Progress is the key to success. Without progress, there was no point in doing all of the work because there is nothing to show what I’ve learned throughout the quarter. Being in Writing 101 has significantly improved my writing.
The transition from high school to college was difficult, but it was manageable. High school didn’t ask much of students except to do the work and turn it in. That was all that really needed to be done to stay in good standing in the class. College is a bit different. First, not only does the work need to be turned in on time to get credit, unlike being able to receive partial credit for late work in high school, but it has to be quality work as well. It is also much less structured, which was difficult for me adjust to because I was used to being told what to do instead of me taking the time to figure out how to add my own flair to the work. In the end, I can appreciate these differences because they helped develop my creativity and helped me create a voice of my own within my writing.
Like many of my peers, I was unaware of so many weaknesses I had coming into Writing 101. One of my weaknesses that I didn’t realize and worked until this class, was asking questions in the introduction. An example of this is in my first essay when the first sentence in the introduction wasn’t even that, but a question. I was content with asking questions previously because I thought it would spark thinking and I wasn’t told different, which lead me to believe it was fine. Another weakness of mine was connecting what I was writing with a personal experience of mine. With this class being a combined study with History 121, this was especially hard for me seeing as I’m not too fond of history. This can also be displayed in my second essay where I make a reference but don’t explain a personal experience that connects to the topic. Also, my conclusions weren’t as strong as they could be. I struggled with trying not to repeat myself as well as present new information.
Some things if they weren’t already, became strengths during the duration of this course. I believe some of my strengths coming into this course were my word choice, and sentence and paragraph length. Using the word “drastically” in my second essay demonstrates how large of a scale the ideas and beliefs changed during the time period. Using words such as “hence” and “essence” in the first essay and final exam illustrate the variety of words in my vocabulary. My sentence and paragraph lengths were fine prior to this class as well. I know how I personally get tired of reading long sentences and paragraphs, which is why I try to remember this why I’m writing so I can have a selection of different lengths. I learned and improved in asking questions in an essay and connecting personal experience and interest to the subject. With questions, they have to be answered in the beginning so people won’t ponder on the question too long, which takes the focus off the paper. This class being combined with history also helped teach me how everything is interconnected. In the final exam I demonstrated my knowledge how history is a part of, as well as influences the present.
Prior to this class my writing philosophy consisted of only being able to write when I was passionate about the topic or it had an affect on me. I wrote whatever came to my mind then organized and corrected it later. When writing an essay, I would decide on the thesis first and then brainstorm for ideas. Once I had all my main ideas, I would start organizing and incorporating the ideas into my thesis. Now after being in Writing 101 for a full quarter, my philosophy has changed. I can write about any topic whether I’m passionate about it or not, it may take a longer time to find a connection, but it is possible. While collecting information, I color code all the information into categories, which organizes the paper for me before it is even written. I write all the body paragraphs, letting the paper take itself to wherever, then create a thesis that focuses on the information written. This is much easier then before because it alleviates having to correct either the thesis or the paragraphs because they don’t flow together. With the progress I’ve made in Writing 101 in just one quarter, I can feel comfortable with the minimal amount of flaws I have now, as well as continuously find new ways to improve my writing, to reach my full potential.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
PORTFOLIO: ESSAY
Why was Bacon's rebellion important on how Native Americans were treated? Many different factors contributed to the outcome of the rebellion. The conflict of race in Bacon's Rebellion was accredited to the colonists believing they were superior.
Bacon never failed to publicize his views on the Indians. “ ‘[We must defend ourselves] against all Indians in generall, for that they were all Enemies.’ This was the unequivocal view of Nathaniel Bacon…”5 His approach to the situation is all wrong, causing the whole rebellion to be unorganized. If he would start by approaching the situation that way, then it should be expected and known that he was going to unjustly murder many Indians. He had already stereotyped all Indians to be immortal creatures, or as he would put it, “Enemies.” Nathaniel Bacon states himself, in the declaration he wrote in 1676, “For the prevention of civil mischief and ruin amongst ourselves while the barbarous enemy in all places did invade, murder, and spoil us, his Majesty’s most faithful subjects.”6 It is a common trait of his to undermine what caused the Indians to begin these attacks, but focus on the attacks themselves and not give any information about the role he played in the Indians rebellions. This leads one to believe that Bacon constantly embellished the truth. If this is the case, then he can’t be accredited for conveying the truth. Bacon’s murders show no sympathy or connection to the Indians, which can demonstrate how he seen them as inferior or immortal because he can kill them with it having no effect on him, regardless of whether they were friendly or not. It seems he didn’t make the attacks personal. He just knew that he was going to retaliate against Indians, and that was all that mattered to him. The cause of the whole situation at Thomas Mathews’ plantation also confirms how natives were treated. The situation explains how the colonists didn’t see the Indians as equal because they would try to short end them or not give them the decent respect they would give to their fellow colonists. This shows they feel they are superior to the Indians.
The whole rebellion was based off retaliatory actions. The colonist were frustrated with many things during the time, and the coincidental raid by the Doeg Indians on the plantation of Thomas Mathews, gave colonists reason to vent their frustration.1 The dispute began in July 1675, over the unfortunate nonpayment of some of the tribe’s items obtained by Mathews, which resulted in the deaths of several Doegs.1 The Native Americans had a legitimate reason to raid Mathews’ plantation. He can’t expect to just obtain objects from them without paying for them in some sort of way. A group of men mistakenly charged the Susquehannocks with the outrages of the Doegs.1,2 This only enflamed the whole situation because the Susquehannock chiefs were killed during a flag of truce by the Maryland and Virginia militia, which only gave the Indians the right to retaliate by killing many planters in Virginia.3 The Indians have all the right to do what they did. If anything, the Virginians should have been understanding of the Indians actions. Not to forget that, “Berkeley had worked to establish peace with the tribes and successfully negotiated a settlement in which lands east of the Blue Ridge Mountains were reserved for the white settlers. However, during the 1640s and 1650s, the burgeoning population began to spill over into Indian lands west of the mountains.” 4 The Indians have every right to attack the colonists and all their attacks were justified with legitimate reasons. The colonists came over to their land, and were fortunate enough that the Indians didn’t run them out of their land when they first arrived. The Indians were very generous with letting the colonists occupy some of their land. But as with most cases, the colonists became greedy and tried to take advantage of the Indians by starting to cross the border into Indian Territory. This was the Indians land, and of course they’re going to do whatever they can to defend and protect the little bit of land that wasn’t occupied by the colonists, it’s only realistic. That is a means of survival implanted within all of us. The Indians were already irritated because of the violations of the treaty, and to make the situation worse, colonists were retaliating on whatever tribe they could, not necessarily basing their retaliation on what that tribe did to them.
Bacon discovered the tribe of friendly Mannakins while in the wilderness.2 They were cordial towards each other until the third evening when one of Bacon’s men was killed by a shot from the side of the river the Mannakins were on. “Bacon stormed the fort, burnt it and the cabins, blew up their magazine of arms and gunpowder, and, with a loss of only three of his own party, put to death one hundred and fifty Indians.”2 This wasn’t smart on his behalf. He wasn’t sure if the Mannakins were responsible for the murder of his man. It could have easily been Berkeley and his men, but because he already had it set in his mind that mostly all Indians were “bad,” he assumed it was them and retaliated. It also wasn’t one of his better judgments because the Mannakins were one of the friendly tribes. By killing off one of the friendly tribes, his actions probably made other friendly tribes turn against him, making his task even harder. Bacon also, “at the head of a thousand men, marched against the Pamunkies, killing many and destroying their towns,” and, “surprising the Appomattox Indians, …burnt their town, killed a large number of the tribe, and dispersed the rest.” Bacon killed ruthlessly as if these people he were killing weren’t actually people, but animals. Out of all the accounts, his actions toward the Occaneechee Indians had the most effect on me. Bacon and his followers, “…marched to a fort held by a friendly tribe, the Occaneechees, and convinced them to capture warriors from an unfriendly tribe. The Occaneechees returned with captives. Bacon’s men killed the captives. They then turned to their ‘allies’ and opened fire.”5 This act of Bacon’s displays his passion to retaliate against all Indians. He really wasn’t in touch with his emotions or sympathetic to any other races other than his own. Bacon lacking those common human characteristics puts him in a category of his own, which could actually justify his actions because it had no effect on him. Even though I totally disagree with the actions of Bacon and his men, I will admit that his strategy in this attack of the Occaneechees was brilliant on a sinister level. Although all the attacks may not be in the same order in the sources, the sources don’t fail to sugarcoat his devious ways.
Bacon’s Rebellion didn’t really have a real resolution. The resolution was that once Nathaniel Bacon died, the rebellion fizzled out. There was no one that stepped up to replace him and keep the spirit of the rebellion alive. Bacon was one of the few extremely passionate and brave enough to lead the rebellion that most during that time thought about, but never carried through. This illustrates the end of the rebellion was destined to happen soon because if people were still fully devoted to the rebellion, then it wouldn’t have ended just because the leader died, someone else would have replaced him and carried out his legacy. Once the rebellion ended, peace was somewhat restored back to the Chesapeake society. Of course there were still some outbreaks, but none as largely a scale as in the rebellion. Indirectly, these accounts could have contributed to the African slave trade largely coming to the southern colonies of North America. With all the Native Americans dying of foreign diseases and the attacks by the Virginians, the colonists needed a new group of people for purposes of agriculture. Hence, the Africans coming to America.
The topic of Bacon’s Rebellion highly relates to what happens today in American society. When I was in eighth grade I had a similar experience to the Native Americans, just without the mass murders. A couple of my friends and I experienced a teacher that seemed had no reason to treat us the way she did. She had been rude to us on numerous occasions so we weren’t very partial of her. One specific day, she made a comment that was directed towards us, using the words, “those light brights.” This really angered us because she used the term in a derogatory sense, which was confusing because she was African American as well. She would put us through hell and make us go the extra mile, doing more than most students. As human beings, we felt disrespected and returned the favor using the theory, if you respect me, I’ll respect you. There was never a real resolution. When we moved onto high school it ceased, only because we didn’t have to see her on a day-to-day basis. Even to this day when I see her, she still isn’t very fond of me. Having experienced that, when I hear of someone rebelling, the first question that comes to my head is what caused them to do those actions?
Bacon's Rebellion was the first of its kind and set the stage for many similar situations in the future. Race wasn't an important issue before the rebellion, but after, it caused tension between races, leading into what is now racism.1 Pike, John E.
1. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bacon.htm 2000-2007
2. Love to Know, Inc. http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great%20_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_I/nathaniel_dj.html 2002-2003
3. National Register of Historic Places. http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/jamesriver/gentry.htm
4. Avery, Steve.http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h521.html 2002-2005
5. WGBH Educational Foundation. www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p274.html 1998,1999
6. Bacon, Nathaniel. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5800 1676.
Bacon never failed to publicize his views on the Indians. “ ‘[We must defend ourselves] against all Indians in generall, for that they were all Enemies.’ This was the unequivocal view of Nathaniel Bacon…”5 His approach to the situation is all wrong, causing the whole rebellion to be unorganized. If he would start by approaching the situation that way, then it should be expected and known that he was going to unjustly murder many Indians. He had already stereotyped all Indians to be immortal creatures, or as he would put it, “Enemies.” Nathaniel Bacon states himself, in the declaration he wrote in 1676, “For the prevention of civil mischief and ruin amongst ourselves while the barbarous enemy in all places did invade, murder, and spoil us, his Majesty’s most faithful subjects.”6 It is a common trait of his to undermine what caused the Indians to begin these attacks, but focus on the attacks themselves and not give any information about the role he played in the Indians rebellions. This leads one to believe that Bacon constantly embellished the truth. If this is the case, then he can’t be accredited for conveying the truth. Bacon’s murders show no sympathy or connection to the Indians, which can demonstrate how he seen them as inferior or immortal because he can kill them with it having no effect on him, regardless of whether they were friendly or not. It seems he didn’t make the attacks personal. He just knew that he was going to retaliate against Indians, and that was all that mattered to him. The cause of the whole situation at Thomas Mathews’ plantation also confirms how natives were treated. The situation explains how the colonists didn’t see the Indians as equal because they would try to short end them or not give them the decent respect they would give to their fellow colonists. This shows they feel they are superior to the Indians.
The whole rebellion was based off retaliatory actions. The colonist were frustrated with many things during the time, and the coincidental raid by the Doeg Indians on the plantation of Thomas Mathews, gave colonists reason to vent their frustration.1 The dispute began in July 1675, over the unfortunate nonpayment of some of the tribe’s items obtained by Mathews, which resulted in the deaths of several Doegs.1 The Native Americans had a legitimate reason to raid Mathews’ plantation. He can’t expect to just obtain objects from them without paying for them in some sort of way. A group of men mistakenly charged the Susquehannocks with the outrages of the Doegs.1,2 This only enflamed the whole situation because the Susquehannock chiefs were killed during a flag of truce by the Maryland and Virginia militia, which only gave the Indians the right to retaliate by killing many planters in Virginia.3 The Indians have all the right to do what they did. If anything, the Virginians should have been understanding of the Indians actions. Not to forget that, “Berkeley had worked to establish peace with the tribes and successfully negotiated a settlement in which lands east of the Blue Ridge Mountains were reserved for the white settlers. However, during the 1640s and 1650s, the burgeoning population began to spill over into Indian lands west of the mountains.” 4 The Indians have every right to attack the colonists and all their attacks were justified with legitimate reasons. The colonists came over to their land, and were fortunate enough that the Indians didn’t run them out of their land when they first arrived. The Indians were very generous with letting the colonists occupy some of their land. But as with most cases, the colonists became greedy and tried to take advantage of the Indians by starting to cross the border into Indian Territory. This was the Indians land, and of course they’re going to do whatever they can to defend and protect the little bit of land that wasn’t occupied by the colonists, it’s only realistic. That is a means of survival implanted within all of us. The Indians were already irritated because of the violations of the treaty, and to make the situation worse, colonists were retaliating on whatever tribe they could, not necessarily basing their retaliation on what that tribe did to them.
Bacon discovered the tribe of friendly Mannakins while in the wilderness.2 They were cordial towards each other until the third evening when one of Bacon’s men was killed by a shot from the side of the river the Mannakins were on. “Bacon stormed the fort, burnt it and the cabins, blew up their magazine of arms and gunpowder, and, with a loss of only three of his own party, put to death one hundred and fifty Indians.”2 This wasn’t smart on his behalf. He wasn’t sure if the Mannakins were responsible for the murder of his man. It could have easily been Berkeley and his men, but because he already had it set in his mind that mostly all Indians were “bad,” he assumed it was them and retaliated. It also wasn’t one of his better judgments because the Mannakins were one of the friendly tribes. By killing off one of the friendly tribes, his actions probably made other friendly tribes turn against him, making his task even harder. Bacon also, “at the head of a thousand men, marched against the Pamunkies, killing many and destroying their towns,” and, “surprising the Appomattox Indians, …burnt their town, killed a large number of the tribe, and dispersed the rest.” Bacon killed ruthlessly as if these people he were killing weren’t actually people, but animals. Out of all the accounts, his actions toward the Occaneechee Indians had the most effect on me. Bacon and his followers, “…marched to a fort held by a friendly tribe, the Occaneechees, and convinced them to capture warriors from an unfriendly tribe. The Occaneechees returned with captives. Bacon’s men killed the captives. They then turned to their ‘allies’ and opened fire.”5 This act of Bacon’s displays his passion to retaliate against all Indians. He really wasn’t in touch with his emotions or sympathetic to any other races other than his own. Bacon lacking those common human characteristics puts him in a category of his own, which could actually justify his actions because it had no effect on him. Even though I totally disagree with the actions of Bacon and his men, I will admit that his strategy in this attack of the Occaneechees was brilliant on a sinister level. Although all the attacks may not be in the same order in the sources, the sources don’t fail to sugarcoat his devious ways.
Bacon’s Rebellion didn’t really have a real resolution. The resolution was that once Nathaniel Bacon died, the rebellion fizzled out. There was no one that stepped up to replace him and keep the spirit of the rebellion alive. Bacon was one of the few extremely passionate and brave enough to lead the rebellion that most during that time thought about, but never carried through. This illustrates the end of the rebellion was destined to happen soon because if people were still fully devoted to the rebellion, then it wouldn’t have ended just because the leader died, someone else would have replaced him and carried out his legacy. Once the rebellion ended, peace was somewhat restored back to the Chesapeake society. Of course there were still some outbreaks, but none as largely a scale as in the rebellion. Indirectly, these accounts could have contributed to the African slave trade largely coming to the southern colonies of North America. With all the Native Americans dying of foreign diseases and the attacks by the Virginians, the colonists needed a new group of people for purposes of agriculture. Hence, the Africans coming to America.
The topic of Bacon’s Rebellion highly relates to what happens today in American society. When I was in eighth grade I had a similar experience to the Native Americans, just without the mass murders. A couple of my friends and I experienced a teacher that seemed had no reason to treat us the way she did. She had been rude to us on numerous occasions so we weren’t very partial of her. One specific day, she made a comment that was directed towards us, using the words, “those light brights.” This really angered us because she used the term in a derogatory sense, which was confusing because she was African American as well. She would put us through hell and make us go the extra mile, doing more than most students. As human beings, we felt disrespected and returned the favor using the theory, if you respect me, I’ll respect you. There was never a real resolution. When we moved onto high school it ceased, only because we didn’t have to see her on a day-to-day basis. Even to this day when I see her, she still isn’t very fond of me. Having experienced that, when I hear of someone rebelling, the first question that comes to my head is what caused them to do those actions?
Bacon's Rebellion was the first of its kind and set the stage for many similar situations in the future. Race wasn't an important issue before the rebellion, but after, it caused tension between races, leading into what is now racism.1 Pike, John E.
1. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bacon.htm 2000-2007
2. Love to Know, Inc. http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great%20_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_I/nathaniel_dj.html 2002-2003
3. National Register of Historic Places. http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/travel/jamesriver/gentry.htm
4. Avery, Steve.http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h521.html 2002-2005
5. WGBH Educational Foundation. www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p274.html 1998,1999
6. Bacon, Nathaniel. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5800 1676.
PORTFOLIO: ESSAY
“The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will.” –John Locke, Second Treatise on Government
The many different ideas and beliefs on freedom and will have been around since the beginning of time. Everyday a new opinion or outlook is formed on life. However, a common ground between all the beliefs should be that a society can’t function properly without common laws being enforced.
The American society was shifting drastically during the mid and late 18th Century. People were moving away from the set traditional religions, and began to find their own beliefs. Certain aspects would be taken from the traditional religions and combined with personal beliefs to create a whole new outlook on life. During this time, there were philosophers, such as John Locke, who created a new perspective of liberty and freedom.
John Locke had a very interesting point of view when it came to freedom of man. He believed man creates his own freedom and will based off his own reasoning. Whatever his reasoning is, that becomes his law and he uses it to govern himself. Those laws let him know to what extent his freedom is and what all he can do.
An example that demonstrates how incorrect this theory is in terms of back then is if a man feels someone has more livestock than him, he can just take a few, and it would be justified because he sees no wrong in it. The world would be extremely corrupt if we followed this belief because everyone would do as they please, no matter how volatile or corrupt, and get away with it because it is justified in their minds. This would also give people reason to do evil and corrupt things because they don’t view it as evil and corrupt. People wouldn’t learn any lessons or suffer consequences, which leads to the destruction of the world because there would be no sanity or central base that is agreed upon.
An example of this theory in today’s society would be a teacher seeing a student cheating, the student explains they don’t consider it cheating, and the teacher leaves it alone. The teacher isn’t helping the student by allowing it to happen because it’s going to continue and it’s not going to benefit the student in the long run. This is the same as if I don’t get punished for something or it doesn’t seem rules are in effect, I’m going to keep doing the same thing and pushing my limits further and further each time.
There should always be some sort of rules or common ground in effect. I’m sure there are people that would agree with Locke’s theory and base their life upon it. I respect everyone’s rights to form their own opinion and beliefs. However, I feel Locke’s theory is nowhere near something someone should revolve his or her life around.
The many different ideas and beliefs on freedom and will have been around since the beginning of time. Everyday a new opinion or outlook is formed on life. However, a common ground between all the beliefs should be that a society can’t function properly without common laws being enforced.
The American society was shifting drastically during the mid and late 18th Century. People were moving away from the set traditional religions, and began to find their own beliefs. Certain aspects would be taken from the traditional religions and combined with personal beliefs to create a whole new outlook on life. During this time, there were philosophers, such as John Locke, who created a new perspective of liberty and freedom.
John Locke had a very interesting point of view when it came to freedom of man. He believed man creates his own freedom and will based off his own reasoning. Whatever his reasoning is, that becomes his law and he uses it to govern himself. Those laws let him know to what extent his freedom is and what all he can do.
An example that demonstrates how incorrect this theory is in terms of back then is if a man feels someone has more livestock than him, he can just take a few, and it would be justified because he sees no wrong in it. The world would be extremely corrupt if we followed this belief because everyone would do as they please, no matter how volatile or corrupt, and get away with it because it is justified in their minds. This would also give people reason to do evil and corrupt things because they don’t view it as evil and corrupt. People wouldn’t learn any lessons or suffer consequences, which leads to the destruction of the world because there would be no sanity or central base that is agreed upon.
An example of this theory in today’s society would be a teacher seeing a student cheating, the student explains they don’t consider it cheating, and the teacher leaves it alone. The teacher isn’t helping the student by allowing it to happen because it’s going to continue and it’s not going to benefit the student in the long run. This is the same as if I don’t get punished for something or it doesn’t seem rules are in effect, I’m going to keep doing the same thing and pushing my limits further and further each time.
There should always be some sort of rules or common ground in effect. I’m sure there are people that would agree with Locke’s theory and base their life upon it. I respect everyone’s rights to form their own opinion and beliefs. However, I feel Locke’s theory is nowhere near something someone should revolve his or her life around.
Monday, December 10, 2007
PORTFOLIO: FINAL EXAM
“Why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that […] a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means […] the history of the present.” – Michel Foucault
There are always those quotes that attempt to make you think, but instead do the opposite and confuse you. This was considered one to many of my peers. It isn’t that confusing once analyzed thoughtfully. When looked at in a logical manner, it makes perfect sense. Everything in the present is influenced by something that has happened in the past.
Michel Foucault is not interested in history just to learn about the past. He is more interested in the past to see how it influenced current situations in society today. Everything in the present is based upon something that happened in the past, which is somehow connected to it. Everything is connected to history, there is no one thing that just happened out of nowhere with no influence of something that has happened in the past. The statement, “the history of the present,” gives a new approach to look at history. This statement demonstrates how history connects to and explains what is going on now in the present. To be able to understand the present, you have to take into consideration the past.
Studying history enables people to understand the present and see where situations stem from. If I never consider history, I will never be able to comprehend the present. Grasping history makes the realization of the present much clearer. Just knowing the present isn’t enough. Knowing the history, as well as the present creates a well rounded person and enhances intelligence.
Major events in American history, such as slavery, can be further examined to understand this concept. The creation of slavery created a separation and hierarchy amongst the races. Even though slavery was abolished, the spirit was still carried on through the generations, showing even in present day American society. Especially in the south, which was the origin of slavery in the United States.
The perfect example is the Jena 6. When last fall, “two Black high school students sat under the ‘white’ tree on their campus, white students responded by hanging nooses from the tree. When Black students protested the light punishment for the students who hung the nooses, District Attorney Reed Walters came to the school and told the students he could ‘take [their] lives away with a stroke of [his] pen.’ Racial tension continued to mount in Jena, and the District Attorney did nothing in response to several egregious cases of violence and threats against black students. But when a white student--who had been a vocal supporter of the students who hung the nooses--taunted a black student, allegedly called several black students ‘nigger’, and was beaten up by black students, six black students were charged with second-degree attempted murder. Last month, the first young man to be tried, Mychal Bell, was convicted. He faces up to 22 years in prison for a school fight.” - http://www.freethejena6.org/
History has a huge impact on the present, and in some cases such as segregation that stemmed from slavery, was never fully resolved in the past, which is why they are displaying and being uncovered now. People chose to think that an issue such as segregation doesn’t exist anymore and are astonished when hearing of situations such as the Jena 6. In the north, even when looking at the past, slavery wasn’t a necessity to survival, which is why it was so easily outlawed. But in the southern states where slavery and segregation were associated with the means to survive, it is still very much a part of society. With the instance of the Jena 6, yes, slavery was abolished, but some still agreed with the superiority and segregation, which is portraying now, generations later. To fully understand the Jena 6, one has to look at the aspects of how southerners felt about the abolishing of slavery in 1865 and African Americans speaking out about segregation in the 1960s.
With a negative answer to Foucault’s question, learning would be different. The history and the present would be examined as two different aspects, and the understanding of how they interconnect would never be reached. It could even be taken to the extent that I, myself could say there is no point in considering history because it is in the past and has nothing to do with the future. This would be the easy way to get out of making an effort to actually understand how they are connected, and in the end would only hinder myself from reaching my full potential of realization and knowledge.
In essence, everything is interconnected, including history and present because at some point in time all history was the present.
There are always those quotes that attempt to make you think, but instead do the opposite and confuse you. This was considered one to many of my peers. It isn’t that confusing once analyzed thoughtfully. When looked at in a logical manner, it makes perfect sense. Everything in the present is influenced by something that has happened in the past.
Michel Foucault is not interested in history just to learn about the past. He is more interested in the past to see how it influenced current situations in society today. Everything in the present is based upon something that happened in the past, which is somehow connected to it. Everything is connected to history, there is no one thing that just happened out of nowhere with no influence of something that has happened in the past. The statement, “the history of the present,” gives a new approach to look at history. This statement demonstrates how history connects to and explains what is going on now in the present. To be able to understand the present, you have to take into consideration the past.
Studying history enables people to understand the present and see where situations stem from. If I never consider history, I will never be able to comprehend the present. Grasping history makes the realization of the present much clearer. Just knowing the present isn’t enough. Knowing the history, as well as the present creates a well rounded person and enhances intelligence.
Major events in American history, such as slavery, can be further examined to understand this concept. The creation of slavery created a separation and hierarchy amongst the races. Even though slavery was abolished, the spirit was still carried on through the generations, showing even in present day American society. Especially in the south, which was the origin of slavery in the United States.
The perfect example is the Jena 6. When last fall, “two Black high school students sat under the ‘white’ tree on their campus, white students responded by hanging nooses from the tree. When Black students protested the light punishment for the students who hung the nooses, District Attorney Reed Walters came to the school and told the students he could ‘take [their] lives away with a stroke of [his] pen.’ Racial tension continued to mount in Jena, and the District Attorney did nothing in response to several egregious cases of violence and threats against black students. But when a white student--who had been a vocal supporter of the students who hung the nooses--taunted a black student, allegedly called several black students ‘nigger’, and was beaten up by black students, six black students were charged with second-degree attempted murder. Last month, the first young man to be tried, Mychal Bell, was convicted. He faces up to 22 years in prison for a school fight.” - http://www.freethejena6.org/
History has a huge impact on the present, and in some cases such as segregation that stemmed from slavery, was never fully resolved in the past, which is why they are displaying and being uncovered now. People chose to think that an issue such as segregation doesn’t exist anymore and are astonished when hearing of situations such as the Jena 6. In the north, even when looking at the past, slavery wasn’t a necessity to survival, which is why it was so easily outlawed. But in the southern states where slavery and segregation were associated with the means to survive, it is still very much a part of society. With the instance of the Jena 6, yes, slavery was abolished, but some still agreed with the superiority and segregation, which is portraying now, generations later. To fully understand the Jena 6, one has to look at the aspects of how southerners felt about the abolishing of slavery in 1865 and African Americans speaking out about segregation in the 1960s.
With a negative answer to Foucault’s question, learning would be different. The history and the present would be examined as two different aspects, and the understanding of how they interconnect would never be reached. It could even be taken to the extent that I, myself could say there is no point in considering history because it is in the past and has nothing to do with the future. This would be the easy way to get out of making an effort to actually understand how they are connected, and in the end would only hinder myself from reaching my full potential of realization and knowledge.
In essence, everything is interconnected, including history and present because at some point in time all history was the present.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Essay#3 Reflection
1) Group Interaction
The interaction between my group was decent. It wasn't spectacular but it was what I expected. I tried to prepare myself for the worst, so at its worst, at least I wouldn't be disappointed. I don't think all four of us were ever interacting with each other, except for when we were in class. I knew this group essay would be rocky from the beginning based off the last essay we did, and how hard it was just for us to agree on the outline. Myself and Junalyn basically created the outline, then each person was able to choose which key point they wanted to write about. That was the best and most non-stressful part of the essay for my group, in my opinion. Each person wrote their section without needing assistance from other group members. I was very satisfied that this was done on time. When all the components were put together I felt, and still feel that it didn't flow the way it should of. On the topic of corrections, I feel that we should have all contributed on the corrections so everyone's ideas would be incorporated and it would help create a unison of all our voices. But for the most part, we all got along and there weren't that many conflicts.
2) Use of Contract
I don't feel that the guidelines of the contract were correctly followed. There were days where group members wouldn't be present and work couldn't effectively be done because we needed their input on the decision. Looking back now, I feel the contract needs to be extremely revised. We were a little too lenient with some of the rules, and in the end, those hindered the outcome of the essay.
3) Use of Wiki
The wiki was pretty well used. We created new pages for this essay, so everyone in the group could have their information in the same place. I think everyone contributed a little to the wiki and it was very useful in the end to find information because it was all there.
The interaction between my group was decent. It wasn't spectacular but it was what I expected. I tried to prepare myself for the worst, so at its worst, at least I wouldn't be disappointed. I don't think all four of us were ever interacting with each other, except for when we were in class. I knew this group essay would be rocky from the beginning based off the last essay we did, and how hard it was just for us to agree on the outline. Myself and Junalyn basically created the outline, then each person was able to choose which key point they wanted to write about. That was the best and most non-stressful part of the essay for my group, in my opinion. Each person wrote their section without needing assistance from other group members. I was very satisfied that this was done on time. When all the components were put together I felt, and still feel that it didn't flow the way it should of. On the topic of corrections, I feel that we should have all contributed on the corrections so everyone's ideas would be incorporated and it would help create a unison of all our voices. But for the most part, we all got along and there weren't that many conflicts.
2) Use of Contract
I don't feel that the guidelines of the contract were correctly followed. There were days where group members wouldn't be present and work couldn't effectively be done because we needed their input on the decision. Looking back now, I feel the contract needs to be extremely revised. We were a little too lenient with some of the rules, and in the end, those hindered the outcome of the essay.
3) Use of Wiki
The wiki was pretty well used. We created new pages for this essay, so everyone in the group could have their information in the same place. I think everyone contributed a little to the wiki and it was very useful in the end to find information because it was all there.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Rhode Island's Debate over Ratification of the Constitution
Vince Coppola
Junalyn Dela Cruz
Sioned Fearon and
Cymone Lee-Johnson
11/27/07
Ratification of Constitution Essay
Rhode Island's Debate over Ratification of the Constitution
Federalism is the greatest thing that ever happened to this country! Sure some may say this, but it is a huge overstatement. The truth is, anti-federalism held a much safer outcome for the maintenance of sovereignty in each individual state as opposed to the ideology of the federalists.
Anti-federalists mainly populated the state of Rhode Island at the time of the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. A significant reason they were opposed to the ratification was their belief that a central government would deny many of the rights and powers of individual states. Reasons behind this strong disapproval were partially because of the Charter of Rhode Island, which contained the rules and orders for the use of the general assembly of the state of Rhode Island. The state had an issue with the fact that the central government would overpower the individual states. But the majority of Rhode Island believed this would not be good for them, and that a small, statewide system of government would be more efficient. There was also a great deal of concern about the Land Ordinance of 1785, where each state boundary extended well beyond the boundaries originally assigned to the state. It stated that the land of the old northwest should be sold in order to pay off the national debt. This land of course, included Rhode Island, and it was a worry to Rhode Island because they did not have claims on any western land, while other states did. Finally, there was an issue with taxation. Rhode Island did not want to ratify the constitution until their state debts had been paid off. If they were to ratify with debts still upon them, they would then accumulate more debt from the new government.
How can Rhode Island accept the Constitution when they did not attend the Philadelphia Convention (Moehn 94)? "The Federalist Papers" written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, states that "Rhode Island's legislature, controlled by a radical agrarian part, sent no delegation" to Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation (30). The reason in refusing to their ‘'urgent need for power-sharing between States and Federal authorities" in the Convention was that Rhode Island is concerned about giving the federal government too much power. Rhode Island was content with the liberty and the independence based on their stated constitution. They had no intention of giving the state's independence up to a federal government. The state constitution, or the Charter of 1664, was fought for during the Revolutionary War. Rhode Island was satisfied of their organization of their political group, Country Party. The Country Party was known for issuing paper currency to pay off Revolutionary War debts (Doherty 96). Rhode Island believed that running democracy in their state government would be more sufficient than running democracy as one whole nation. In Shay’s Rebellion, the confederation wanted to tax every state for the debts but with democracy, the right for their voice, people oppressed against them. Affected by Shay’s Rebellion in 1786, Rhode Island knew that it's better for their government to control their state than having all states to be controlled by the central government (Doherty 100). Anti-federalists understand that the federalists proposed republicanism, which was to give voice to the people through the senators. Though Rhode Island’s concern was giving too much power to the executive would be going back to British shoes. America as a whole would run under a "king."
An issue that played a major role in Rhode Island being an anti-federalist state was the probable outcome that a central government would overpower the individual states. Rhode Island had just fought passionately to steer away from a monarchical rule, and was now being pressured to go back in that direction. Plenty of colonies having claims to land westward didn’t help Rhode Island become in favor of the Constitution any faster. Rhode Island was one of the few colonies that didn’t have any land claims. Other colonies having land claims, with the expectations of expanding, in the event of a central government, would have superiority. Other colonies, such as Virginia, who had land claims from Kentucky to Wisconsin, would easily overpower such a small colony as Rhode Island in a central government. Those fortunate colonies that held more land had the advantage over others that didn’t, such as economically and military wise. Loss of independence was greatly feared, thus explains why no delegates were sent to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Rhode Island was perfectly content with the previous laws set forth, which enabled them to have more freedom than most other colonies. A central government would take away so many of the advantages they have, in order to make them equal with every other colony. The residents of Rhode Island worked too hard to gain their independence and liberties, and were too grateful to risk that for an unsure idea.
Since Rhode Island was the last and final state to ratify the Constitution, it must have been severely anti-federalist. One of the primary reasons why the majority of Rhode Island chose not to be governed by a central government was because of the issue of taxation. Unlike the federalists, who were okay with the idea of a broader government taxing at their will, the anti-federalists in Rhode Island feared that there would also be horrible side effects of a more powerful government. The officials feared that since the citizens would have to pay taxes to both the state and the federal government, they would become too burdened with all of the costs. If a citizen became too burdened by taxes, they could simply refuse to pay any taxes. The anti-federalists believed that in this situation, the federal government would simply alleviate the state taxes and only collect their own taxes from citizens. Located in a primary document by Brutus, a writer of one of the numerous anti-federalists letters, he offers his view very plainly, “Suppose then that both governments should lay taxes, duties, and excises, and it should fall so heavy on the people that they would be unable, or be so burdensome that they would refuse to pay them both — would it not be necessary that the general legislature should suspend the collection of the state tax? It certainly would. For, if the people could not, or would not pay both, they must be discharged from the tax to the state, or the tax to the general government could not be collected. — The conclusion therefore is inevitable, that the respective state governments will not have the power to raise one shilling in any way, but by the permission of the Congress.” The federalists in Rhode Island must have seen this sort of thinking as a crazy tangent. They thought that this sort of undermining would never happen, but despite their beliefs, the issue of taxation remained one of the most important and pressing topics to the anti-federalists in Rhode Island.
For numerous reasons, Rhode Island was opposed to the ratification up until May 29, 1790. They really had no choice, they were threatened to be treated as a foreign government. If they refused to ratify, there would be nothing for them.
Individual Responses
Vince: For me to choose a side of the federalism vs. anti-federalism debate, I would simply weigh the historical reasons for both alongside the present information of how everything worked out. Essentially, America today WORKS. Our country has a thriving economy and a very strong military. I believe that the federalists had the best idea with creating a sturdy union between all of the states. The anti-federalists had some legitimate concerns about taxation and their security as states, but ultimately, federalism clearly prevailed. If one were to imagine the current situation of our states if the constitution hadn’t been ratified, it would probably be filled with much internal
conflict and civil wars. Therefore, federalism held the best possible outcome for America.
Junalyn: The debate between the federalists and anti-federalist were rickety because some individual states took longer in ratifying the Constitution. I agree with the individual states that took their time in ratifying the Constitution. The states were concerned about their rights and taxation. They wanted to take care of their war debts before accepting the Constitution. Concerned about the state rights, the Congress incorporated most of the states’ rights into the Bill of Rights, which was then used in the Constitution. This helped the anti-federalists’ satisfaction into rectifying the Constitution. The anti-federalists wanted to take care of their state governments before going into a federal government.
Sioned: If there was to be something like the constitutional debate to happen in my time, I believe I would take the side of federalism. Federalism is a better option in my opinion in a few ways. It unites people, thus making it easier to live. I think it is much less chaotic to have a strong central government than multiple smaller individual governments with their own different laws. Anti-federalist ways can get very out of hand, and there are probably more problems when everyone has different rules and regulations.
Cymone: To choose to be a federalist or anti-federalist is not something easily done. They both had key points, and depending on how they were effectively integrated, would determine the status and success of America today. I am personally torn between the two. I agree with the federalists that there should be a central government. In order for America to prosper, there needs to be some sort of unification amongst all the states. A central government aids states in the fact that the individual states won’t have to feel that they have to deal with their issues on there own and will have support from other states. I agree with the anti-federalists that the individual states come before the central government. I personally would deal with the concerns of my own state before national concerns because it is closer to home. While some can easily decide between the two, I can be satisfied with agreeing on certain ideas from each party.
Sources
1.Doherty, Craig A., and Katherine M. Doherty. Rhode Island. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2005.
2.Moehn, Heather. The U.S. Constitution: a Primary Source Investigation Into the Fundamental Law of the United States. 1st ed. New York: The Rosen Group, Inc., 2003.
3.Kramnick, Isaac, ed. The Federalist Papers. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.
4.http://www.city-data.com/states/Rhode-Island-History.html
5.http://www.jstor.org/view/00223816/di976634/97p0326q/2?frame=noframe&userID=a89c4f45@highline.edu/01c0a848740050157f7&dpi=3&config=jstor
6.http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html
Junalyn Dela Cruz
Sioned Fearon and
Cymone Lee-Johnson
11/27/07
Ratification of Constitution Essay
Rhode Island's Debate over Ratification of the Constitution
Federalism is the greatest thing that ever happened to this country! Sure some may say this, but it is a huge overstatement. The truth is, anti-federalism held a much safer outcome for the maintenance of sovereignty in each individual state as opposed to the ideology of the federalists.
Anti-federalists mainly populated the state of Rhode Island at the time of the ratification of the Constitution in 1787. A significant reason they were opposed to the ratification was their belief that a central government would deny many of the rights and powers of individual states. Reasons behind this strong disapproval were partially because of the Charter of Rhode Island, which contained the rules and orders for the use of the general assembly of the state of Rhode Island. The state had an issue with the fact that the central government would overpower the individual states. But the majority of Rhode Island believed this would not be good for them, and that a small, statewide system of government would be more efficient. There was also a great deal of concern about the Land Ordinance of 1785, where each state boundary extended well beyond the boundaries originally assigned to the state. It stated that the land of the old northwest should be sold in order to pay off the national debt. This land of course, included Rhode Island, and it was a worry to Rhode Island because they did not have claims on any western land, while other states did. Finally, there was an issue with taxation. Rhode Island did not want to ratify the constitution until their state debts had been paid off. If they were to ratify with debts still upon them, they would then accumulate more debt from the new government.
How can Rhode Island accept the Constitution when they did not attend the Philadelphia Convention (Moehn 94)? "The Federalist Papers" written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, states that "Rhode Island's legislature, controlled by a radical agrarian part, sent no delegation" to Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation (30). The reason in refusing to their ‘'urgent need for power-sharing between States and Federal authorities" in the Convention was that Rhode Island is concerned about giving the federal government too much power. Rhode Island was content with the liberty and the independence based on their stated constitution. They had no intention of giving the state's independence up to a federal government. The state constitution, or the Charter of 1664, was fought for during the Revolutionary War. Rhode Island was satisfied of their organization of their political group, Country Party. The Country Party was known for issuing paper currency to pay off Revolutionary War debts (Doherty 96). Rhode Island believed that running democracy in their state government would be more sufficient than running democracy as one whole nation. In Shay’s Rebellion, the confederation wanted to tax every state for the debts but with democracy, the right for their voice, people oppressed against them. Affected by Shay’s Rebellion in 1786, Rhode Island knew that it's better for their government to control their state than having all states to be controlled by the central government (Doherty 100). Anti-federalists understand that the federalists proposed republicanism, which was to give voice to the people through the senators. Though Rhode Island’s concern was giving too much power to the executive would be going back to British shoes. America as a whole would run under a "king."
An issue that played a major role in Rhode Island being an anti-federalist state was the probable outcome that a central government would overpower the individual states. Rhode Island had just fought passionately to steer away from a monarchical rule, and was now being pressured to go back in that direction. Plenty of colonies having claims to land westward didn’t help Rhode Island become in favor of the Constitution any faster. Rhode Island was one of the few colonies that didn’t have any land claims. Other colonies having land claims, with the expectations of expanding, in the event of a central government, would have superiority. Other colonies, such as Virginia, who had land claims from Kentucky to Wisconsin, would easily overpower such a small colony as Rhode Island in a central government. Those fortunate colonies that held more land had the advantage over others that didn’t, such as economically and military wise. Loss of independence was greatly feared, thus explains why no delegates were sent to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Rhode Island was perfectly content with the previous laws set forth, which enabled them to have more freedom than most other colonies. A central government would take away so many of the advantages they have, in order to make them equal with every other colony. The residents of Rhode Island worked too hard to gain their independence and liberties, and were too grateful to risk that for an unsure idea.
Since Rhode Island was the last and final state to ratify the Constitution, it must have been severely anti-federalist. One of the primary reasons why the majority of Rhode Island chose not to be governed by a central government was because of the issue of taxation. Unlike the federalists, who were okay with the idea of a broader government taxing at their will, the anti-federalists in Rhode Island feared that there would also be horrible side effects of a more powerful government. The officials feared that since the citizens would have to pay taxes to both the state and the federal government, they would become too burdened with all of the costs. If a citizen became too burdened by taxes, they could simply refuse to pay any taxes. The anti-federalists believed that in this situation, the federal government would simply alleviate the state taxes and only collect their own taxes from citizens. Located in a primary document by Brutus, a writer of one of the numerous anti-federalists letters, he offers his view very plainly, “Suppose then that both governments should lay taxes, duties, and excises, and it should fall so heavy on the people that they would be unable, or be so burdensome that they would refuse to pay them both — would it not be necessary that the general legislature should suspend the collection of the state tax? It certainly would. For, if the people could not, or would not pay both, they must be discharged from the tax to the state, or the tax to the general government could not be collected. — The conclusion therefore is inevitable, that the respective state governments will not have the power to raise one shilling in any way, but by the permission of the Congress.” The federalists in Rhode Island must have seen this sort of thinking as a crazy tangent. They thought that this sort of undermining would never happen, but despite their beliefs, the issue of taxation remained one of the most important and pressing topics to the anti-federalists in Rhode Island.
For numerous reasons, Rhode Island was opposed to the ratification up until May 29, 1790. They really had no choice, they were threatened to be treated as a foreign government. If they refused to ratify, there would be nothing for them.
Individual Responses
Vince: For me to choose a side of the federalism vs. anti-federalism debate, I would simply weigh the historical reasons for both alongside the present information of how everything worked out. Essentially, America today WORKS. Our country has a thriving economy and a very strong military. I believe that the federalists had the best idea with creating a sturdy union between all of the states. The anti-federalists had some legitimate concerns about taxation and their security as states, but ultimately, federalism clearly prevailed. If one were to imagine the current situation of our states if the constitution hadn’t been ratified, it would probably be filled with much internal
conflict and civil wars. Therefore, federalism held the best possible outcome for America.
Junalyn: The debate between the federalists and anti-federalist were rickety because some individual states took longer in ratifying the Constitution. I agree with the individual states that took their time in ratifying the Constitution. The states were concerned about their rights and taxation. They wanted to take care of their war debts before accepting the Constitution. Concerned about the state rights, the Congress incorporated most of the states’ rights into the Bill of Rights, which was then used in the Constitution. This helped the anti-federalists’ satisfaction into rectifying the Constitution. The anti-federalists wanted to take care of their state governments before going into a federal government.
Sioned: If there was to be something like the constitutional debate to happen in my time, I believe I would take the side of federalism. Federalism is a better option in my opinion in a few ways. It unites people, thus making it easier to live. I think it is much less chaotic to have a strong central government than multiple smaller individual governments with their own different laws. Anti-federalist ways can get very out of hand, and there are probably more problems when everyone has different rules and regulations.
Cymone: To choose to be a federalist or anti-federalist is not something easily done. They both had key points, and depending on how they were effectively integrated, would determine the status and success of America today. I am personally torn between the two. I agree with the federalists that there should be a central government. In order for America to prosper, there needs to be some sort of unification amongst all the states. A central government aids states in the fact that the individual states won’t have to feel that they have to deal with their issues on there own and will have support from other states. I agree with the anti-federalists that the individual states come before the central government. I personally would deal with the concerns of my own state before national concerns because it is closer to home. While some can easily decide between the two, I can be satisfied with agreeing on certain ideas from each party.
Sources
1.Doherty, Craig A., and Katherine M. Doherty. Rhode Island. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2005.
2.Moehn, Heather. The U.S. Constitution: a Primary Source Investigation Into the Fundamental Law of the United States. 1st ed. New York: The Rosen Group, Inc., 2003.
3.Kramnick, Isaac, ed. The Federalist Papers. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.
4.http://www.city-data.com/states/Rhode-Island-History.html
5.http://www.jstor.org/view/00223816/di976634/97p0326q/2?frame=noframe&userID=a89c4f45@highline.edu/01c0a848740050157f7&dpi=3&config=jstor
6.http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Essay #2 Reflection
1) My process improved a little from essay #1 to essay #2. I still couldn't really find motivation to do it and put my best effort into it. I only finished, or at least did my part because I thought how my partner probably cared about his grade and it wouldn't be fair for me to leave him out there with nothing. I still feel like I could have managed my time better. However with work needing to be done over the weekend, and me working all weekend, it makes it hard for me. But considering how much I've worked this weekend, I'm proud of myself that I even finished my part of the assignment. I was extremely stressed and could of easily said forget it, but I stuck through it.
2) I have no clue how my process meshed with my partners because I don't know what his process was. From the outside it probably looked like we didn't have any communication conflicts, but they were there. We came up with the concept that we would dress up and take pictures of certain events then blog about them with each of us expressing our extreme biases. About a day or two later my partner decided it would be better for us to photoshop our faces onto pictures of our characters, and I agreed, eventhough I still think the first idea is more creative. We expressed our plan and started researching information. Eventhough I was researching for many days, I still couldn't and didn't find any information that was useful to me. On Thursday, four days before the project was due, we took the pictures in class and my partner edited them. After that he pretty much said you're on your own. During the weekend when I had time to work on the project I was confused about what exactly I had to do so I sent my partner a message asking what exactly he wanted of me. He stated that I had to do 3 blogs, one on each event, and he would then comment on them. I felt and still feel that him photoshopping 3 pictures isn't equivalent to me writing 3 blogs, but I still did it. When I sent him the URL of the blog in an email, I saw that he sent me a message saying he didn't know what was going on with me and he made 2 blogs and he wanted me to make 1 and we would have to comment back and forth on them, eventhough he didn't even leave a URL for me to do this on. I felt like what I did was a waste of time, but at least I completed what I said I would do. We should have better planned and communicated. I don't feel like he can use the excuse that I didn't post them until late because we've already discussed that I work on the weekends, and if he wasn't listening when this was discussed, then that's on him. So overall, there really wasn't any communication between the two of us. However, I will take part responsibility for that because communication is a 2-way thing. Now I can't quite give my partner a grade because I haven't seen any work he's done, so I don't quite know how that works out.
3) I don't think our conflict was handled at all. Sure he went to someone else and vented about the whole deal, but I don't feel that is resolving the issue. If we were acting like mature adults, we would sit down together and talk about it, not bring other people into it because it only concerns us. We still have to resolve that whole situation. If I had to give myself a grade, it would be a passing grade because I incorporated the facts with the creative bias towards patriotism, which developed my character. I think I could have put more effort into this project, but I don't think it was that horrible to where it was not passing. On my partners behalf, I think he did a great job on the photoshopping of the pictures. My personal favorite was the Boston Tea Party picture. But on content wise, I would give him a no pass/low pass because I haven't seen any of his ideas, but they seemed like they would be benefitial.
2) I have no clue how my process meshed with my partners because I don't know what his process was. From the outside it probably looked like we didn't have any communication conflicts, but they were there. We came up with the concept that we would dress up and take pictures of certain events then blog about them with each of us expressing our extreme biases. About a day or two later my partner decided it would be better for us to photoshop our faces onto pictures of our characters, and I agreed, eventhough I still think the first idea is more creative. We expressed our plan and started researching information. Eventhough I was researching for many days, I still couldn't and didn't find any information that was useful to me. On Thursday, four days before the project was due, we took the pictures in class and my partner edited them. After that he pretty much said you're on your own. During the weekend when I had time to work on the project I was confused about what exactly I had to do so I sent my partner a message asking what exactly he wanted of me. He stated that I had to do 3 blogs, one on each event, and he would then comment on them. I felt and still feel that him photoshopping 3 pictures isn't equivalent to me writing 3 blogs, but I still did it. When I sent him the URL of the blog in an email, I saw that he sent me a message saying he didn't know what was going on with me and he made 2 blogs and he wanted me to make 1 and we would have to comment back and forth on them, eventhough he didn't even leave a URL for me to do this on. I felt like what I did was a waste of time, but at least I completed what I said I would do. We should have better planned and communicated. I don't feel like he can use the excuse that I didn't post them until late because we've already discussed that I work on the weekends, and if he wasn't listening when this was discussed, then that's on him. So overall, there really wasn't any communication between the two of us. However, I will take part responsibility for that because communication is a 2-way thing. Now I can't quite give my partner a grade because I haven't seen any work he's done, so I don't quite know how that works out.
3) I don't think our conflict was handled at all. Sure he went to someone else and vented about the whole deal, but I don't feel that is resolving the issue. If we were acting like mature adults, we would sit down together and talk about it, not bring other people into it because it only concerns us. We still have to resolve that whole situation. If I had to give myself a grade, it would be a passing grade because I incorporated the facts with the creative bias towards patriotism, which developed my character. I think I could have put more effort into this project, but I don't think it was that horrible to where it was not passing. On my partners behalf, I think he did a great job on the photoshopping of the pictures. My personal favorite was the Boston Tea Party picture. But on content wise, I would give him a no pass/low pass because I haven't seen any of his ideas, but they seemed like they would be benefitial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)