Easters End

Sidney Rogers 3^rd

Easters End

Jared Diamond

                The general point made by Jared Diamond in his work Easers End is that many years ago Easter Island was almost a paradise where people thrived and had a very good society of people and somehow their civilization just vanished. More specifically Diamond argues that this civilization was developed enough to sustain its one life with no outside help because there was no evidence that the islanders had any contact or even knowing of anyone else’s existence, they were completely secluded and had no acts of others could have affected the.  Yet all of a sudden they crashed and burned.  He writes “Are we about to follow their lead?”(Page 426) In this passage, Diamond is suggesting that our society now is somewhat how theirs once was, and because of carelessness they ended up extinct in a way and that if we don’t change out careless ways we can end up with the same fate. In conclusion, it is Diamond’s belief that we have to make sure that we learned from those before us and from their mistakes because is obvious from their giant statues and other things that they had a thriving society, at least for that time, and that because they didn’t think about the things they did and how they effected them, they ended up finishing themselves off and that with the way people are living today, we are doing the same thing.

                In my view, Diamond is right because I have noticed that people are caring less and less about what’s important. For example the things that we need to live, such as nature, animals, water, and other things that we rely on. People take advantage of all of them because they don’t know what it would be like if one day we didn’t have it anymore. In my neighborhood we use to have a bunch of trees that lined the street. They provided a lot of shade in the summer and blocked the street from rain and snow in the winter, but because the leaves from the trees were too messy, everyone chopped them down. No one thought about the fact that now all of our plant is our yards burn up under the hot sun and our grass is never as green. They didn’t think about how snowy our street would be because its rare a snow plow comes down our way, and didn’t think about how much uglier our street looks without them, but hey, the gutters are a little cleaner, that’s all that mattered at the time. This is what I think Diamond was trying to say; people don’t realize a lot of what they do and how it can affect other aspects of their lives. Although some would think that we could never let ourselves get that bad that we end ourselves because our technology is too advanced but I maintain that it is the people that think it can never happen to them that it ends up happening to. Therefore I conclude that It is important for people to use what we have sparingly and take little extra measures to ensure we don’t end up like the people on Easter Island because they were probably thinking the same thing we are that it could never happen to them.

Fable for Tomorrow

Sidney Rogers

3^rd

A Fable for Tomorrow

From Silent Spring

Rachel Carson

                This text talks about a town that use to be a very nice place. Lots of things go on here and everyone is happy. There are animals and farms were prosperous. The story is how this happy place all of a suddenly starts spiraling down. The birds no longer chirp because they are all dead, farmers can no longer raise their animals because they die soon after they are born, there are no bees to pollinate fruit trees and once roadsides lined with vegetation are now lined with dead withered plants. Her main point of telling this short story is to show how this can start happening and there have been cases of it. She says “I know of no community that has experienced all the misfortune I describe.” That being that although these things don’t all happen in one place at one time, they have happened in deferent places all over the world and especially out country. There are places were the animals and plants are so unhealthy they start dying and there are places were fruit and vegetation is harder to grow due to a bad environment. She is also saying that when it is just one aspect we don’t notice because we don’t think it directly affects us, but if we were to live in the town she speaks of I think all of a sudden people would start to change.

Hudson River School

Sidney Rogers

3^rd period

Hudson River School response

                 Before the Hudson River School, most famous painters would paint historic events, or use there painting to tell a story. Every painting would have a different meaning and would portray a different emotion. The Hudson River School changed the way people looked at nature and the art it self. Thomas Cole was one of the first to paint wild life and nature, and because of this, painters who followed in his foot steps where called the Hudson River School. The school wanted to portray a fear free environment, so there was usually no people and no animals. They wanted to expand on what people thought wildlife was and what it looked like. These paintings were unique because they showed dramatic scenes with sunsets, high mountains, flowing waterfalls, and rainstorms.  The purpose of these paintings was to show how nature was beautiful because people were afraid of the wilderness because they had never really experienced it before. The paintings were made so realistically that people didn’t believe that this was what it really looked like when in reality they painted exactly what they saw.

                                                                                            The Oxbow

Thomas Cole (1836)

                                Thomas Cole was the founder of the Hudson River School. When He began his career he did portraits, yet soon realized he was very unsuccessful at it. When we moved to America he realized that he would be better at painting real life scenery, and successful he was. His choice to do this was what started the Hudson River School in the first place. Many people were awed by his art and his ability to portray nature in such a beautiful way.  The Oxbow painting shows a violent rain storm and a peaceful riverside of the Connecticut River all at once. This shows two extremes of wilderness, bliss and chaos, while still remaining beautiful and calm. This portrays nature as being something that can change at anytime, and that you can see and experience so much more from a different perspective.

               

Twilight in the wilderness

Fredrick Edwin Church (1860)

                Along with Thomas Cole, Fredrick Edwin Church and the many other painters of the Hudson River School, their paintings had very much in common. Although all of their paintings are widely different and each portray a very different message and set a different tone, they all seen to include a few of the same things. For example water, sky and earth. Like this one and many of the others, the paintings are dramatic scenes of wide open skies, mountains, trees, waterfalls, rivers or lakes. This picture was meant to capture a wide range of scenery. It captures both detailed wildlife in the foreground yet faded, far away mountains in the background. This picture is also portraying nature as being dramatic yet simple. Fredrick did this by painting a vibrant sky with tons of color and texture, but he didn’t include any people or buildings, just wildlife.

Valley of Yosemite

Albert Bierstadt

                Albert painted many different landscapes during his journey of his westward expansion. One important aspect of his painting, especially this one is the romantics of the glowing lighting. This used to create that sort of scene that amazed people with its beauty. One interesting thing with Bierstadt is that he included animals in his paintings, while most others didn’t. His paintings include the other aspects I mentioned earlier, water, sky and mountains all put together in one dramatic setting at pulls everything together to form a stunning picture of wildlife. The purpose of these paintings were to show people that nature was nothing to be afraid of because so little had experienced it before, and many had the wrong idea about it. Be removing any people or animals from the paintings it creates a more peaceful scene. Yet, Bierstadt was still able to incorporate the deer and still achieve the same goal. That is to make real nature and wildlife look as beautiful as it truly is.

Sources

                http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/20010844

                http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/hurs/hd_hurs.htm

                http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/hudson/intro.html

Polemic

Sidney Rogers 3^rd

Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks, By: Edward Abbey

                The general point made by Edward Abbey in his work Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks, is that the people now bring all of their technology and electronics along with them to a place where the whole point is to get away from all of that. More specifically, Abbey suggests that wildlife has become less of a value to people because it has been changed to fit the needs of the tourist. He writes, “The little campgrounds where I used to putter around reading three day old newspapers full of lies and watermelon seeds have not been consolidated into one master campground that looks, during the busy seasons, like a suburban village.” (Page 387) This shows how he is use to the old fashion way of camping where people just do as they please and play things by ear, and where now everyone brings their entire home with them. In this passage, Abbey is suggesting that we need to preserve the national parks and make it so people can’t bring all of their auto mobiles and everything, because not only does it take away from their experience, but it also disturbs the peace the of the other campers.  In conclusion, it is Abbey’s belief that people need to get away from all of their gadgets and do things the right way, because that’s the only way you can get away from your hectic life.

                In my view, Abbey is right because I love to go camping and like the convenience of campgrounds, but can’t stand those people that completely depend on it. For example, my mom is not exactly a nature person. And would much rather sit in a camper and look out the window, than to actually go out into the woods and get a little dirty. You can look at the window of your house and see a tree, but it’s not until you go outside and explore what you have never seen before that it becomes a vacation. Although Abbey might object that people can still have the same amount of fun with all of their automobiles, I maintain that they are fun to a point, and that there is a time where you need to leave all of that behind and go just a day, or a week without all of that unnecessary equipment. Therefore I conclude that  people need to make a big effort to get in touch with nature and for once walk somewhere, or seep on the ground, or catch your own food, and make your own fire. That national parks are there for us to enjoy, but they are not a place for you to use other amusement devices. It is the wild itself that makes a beautiful picture, and I can't imagine you could see it very well when driving thirty miles an hour past on a four wheeler.

Yes, this is an RV. I probably wouldn't want to leave it either.

Wildlife in American Culture

Wildlife in American Culture                                                                                  Sidney Rogers 3rd


                the genreal point made mu Aldo Leopold in his work Wildlife in American Culture is that there are three values that our culture gets from wildlife. Which are expericance, dependency, and unnecessary destruction, which isn't exactly a value we shoudl get from wildlife. Because of our culture, the idea of wildlife is changing. More specifically, Leopold argues that hunting is one of the man ways that we devalue wildlife. He writes, " For example, we have bad hunters with good guns. Such  a hunter shoots a wood duck. And then tramoles the bejeweled cacass into the mud, lest the fall foul of the law. Such an experiance is not only devoid of cultural value, it is actually damaging to all concerned. It does physical damage to the wood ducks and moral damage to the hunter, and all fellow hunters who condone him. No same person could find anything but minus value in such "sport". ( Page 372) in this passage Leopold is suggesting that hunters use the "go-light" or "one-bullet-one-buck" idea because then it will seem more valuabel to you. there for revaluing wildlife. In conclusion, it is Leopold's belief that the value and connection to wildlife is changing due to the fact that to out American culture, and technology, wildlife is no longer considered a necessity so we take advantage of it.

In my view, Leopold is absolutely right because I personally find many values in wildlife and don't think people should treat it as a game. Because although most wildlife is renweable, witht the rate we destrou it, it will soon have no value to anyone. For example, people in different cultures use wildlife to survive and as a necessity. Now people in out culture have more that thier means, and yet take more than those who acually need it. Although Leopold might object that no one needs to hunt or chop down trees, I maintain that we have plenty of other ways of doing things without destroying wildlife. We kill more than enough animals as it is, just to put into a supermarket, that way people shoudn't have to go kill thier own, especially if it is just for fun. Therefore I conclude that it is very important to realize that we need the wildlife and that we shouldn't play around with such a delicate system because you never know what will happen to it if we don't change.

I don't think they're going to eat all of those. I imagine a starving wolf or fox would of enjoyed them.

Intro and Peach Blossom Summary

Summary                                                       Sidney Rogers 3^rd

                  The two articles we were assigned to read were both very interesting. The first one titled “Introduction to Responses to the Land: Nature, Ecology, and Materialism” was about man-kind and nature. Many different cultures perceive nature differently and what makes nature natural. There have been many questions asked about what nature consists of and what role humans have in nature. Some believe that if anything man-kind is diminishing nature, and others believe that humans play a vital role in nature because we too are part of it and we make what is called nature possible.

                It was said in the passage that different cultures use nature as a sacred place and feel a spiritual connection with natural creations and feel it necessary to be a part of it, or painters and poets can become inspired by just nature. This passage also talks about how in the Bible human kind is seen as separate of nature and that God granted human’s dominance over nature to use as survival. Yet this passage shows examples of how we both help and diminish nature. Such as when we do landscaping or anything else that puts nature to action when it would have otherwise been unable to in a certain environment. But also because the start of the industrial revolution in the eighteenth century, we have evolved so far in technology that are now harming nature, such as global warming, and rain forest depletion.

                The second passage I read was “The Peach Blossom Spring” and it was a story about a man who was  rowing down a river when we noticed we was surrounded by peach trees, he continued on until he found a small cave that lead to a little village. The people welcomed him with food and wine, and he stayed there for a few days. They told him to never tell what he had discovered and as soon as he got back to the city, sure enough he did. Then he tried to return to the village with another man, using the clues he left and was never able to find the place again. I thought that this was a very interesting short story that could have so many different meaning behind it, but I believe that the main point is trust and honesty. And that without those two things you will soon lose whatever good things you had.

Education by Poetry

Sidney Rogers 3^rd

Education by Poetry, By: Robert Frost

                The general argument/ point made by Robert Frost in his work “Education By Poetry “is that life is all about saying things one way and meaning it in another way, and that if you are not educated enough to understand metamorphic language than you will not understand much.

More specifically, Frost argues that if you are not educated in poetry than there is no way you can ever know the use of metaphors. He writes, “I find someone now and then to agree with me that all thinking, except mathematical thinking, is metaphorical, or all thinking except scientific thinking.” (page 49) In this passage, Frost is suggesting that the only way to get close to poetry is to either write it or read it. By writing it, you learn to have ideas and by reading it you become more familiar with the ideas given to you.

In conclusion, it is Frost’s belief that a man that gets close to poetry will know so much more about the world compared to someone who distances themselves from poetry, because good poetry is not written just because, it is written for a purpose, a purpose that truly exists in the world.

                In my view Frost is right and wrong  because I do feel like people who are more interested in poetry tend to be higher educated, but I to have read poetry and don’t feel as if I know more than anyone else. For example, in my creative writing class, we had a whole segment on poetry and I really did learn a lot from it just because it was good practice, but I feel that anyone who read my poems would think of them as just a waste of time.

Although Frost might object that people could even learn from my poetry, I maintain that not even my poetry was extremely meaningful to anyone else, even if it was meaningful to me at the time. Therefore, I conclude that poetry does make you think and that it takes a certain level of education to be able to not only write but read good poetry, I still believe that you won’t automatically have all of live answers afterwards.

Why Literature?

Sidney Rogers 3^rd

Why Literature?  By: Mario Vargas Llosa

               

                The general point made by Mario Vargas Llosa in his work “Why Literature?” is that people are too busy with their lives to care about literature. More specifically, Llosa argues that all over the world women are reading more than men. He writes, “The explanation traditionally given is that middle class women read more because they work fewer hours than men, and so many of them feel that they can justify more easily than man the time that they devote to fantasy and illusion.” (Page 39) In this passage, Llosa is suggesting that what we have learned about ourselves and others comes from good literature. In conclusion, it is Llosa’s belief that a society without literature a society can’t grow or become truly free.

                In my view, Llosa is right because you can really learn a lot about yourself and others. Not only does the content of the literature influence you, but the way you interpret the writing can also tell a lot about you. For example, when I read a book about criminal investigations, not only did I find out a lot about it, I also discovered I was very interested in it. However, someone else would read it just for a good story. Although Llosa might object that some literature causes misunderstandings, I maintain that while literature can cause understandings between people, it can also cause misunderstandings. Therefore, I conclude that although literature may not be as important to some, it is what you get out of it that matters.

Shakespeare in the Bush

Sidney Rogers 3^rd

Shakespeare In The Bush

Laura Bohannan

The general argument made by Laura Bohannan in her work Shakespeare In The Bush is that Hamlet is something that everyone can understand, but may need special interpretations for any specific group of people. Yet this can bring about a different interpretation from its original context. More specifically, Bohannan suggests that the concepts of Shakespeare’s Hamlet are concepts all cutlers experience. Such as their views on death and  the afterlife.  She writes, “My audience looked as confused as I sounded .” (page 31) Shows that not only did she not know how to explain Hamlet, many were confused by the story. In this passage, Bohannan is suggesting that with the right interpretations to a complex writing style such as Hamlet, even people unfamiliar with it can begin to understand. In conclusion, it is Bohannan’s belief that even when trying to make something complex, easy to understand, it can still be misinterpreted.

In my View, Bohannan is wrong because not everyone picks up on the same meaning from a story, especially one as confusing as Hamlet. For example I speak English and have a hard time myself interpreting Shakespeare. Even when given word substitutions, the meaning can sometimes be lost or simply viewed differently. Although Bohannan might object that people can eventually begin to understand, I maintain that being able to pin point the underlying meaning of a story such as this one is a hard skill to acquire and not just anyone can understand it. Therefore, I conclude that it is a little unreasonable to get so frustrated when people who speak a foreign language do not understand something you are trying to explain, when many English speaking people themselves do not fully understand.

Life of a Closed Minded

Sidney Rogers p3

Life of the Closed Minded

            The general point made by Anna Quindlen in her work Life of the closed mind is that many people have been taught to have a closed minded because others have shown us the same. More specifically, Quindlen argues that because of 9/11 people now live in fear which means that the terrorists won. She/he writes, “ Since 9/11 we have become more like them . The essence of the way zealots think about the world is polar: good and evil, holy and profane, them and us.” (page 67) In this passage, Quindlen is suggesting that the main problem of closed mindedness is that America has become a terrible example. In conclusion, it is Quindlen belief that close mindedness is becoming normal in America and young people are the ones most greatly affected by this.

                In my view, Quindlen is right because young children that grew up after 9/11 were surrounded by a lot of closed minded people and are now starting to show the exact same traits. For example, the way airports have made major changes just because of safety and because people are walking around in absolute fear. Although Quindlen might object that everyone is still affected by closed mindedness even if they aren’t close minded, I maintain that many people don’t realize how it has a major role and how fear that we have developed changes the decisions we make on a daily basis. Therefore, I conclude that it is important for people to understand the dangers of being close-minded and how by being so, we to have become exactly what we are afraid of.

Argumentation In a Culture of Discord

Sidney Rogers p3

Argumentation In a Culture of Discord

The general point made by Frank L. Cioffi in his work Argumentation in a culture of discord is that although most students that write argumentative papers don’t care enough about one specific thing to say it is right or wrong there is a greater meaning to it.

More specifically, Cioffi suggests that the importance of argumentative writing is to engage the reader and make the reader think. He writes, “The idea is not to solve this problem or answer that question.” (page 64) In this passage, Cioffi is suggesting that the paper should offer something new and exciting to the reader. It might not always be to persuade the audience but to help them come up with their own beliefs and ideas. It needs to be original and might even reject.

In conclusion, it is Cioffi belief that by teaching his students these skills it can get them excited about exploring new ideas.

Planning your own argument

In my View, Cioffi is right because I personally know it hard to write a good argument on something I don’t feel particularly strong about.

For example, when writing a paper on legalizing gay marriage, I was interested but had a hard time coming up with new ideas and solutions for it.

Although Cioffi might object that students cant always be taught to get excited about new ideas and being open minded, I maintain that It is much easier to write when you know its for the audiences sake rather than for your own. It regards to who it needs to mean more to and who needs to be able to understand it.

Therefore, I conclude that Cioffi, is correct about how if students learn to understand the skills of argumentative papers they will also be able to understand the purpose and meaning of them as well.

Why Engage in Political Thinking

Sidney Rogers Per 3

Why Engage in Political Thinking

The general point made by Glenn Tinder in his work Why Engage in Political Thinking is that the importance of thinking is to create ideas, because the world we are based around now all started because of ideas. More specifically Tinder argues that if it weren’t for ideas we will still be in the dark because thought is like light. He writes, “The light is which we view Americas racial situation comes from the idea of inequality- an idea we would not process had it not been for thinkers such as Locke , Rousseau, and Marx.” (page 17) In this passage, Tinder is suggesting that thought is not only fragile but it is very important for shaping who we our and what out lives have become. In conclusion, it is Tinder belief that thinking is so important for everyday life and for the world we live in. Not only do you start to understand yourself it can even put you in touch with others.

In my view, Tinder  is right and wrong because although Thinking is very important and everything started with an idea, I don’t believe that critically thinking was the reason for the way everything is today. For example potato chips, those were made by accident, although the person had to think to make them they didn’t really know what they were doing. And look at potato chips now. Although Tinder might object that nothing productive can be done without the process of thinking. I maintain that we have learned a lot from things people have done while they weren’t thinking. Even if it wasn’t a good thing. Therefore, I conclude that Tinder is right about the a lot of the things he said and I have no problem agreeing with his theory. I just think that adding other ideas would make it more accurate.

Read in College

Sidney Rogers

Read in College

Kathleen McCormick

The general point made by Kathleen McCormick in her work A Method For Reading, Writing and Thinking Critically is that there are two ways to think, historically and culturally.

More specifically, McCormick suggests that that they both have a lot to do with each other and closely intertwine with the way we think about thing every day.  She writes, “Critical thinking involves knowledgeable speculation is which you move back and forth between discovering difference and finding points of connection.”  (Page 22) In this passage, McCormick is suggesting that everyone uses these critical thinking tools. In conclusion, it is McCormick belief that that in order to think critically you must not only completely understand by analyzing but you must also look into the past and compare it to the future to get answers.

Planning your own argument

In my view McCormick is right because in order to analyze something I have noticed you have to be able to compare it to something else and learn from past experiences. Just like the historical analyzing she talked about. For example how she talked about girls wearing pants. It doesn’t seem that weird to us now because I grew up in a time where that’s normal, but when we look back one hundred years things have changed a lot. Without looking back into the past we never know who women now wear pants, although McCormick might object that not everyone does this. I maintain that not everyone uses this form of critical thinking on a regular basis. Therefore, I conclude that, even if people do not notice it, they still analyze situations and critically think about a topic multiple times in their life, which I believe requires all that McCormick was talking about.