Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Reflecting on Your Second Major Assignment
Take a few minutes and reflect on this assignment now that you’ve finished it. First, tell us what you set out to say about the primary document that you focused on in this essay. What did you learn by analyzing its rhetoric? Second, explore how the secondary research you drew on enhanced your understanding of this document. How did these sources shape your sense of the historical significance of your primary text? Last, what changed in your writing as you wrote for a different audience? What did you do as a writer to appeal to a scholarly audience versus the more popular audience that you wrote for in your first assignment?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My intentions for this essay was to re-establish the thoughts of others on the outlaws of the old west, by utilizing the letters written by Billy the Kid in a way to show the common misconceptions due to categorizing all outlaws into the same basic traits. From the letters, I learned a lot about Billy and from the background I learned a lot about something I had only seen in a movie, the Lincoln County War. This research showed me what the old west was like, the murdering ways, but also the influence of whom you know or how much money you have could make you invincible to the law. To change my writing, I knew I couldn’t just fire from my hip; I had to strategize and utilize the resources I had in a way to get my point across.
ReplyDeleteThe primary document that I focused on in this essay gave me a basic outline of Chapman’s life as well as his career as a painted. It pointed out characteristics of his paintings that differentiated them from other works of the time period but did not present an opinion or critique of his work. The document’s rhetoric was not strongly displayed. I gained most of my rhetoric knowledge from my secondary sources. With a variety of secondary sources I was able to form my own opinion on Chapman as an artist and understand the reasoning behind the way in which he portrayed this particular image. While writing for this audience I needed to be more fact based. I did not use pathos to evoke emotional appeal as I did in my Laramie Project document. Instead, I focused on direct facts and evidence.
ReplyDeleteIn my paper, I wanted to demonstrate the lengths people would go to in order to protect their personal safety and the things people are willing to do in the name of fear. I looked at the Japanese internment as an example of this and more specifically the President Roosevelt’s executive order allowing internment. He very strategically used language to play off of the American public’s emotions. Through my secondary sources I actually learned a lot about the relationship between the Japanese and the Americans prior to Pearl Harbor that I didn’t know. Though part of the internment can be attributed to Pearl Harbor, there was a lot of tension that existed between the citizens and the immigrants. I was much more formal in my writing and felt like I needed to support all of my evidence much more thoroughly. I couldn’t include personal opinion as much or in the same way. It was a very interesting and enlightening paper because so many of the themes apply to modern day life.
ReplyDeleteMy primary document was an annual message to Congress from Andrew Jackson. The message was on the recently passed bill on Indian Removal, and Andrew Jackson’s purpose was to justify the new policy. I focused on how he explained the removal throughout the speech. It was interesting how he reasoned that moving the Native Americans to the west was for their own safety and well being, and how they would actually benefit from this. He also tried to compare the removal to the pioneering of white settlers and how they both have to go to new and unknown lands and make a new life for themselves. The secondary sources that I found were really helpful in understanding the Indian Removal Act itself and also how not only the bill, but Jackson’s speeches and negotiations led to the Trail of Tears and the Dawes Act. This paper was more structured and formal because of the change in audience from blog viewers to a scholarly audience.
ReplyDeleteReflecting on this particular assignment makes me remember the hardships finding scholarly sources and the knowledge I have acquired with this paper. I chose to research a particular legislative act that was passed by the federal government in 1934 shining light and granting more rights to the Native Americans. My primary source or I should say my primary sources were two different documents, written by two Sioux Native Americans, discussing the pros and cons of the IRA. It was an excellent source that I discovered in Peter Nabakov's "Native American Testimony" that offered two opposing views on a very important issue, rights or the lack thereof that Native Americans possess. All of my secondary issue regarding my topic only enhanced my knowledge and material. I was able to find sources that discussed the Indian Reorganization Act and also sources that mentioned the two Native Americans whose opinions I had presented in my paper. My secondary research enabled me to look back on the Native American history in the United States and examine how they got to where they are today. Lastly, this assignment appealed to a more formal audience as it was a topic that demanded much in-depth research that was reviewed by the scholars. I just know I had to present my paper in a much more professional fashion offering history, analysis of my primary source, and any commentary that was available on my primary source and combine it all together. It was a challenging assignment but I believe effective as well because it required more sholarly research. Overall, it was a great learning experience and I am much more familiar with Native American struggles in the West today.
ReplyDeleteFor this assignment I set out to make a point about a very rare type of document that related to an extremely important issue of the early twentieth century, the prostitution of Chinese women in San Francisco. My main point for my paper was that this document highlighted several trends of the time that were leading to this problem and it also helped save the lives of thousands of women. By analyzing its rhetoric I gained a better understanding of what was respected and acceptable in the time that Wong Ah So came forward about her experiences. Because my primary document was relatively short, I drew a great deal of information from my secondary sources. These documents helped me recognize the similarities in the experiences of many Chinese prostitutes and also gave me a better understanding of the time period and the social situation that was present in San Francisco at the time; that is that there was a great deal of anti-Chinese sentiment spreading throughout the region. These sources also helped me understand what had previously occurred that led to such an enormous trafficking problem. To appeal to more of an academic audience I used specific examples from several scholarly sources instead of using general examples that I was able to come up with based on common beliefs of the general population as I did with my first assignment.
ReplyDeleteWorking with my primary document, a speech by Harvey Milk, it was actually quite clear that it was intended to be evaluated as an antithesis to someone else's rhetoric. With that in mind, I looked at Anita Bryant's anti-gay rhetoric, since she is mentioned specifically in my primary source. The interplay between his and her rhetoric, and the almost 1:1 nature of her accusations to his refutations of those accusations are really what shaped the direction of my paper. It was structured in such a way that a quote by Bryant was immediately juxtaposed with a quote from Milk, followed by an evaluation of its effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteI tried to appeal to a more academic audience by giving myself a more assertive voice, and by not feeling a need for brevity in my explanations.
I mainly wanted to argue that Manifest Destiny was the perfect excuse for the expansionistic goals of the American people, more precese James K. Polk. I wanted to reflect on what the actual "Annexation" document portrayed at its historical time and place. I learned that O'Sullivan was an idealistic individual who abided by the Democratic ideals present in his time. His particular style of writing was very persuasive as he shaped his argument for Manifest destiny in such a fashion that it made the philosophy sound right to the Americans public who supported territorial expansion and the annexation of Texas. My secondary sources gave me different interpretations that I found interesting, and as I kept researching my argument kept gaining strenght and it was surprising that the interpretation of one author came pretty close to the way I percieved the document. That way I felt that my ideas weren't simply too drastic on this ideology and on O'Sullivan per se. My understanding for the time frame of this concept also changed dramatically as I kept digging into the historical accounts of both countries involved in the Texas issue. Basically, I had to avoid addressing the audience directly since this paper required factual data of the document in question and its historical significance. Also, I cited my sources more directly so my audience would trust my goodwill and make sure that I'm writing something legit, not just my personal knowlegde or opinions. Overall, the tone for this piece was more formal than the first assignment.
ReplyDeleteI analyzed several parts of pieces written by John C. Frémont both during and after the events of the Bear Flag Revolt. Through analyzing the rhetoric of the pieces I was able to learn to an extent how Frémont saw his role in California both during and after the events described by himself and others. The secondary research I drew upon enhanced my understanding because while Frémont can be vague and hypocritical his contemporaries and researchers are not. This enabled me to paint an accurate picture of Frémont's role in starting an uprising among the Americans in California and brining the former Mexican province into the Union. I don't think I changed my writing style a very much to suit a scholarly audience. However, I had to write in a way that would integrate Frémont's writing with those of his contemporaries and his actual actions in order to get my point a cross. I think that in order to appeal to the scholarly audience I also had to inform them on the background and the key events that led up to and were part of the Bear Flag Revolt which Frémont took part in as it is not a commonly known chapter of American history. I also had to tone down my opinions in order to retain my objectivity in my paper for the reader as oppose to a popular audience where objectivity did not matter as much.
ReplyDeleteIn the second assignment I wanted to look at both Western and American identity and how the cowboy was important in creating and shaping both of these. Much of America’s identity comes from the history of the West, and Western history is largely based on the cowboy lifestyle. The primary source I used was a magazine article from 1886 called “The American Cowboy Today,” so it was useful for looking at not only what a cowboy was, but how cowboys affected society at the time. I feel like I was able to take a lot out of that article because of its genuine and unique perspective as well as the information it gave. The source was extremely compatible with my topic as they both argued similar points. The secondary documents I had gave a lot of background and supporting evidence to help make my claim. They also helped me understand how the significance of my topic changed over time. The historical text may have had one perspective, but a secondary source could have a completely different view on the same topic. I feel like this assignment was easier for me to write than the first assignment, mainly due to the audience I was writing for. I’m usually used to and more comfortable writing for an academic audience compared to a casual audience, so this paper reflected my voice as a writer more.
ReplyDeleteI set out to find the rhetoric used behind my primary document. I was curious as to why Alcatraz was all of a sudden closed down in 1963. Alcatraz held many famous inmates and seemed particularly effective in the correct punishment for criminals. This document was made to find another use for the Island as well as state that it was to be removed from the status of federal prison, due to large financial prices and the escape of three convicts. The secondary sources I used told me everything about the situation and why Alcatraz was closed. They showed that it was right to shut down Alcatraz. The prison had become a symbol for crime and punishment as well as despair. As I wrote this piece I couldn't help but notice the differences in writing for a formal audience as compared to a specific one. I felt it was much more difficult to introduce ideas and discuss them. Contrary to this, writing for a specific audience allowed me to focus on how to appeal to that audience and convince them my argument was correct.
ReplyDeleteThe main objective within my paper was to illustrate how the Rodney King video encapsulated an entire era marked by immense racism and inequality. It was also important to identify the video as a turning point in the state of race relations and recognize its massive significance as an initial step in minority empowerment. One major conclusion generated from the King video was the alternate dynamic offered by a video source rather than written historical rhetoric. Within my paper I analyzed how a video can have a more overwhelming initial impact as it offers an authentic look into what actually happened within the specific historical context. My secondary research was pivotal in understanding the cultural atmosphere that surrounded LA at the time of the King incident and the ensuing riots. Utilizing secondary sources helped me build a solid foundation of information upon which I could draw more viable conclusions in regards to the attitudes, beliefs and values incorporated in this time period. These secondary sources further justified the idea that the King video had an enormous effect on both the United States and the ways in which its minority population was treated. Finally, I found my writing to be more formal in an attempt to adhere to the standards of a scholastically based audience. In contrast to the first paper, this work was far more structured and presented strictly as a research paper. The content of the paper remained relevant and intriguing (I hope) but the way in which it was presented was altered and tailored more towards those within academia.
ReplyDeleteMy primary document(s) were two maps of Topeka, Kansas. The first was one drawn in 1869 by Albert Ruger, and the second was one drawn in 1880 by Augustus Koch. Using these two documents, my research paper argued the fact that the maps of Topeka, Kansas used symbolism and aesthetics to visually persuade the audience of the land use and cultural landscape of Topeka, Kansas.
ReplyDeleteBy analyzing its rhetoric, I learned that maps do a lot more than just give directions. They say a lot about the kind of place a certain city or town is by the things they feature on the map and by the way maps are drawn. I learned that maps are another form of marketing.
The secondary research did more than enhance my understanding of the document, it helped form the argument I made about it. I had to do research on why maps were made as well as what they were used for. I also had to do research on how to read a map, as well as research about the cartographers who drew the maps. It helped me better analyze the document and understand what I was looking at. This, in turn, assisted me in being able to write about the maps with confidence and control because I had an idea of what I was attempting to say.
As I did research on the history of Kansas, the historical significance of the time period in which the maps were drawn was astounding because it was after the Civil War and during the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Also, after I learned about the history of ideological conflict in Kansas and the role that Topeka played, it the maps even more significant because it gave me the idea that the maps were doing more than just giving direction. They had a lot of history behind them as well.
As I wrote for a different audience, not a lot changed in my style of writing. However, unlike my first paper where I was making an argument based strongly in pathos, this paper was based off of a historical document in which it was easier to find hard facts.
To appeal to a more scholarly audience I used more hard evidence from books and scholarly articles.
The primary document I picked was “Write to Die”, I picked it in order to debate the pros, cons, and debate about the Oregon law. I set out to show that it was a well written piece that covered everything it should have. My secondary research enhanced my knowledge of the issue as it helped back up the debate with verifiable data. Furthermore the secondary data was useful as it gave me some extremely informational statistics in regards to the fallout from the law, like how many people have under gone the procedure, the status of those people at the time of the request for assisted suicide. The thing that changed the most in my writing was my opinion of the law, I was on the fence about it due to the name however in reading about it I realized how “conservative” the law was in allowing suicide and the extreme restrictions and regulations placed on the procedure. I appealed more to a scholarly audience through statistics and scholarly sources to back up my main claims where as my original blog post was a tad looser with evidence. I appealed less to emotional, visceral reaction than I did in the previous assignment.
ReplyDelete