Reflection #2

I felt as though it was a lot harder for me to do the final draft since I didn't have student or teacher notes. Not only was the first draft not done to get me a starting point, the guidance and advice of others wasn't available. I felt like that was a bit of a disadvantage that I unfortunately gave myself. I never realized how much help you could get from having others review and read your work. My final draft was a decent start for my rhetorical critique but it had a rough draft feel to it. I know that if i were to receive the advice from both Professor Brown and another student, I would have been able to clearly see past my simple grammatical and rhetorical mistakes.

Shooting an Elephant

1. Was he even liked after shooting the elephant?

2. Why do people do things they know is wrong just to fit in?

3. Did he feel as though he did the right thing or felt guilty about it?

2) I'm going to be touching on the question two. I've always wondered why people make certain decisions in life based on how others would perceive them. In certain cases it usually a good thing because if you act as a good person, the way you would be seen is as a good person. But why do people do things that they know are wrong just because they are expected to. In the essay "Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell, he does that exact thing. The only reason he had asked for the gun was just in case the elephant got rowdy and he had to do something. But as soon as the gun was in the picture, the natives around him thought that he was going to kill the elephant just because he had a gun. When he got there he knew that the elephant meant no harm at that point but he felt the "want" from the crowd. He knew they wanted him to shoot the elephant and the pressure is what got to him. Why? Why couldn't he just wait and just watch the elephant until the owner came? Why did he even give in to the pressure of those "lower than him"? We all have had times that we wanted to be accepted by those around us but is going against what we believe really worth it? I can't imagine what his conscious went through from that day forward. Would he doubt his decision everyday or would he stand beside it.

A Small Place

1. Is this essay a message or a rant?

2. What was Kincaid's attitude towards everyone?

3. Am I really to blame for what happened to her country?

2) I will be touching on the first two questions. In her essay, Kincaid mentions the effects that have taken place from tourists visiting her home country of Antigua. Starting off, the essay doesn't really feel like its going in any specific direction. Its felt that she was just talking about tourism. One you get to the second half, you feel the actual bitterness she feels. And once you get through it and reread the entire piece, you start to read between her word in the first half and realize the bitterness was always there. I feel as though Kincaid took a very aggressive stance in her work. She feels that it's everyone's fault that her country is the way it is. She blames tourism and just colonialism as a whole. It makes it seem like this is more of a rant than an actual informative piece. She takes a very "me me me" approach and that might turn people away. But in a way, I started to look at it from her perspective. Sure colonialism existed throughout history and that her native country isn't the only one that went through it but when we think of colonialism we think of back in the 1700's  during our histories own experiences with it. People don't realize that for Kincaid, colonialism was a part of her life all the way until 1981, when Antigua finally did gain their independence. So in a way I can see why she can be so bitter. For her, it might not be "why did I have to grown up that way" but actually "why did WE (her country as a whole) have to grown up that way". It it might not be a complete rant but just to get it off her chest and maybe inform people that colonialism isn't just in everyone's past but it was also many people's present.

Regarding the Pain of Others

1. In what direction was Sontag taking this article?

2. Do we view certain situations different once we see a photograph depicting it?

3. Should we just stop certain photos from being seen by the public?

2) I will be touching on question three. I feel as much as some of the public feels as though the pictures that are released during certain periods and events in our lives are too graphic. Because not everyone knows exactly what goes on during wars on the other side. We go through our day to day errands and think nothing of it. The public needs to see certain pictures to show them whats going on. They are necessary for us to understand. To understand what is going on in the world around us. To understand what others are going through. To understand the joys and pains about life. All that can come from a picture that must be taken and shown to the world.

The issue we come across is the censorship of the media by those that don't want the public to see the photos. They try to protect of the the horrors overseas that should not even be worried about. We are shown issues that aren't that big of a deal and that that's the worst that's going on. This is exactly the kind of behavior Sontag mentioned in her article. We are being spoon fed "it's all ok" lies and that sort of media is not the real media we all need to see. We need to all experience what is going on out there. I've witnessed videos on the internet of beheadings going on in Mexico because of the drug cartel and beatings alike. This sort of behavior is real, and if we keep being sheltered from it, people will never be ready for when they finally do so it.

Essay 1 reflection

Kourosh Abascal
Professor Brown
English 1B
25 March 2013

Reflection

             I actually learned a lot from both my teacher and my peer commentary. Between Mr. Brown's notes as well as Gabe's, I was able to rewrite my essay in a way that actually made more sense. I also had my friend take a look at it and get a 3rd set of comments on it. The great part of all the commentaries was that they all sort of said the same thing in a way. On my actual essay, I condensed my essay but also expanded it. I took out some parts that didn't make sense and rearranged the others to make it flow a lot easier. And for my thesis, I was able to change it up and be more direct with it. I added more quotes and incorporated them much better instead of just throwing them in there. The truth is that after reading my essay with all the commentaries in mind, I was able to see how much work was actually needed for it. They all were able to help me turn it into something I can actually say made sense. The idea of commentaries is actually really helpful and I myself benefited greatly on it.

What's So Bad About Hate

1. What is hate really?
2. Does hate really exist?
3. The does hate seem to rise up the more we try to extinguish it?

"9/11"

1. Did Susan Sontag seem less patriotic after this article?

2. Why did Sontag say she would rather have been in New York on September 11th?

3.What actually is terrorism and will it ever be finished or pleased?


2. I will be touching on question 3

What is a terrorist and what is terrorism? In the dictionary a terrorist is defined as a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. And terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. Those definitions describe dedication is ones cause. People who fight for what they believe in for political purposes. I in no way condone what is being done by organizations like Al' Qaeda or anyone else like them but using that definition, wouldn't the United States also be considered to be terrorist? We fight for political purposes and that's exactly what terrorism means. Each side has their own story but the way the "terrorist" we are describing now are fighting is unjust. They are using the issues in the Middle-East to have a cause. I agree with Sontag that terrorism really has no end. They use the ideas of oppression to justify their cause. But as she said, even if all the wars, fighting, and bloodshed ceased, the terrorist wouldn't.
They feel like heroes. They would feel like their actions accomplished something and that doing it again would help the next cause. That would lead to only to more tiny worthless causes just to get another win. And wiping them out isn't that easy either. Since they are mixed in with the civilian population, taking them out would cause innocent casualties and in turn, the families of the innocent people that died would have a cause. Just like the hydra in Greek mythology, for every head to cut, two more grow in its place. It seems like an ever lasting cycle. Hopefully somewhere in the future someone figures out the answer to stop terrorism before it becomes too unmanageable.