. I might think of something better when I have time this weekend.
Friday, 30 November 2007
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Potential Ideas for the Inquiry Contract
For my topic, I'd like to something small and practical. It's easier to write in-depth and convincingly if what you're writing about isn't huge and confusing and has hundreds of sides and angles and facts about it. This contract sounds hard enough without trying to complicate with writing about the war in Iraq, or something like that. Then I wouldn't have to worry so much about research- I could focus more on writing good papers. However, I'm not particularly passionate about anything. Anything that would be easy to write about, that is.
So, first: a possibility is to argue for more field trips in high school. Perhaps every fourth block or something, each class could go on a trip. Educational or community service or for just having fun. Or maybe once a semester, each people could sign up for a field trip somewhere. Or an overnight trip, or something. I haven't really developed anything more coherent than that.
Second: build/renovate the area outside the main building and between the two buildings, so that that is a covered walkway between them (so in the rain/hail/snow we don't have to be precipitated upon), there are more picnic tables outside for the growing school population and make some sort of tent/pavilion outside to cover said tables.
Third: build a swimming pool. While I would absolutely love to have a swimming pool here, I know they cost millions and so arguing for one is probably not going to work.
What do you all think?
So, first: a possibility is to argue for more field trips in high school. Perhaps every fourth block or something, each class could go on a trip. Educational or community service or for just having fun. Or maybe once a semester, each people could sign up for a field trip somewhere. Or an overnight trip, or something. I haven't really developed anything more coherent than that.
Second: build/renovate the area outside the main building and between the two buildings, so that that is a covered walkway between them (so in the rain/hail/snow we don't have to be precipitated upon), there are more picnic tables outside for the growing school population and make some sort of tent/pavilion outside to cover said tables.
Third: build a swimming pool. While I would absolutely love to have a swimming pool here, I know they cost millions and so arguing for one is probably not going to work.
What do you all think?
Ch 15: Proposal Arguments
The first essay (the one about the hosts not being paid enough) is the most effective of them, in my opinion. It's clearly and simply laid out. There's no need to read through irrelevant stuff that just sounds nice and means nothing. The reason for it being written like that is because it was sent to a CEO as a practical proposal. CEOs don't hae time to read through lots of stuff; they want a simple, direct approach. Also, the author uses statistics and math to back her reasons up. Again, it provides good support because math and statistics appear to be more reliable than observation. People consider them a mark of a more accurate piece of writing, even if they actually aren't. It lends credence to the argument. The author also uses pathos in her argument, while still keeping it as concise as possible. She talks about her own personal experiences, giving herself credibility and describes why exactly a host deserves the 1% tip using pathos as well.
Monday, 19 November 2007
C.P. Ellis by Studs Terkel
Yes, Ellis shows that his story offers a credible way of removing prejudice. No, it's not workable on a large scale.
Ellis overcame his prejudice. He came to view minorities- blacks, Jews, Catholics- as human being. So of course it's credible. It worked, after all. He sat down and talked with black people. He came to understand that they had the same problems he did- the same worries. He realized they were all human.
If overcoming prejudice was that easy- just set some people up in a room and tell 'em to spill their problems to each other- we wouldn't have any prejudice at all. The problem is that many people aren't willing to sit down and talk; they don't want to realize they were wrong in being biased; they don't think they can be convinced, and some people are just so darn stubborn that you could make them talk person-to-person with as many different people as you wanted, and they'd still think they're right. People have a tendency to be that way. They also make excuses to protect their beliefs- warping their thinking- saying that "Oh, they're just acting human in order to get their way..." if not as directly diabolical as that.
I think it's amazing that Ellis was able to overcome his prejudices. It's not something many people can do. Often, prejudice is too deeply instilled for any amount of interaction to remove it. There's no easy way of getting rid of prejudice, though it's lucky that there are people like Ellis who can overcome it.
After all, how many people are willing to sit down, have a chat and think about the people they hate as people just like them? Not many. It's difficult to be convinced. It's difficult to want to be convinced.
Ellis overcame his prejudice. He came to view minorities- blacks, Jews, Catholics- as human being. So of course it's credible. It worked, after all. He sat down and talked with black people. He came to understand that they had the same problems he did- the same worries. He realized they were all human.
If overcoming prejudice was that easy- just set some people up in a room and tell 'em to spill their problems to each other- we wouldn't have any prejudice at all. The problem is that many people aren't willing to sit down and talk; they don't want to realize they were wrong in being biased; they don't think they can be convinced, and some people are just so darn stubborn that you could make them talk person-to-person with as many different people as you wanted, and they'd still think they're right. People have a tendency to be that way. They also make excuses to protect their beliefs- warping their thinking- saying that "Oh, they're just acting human in order to get their way..." if not as directly diabolical as that.
I think it's amazing that Ellis was able to overcome his prejudices. It's not something many people can do. Often, prejudice is too deeply instilled for any amount of interaction to remove it. There's no easy way of getting rid of prejudice, though it's lucky that there are people like Ellis who can overcome it.
After all, how many people are willing to sit down, have a chat and think about the people they hate as people just like them? Not many. It's difficult to be convinced. It's difficult to want to be convinced.
Friday, 16 November 2007
The Pressure to Cover
When Yoshino says that 'the mainstream is a mth' he means that because everyone is different, there can't be a main theme among us because we can't have a majority of people who ware the same. Since he spends barely a paragraph on it, it's not very convincing. Then again, it's not his major point, so that makes sense.
I would define mainstream as the general cultural ideas that the majority thinks they ascribe to/the people that most fit those ideas. I.e. now the mainstream would probably (because I'm a teenager and know nothing about people in jobs and things) be white straight males who watch lots of TV. I've come to this conclusion because that's what people say is the mainstream. It may not actually be that the majority actually is white straight males (it's probably not) and they are the top of 'society', but that's generally what people think. And they base their judgment and actions off what they think, not what's true. So what's not true is true, in a way.
I would define mainstream as the general cultural ideas that the majority thinks they ascribe to/the people that most fit those ideas. I.e. now the mainstream would probably (because I'm a teenager and know nothing about people in jobs and things) be white straight males who watch lots of TV. I've come to this conclusion because that's what people say is the mainstream. It may not actually be that the majority actually is white straight males (it's probably not) and they are the top of 'society', but that's generally what people think. And they base their judgment and actions off what they think, not what's true. So what's not true is true, in a way.
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Bought Freedom
How does Linda finally attain her freedom? Why does she have mixed emotions about this at the end of the book?
Her friend Mrs. Bruce buys her from her mistress' husband, then sets her free. She has mixed feelings about this because she believes that freedom is a right, not something that can be bought. She feels a little insulted that she could be bought and traded and sold like a piece of property, especially in a 'free' state like New York. It's also a little upsetting that her friend, the kind and helpful Mrs. Bruce, can just buy her as well. Not just bad people buy and trade in slaves. Mrs. Bruce also bought her without really talking to her about it first. So Linda also feels more like a piece of property without a say in her own freedom, even though Mrs. Bruce had the best of intentions and actually did free her. Despite all this, though, she still is glad to be free, and thankful to Mrs. Bruce for buying and freeing her.
Her friend Mrs. Bruce buys her from her mistress' husband, then sets her free. She has mixed feelings about this because she believes that freedom is a right, not something that can be bought. She feels a little insulted that she could be bought and traded and sold like a piece of property, especially in a 'free' state like New York. It's also a little upsetting that her friend, the kind and helpful Mrs. Bruce, can just buy her as well. Not just bad people buy and trade in slaves. Mrs. Bruce also bought her without really talking to her about it first. So Linda also feels more like a piece of property without a say in her own freedom, even though Mrs. Bruce had the best of intentions and actually did free her. Despite all this, though, she still is glad to be free, and thankful to Mrs. Bruce for buying and freeing her.
Monday, 12 November 2007
Honesty for Credibility
Pick a passage in which Jacobs is using her own honesty to establish her credibility. Explain how and why she is doing it.
It's difficult to pick just one passage in particular, since throughout the whole book she is using her honesty to establish her credibility. She's a slave, telling a true, horrifying story. She's been there and done and seen those things, so people can believe what she's saying. One of the passages that illustrates this best is when she's describing her situation as being better than others. She's honest enough to explain that hers is a better (definitely not best) case scenario than people who have to toil in the fields. But she also is quick to explain that that's not to say that she's happy, well-treated or in any way okay. She's not being whipped to death- not physically. I can't find the exact passage- but that's basically it. The reader is drawn more to her cause because they sympathize so much with her plight- and to thin it could be worse! She's being honest, and gaining credibility as an author. And she's been there and done that. She's obviously not making this up.
It's difficult to pick just one passage in particular, since throughout the whole book she is using her honesty to establish her credibility. She's a slave, telling a true, horrifying story. She's been there and done and seen those things, so people can believe what she's saying. One of the passages that illustrates this best is when she's describing her situation as being better than others. She's honest enough to explain that hers is a better (definitely not best) case scenario than people who have to toil in the fields. But she also is quick to explain that that's not to say that she's happy, well-treated or in any way okay. She's not being whipped to death- not physically. I can't find the exact passage- but that's basically it. The reader is drawn more to her cause because they sympathize so much with her plight- and to thin it could be worse! She's being honest, and gaining credibility as an author. And she's been there and done that. She's obviously not making this up.
Monday, 5 November 2007
Truth
Why is it important that this book is truth, not fiction? Why is it important that the editor didn’t clean it up, either in terms of language or content?
This book was written to persuade people that slavery is evil and wrong. A fictional account of a slave's sufferings would be dismissed as imagination. Fiction is not fact. People could dream up numerous horrors a slave might have suffered, yet no one would believe them. The best way to reveal the truth is to tell the truth.
Again, taking the book in context of its times, it's important that the editor did not clean it up because it would become less truthful. People might suspect from the better language and grammar that it was fake, written by a better-educated person than a slave. Or they would think that all slaves had enough opportunity, somehow, to learn to write so well, and assume that slavery couldn't be all that bad. As for content- the whole purpose of the book was to show the horrors of slavery and the whole experience of slavery. To cut any of it out would be to lie by omission- to present a different, untrue version of slavery.
This book was written to persuade people that slavery is evil and wrong. A fictional account of a slave's sufferings would be dismissed as imagination. Fiction is not fact. People could dream up numerous horrors a slave might have suffered, yet no one would believe them. The best way to reveal the truth is to tell the truth.
Again, taking the book in context of its times, it's important that the editor did not clean it up because it would become less truthful. People might suspect from the better language and grammar that it was fake, written by a better-educated person than a slave. Or they would think that all slaves had enough opportunity, somehow, to learn to write so well, and assume that slavery couldn't be all that bad. As for content- the whole purpose of the book was to show the horrors of slavery and the whole experience of slavery. To cut any of it out would be to lie by omission- to present a different, untrue version of slavery.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
What to a Slave is the Fourth of July?
What is Douglass saying? How does he support himself through appeals to logos, ethos and/or pathos?
~~~
Douglass is saying that all the ideals that America is built on- equality, the right to the pursuit of happiness, etc.- are hypocrisies because slavery violates all those ideals.
Logos: He says that he does not need to argue some points, such as that slaves are human, but he does, anyway. He points out that everyone already acts as if slaves are human, they just delude themselves into saying that they're not. His logic there is interesting and it makes sense. He uses lists of examples to prove his points as well. He addresses their interests, too. He says that everyone wants abolitionists to persuade people instead of accusing them. He addressed that point by saying that there is nothing to persuade- everyone knows, on some level that slavery is wrong- all he needs to do is make them guilty enough to do something about it. That would fit in with pathos as well.
Ethos: He is a slave. He speaks from experience and is more effective because of that. He also is aware of his audience's feelings and begins and ends on a note that would be taken well by them- praising in hope for America.
Pathos: He lists in graphic detail what slaves have suffered. An example: "...it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters..." He also asks people to have hope by saying the issue is fixable.
~~~
Douglass is saying that all the ideals that America is built on- equality, the right to the pursuit of happiness, etc.- are hypocrisies because slavery violates all those ideals.
Logos: He says that he does not need to argue some points, such as that slaves are human, but he does, anyway. He points out that everyone already acts as if slaves are human, they just delude themselves into saying that they're not. His logic there is interesting and it makes sense. He uses lists of examples to prove his points as well. He addresses their interests, too. He says that everyone wants abolitionists to persuade people instead of accusing them. He addressed that point by saying that there is nothing to persuade- everyone knows, on some level that slavery is wrong- all he needs to do is make them guilty enough to do something about it. That would fit in with pathos as well.
Ethos: He is a slave. He speaks from experience and is more effective because of that. He also is aware of his audience's feelings and begins and ends on a note that would be taken well by them- praising in hope for America.
Pathos: He lists in graphic detail what slaves have suffered. An example: "...it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters..." He also asks people to have hope by saying the issue is fixable.
Socialization
What is the “socialization process” according to Parrillo? Do you agree that prejudices – or really any beliefs – are instilled in this way?
~~~
According to Parillo, the socialization process is when "...individuals acquire the values, attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of their culture or subculture, including religion, nationality and social class." Later on in this article/excerpt/thing, Parillo also says that prejudice has a number of complex causes. I agree with him, there. Socialization is definitely a major factor in instilling prejudice, though. Let's take an extreme example. Children in parts of the extremist Muslim world are brought up to hate Jews. Their prejudice is caused by everybody telling them that Jews are bad all the time. Whereas here, people are not (for the most part) brought up to hate anyone in that extreme. So fewer people do. What your parents believe is definitely a major factor in determining what you believe. And then, at a point, depending on how well instilled said beliefs are, you might change your mind and disagree with what you've been brought up to believe. I think the first time you are away from your parents, college for example, would help to adjust your beliefs.
~~~
According to Parillo, the socialization process is when "...individuals acquire the values, attitudes, beliefs and perceptions of their culture or subculture, including religion, nationality and social class." Later on in this article/excerpt/thing, Parillo also says that prejudice has a number of complex causes. I agree with him, there. Socialization is definitely a major factor in instilling prejudice, though. Let's take an extreme example. Children in parts of the extremist Muslim world are brought up to hate Jews. Their prejudice is caused by everybody telling them that Jews are bad all the time. Whereas here, people are not (for the most part) brought up to hate anyone in that extreme. So fewer people do. What your parents believe is definitely a major factor in determining what you believe. And then, at a point, depending on how well instilled said beliefs are, you might change your mind and disagree with what you've been brought up to believe. I think the first time you are away from your parents, college for example, would help to adjust your beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
