After hearing everyone’s presentations, I was very shocked at what they meant. For me, it is truly hard for me to look at a poem with complex words and to think what they mean by my own. With the help of classmates and their presentations, it helped me truly understand the true meaning of this poem. Overall, my favorite part of this poem was section 1. Throughout this whole poem, there are tons of signs everywhere about the elements of American literature hidden and shown very obviously, within a sentence. These elements that are in the poem include figurative language, & diction. Both are shown throughout this poem within depth. After reading this poem, my thoughts are that this is a truly great piece of work, and to be able to understand this you honestly have to be able to take in and use analyzation and other methods you have to be able to put the poem in your own words, in your head then, is when you’ll understand the work. My only concerns about this poem is that I am afraid if this is on a test, I will become nervous and forget what it is about, and or forget about my annotations, and maybe forget what the meaning of a word or two is. Which truly would then mess my test grade up overall. If I were a person whom rates poems as a living, I would seriously have to go over this piece of work many of times, to be able to get the true meaning of it. Not only this but also be able to understand it from his view and make it as if I’m him, to feel what he is feeling inside. After that, I would go and rate upon the elements he used for the poem, and hopefully, if it’s enough, it would be well rated on that part. Lastly, I would then look at the structure or format of the poem, to see if it aligns with what that structure is supposed to, and overall if the poem makes sense or not. If they had all of the requirements, it would be a well rated poem!
Yes, I do agree with the statement, “that government is best which governs least”. I feel as if that statement is totally true, as the government I feel if the government isn’t doing to good right now, honestly. The role of the government is to protect citizens throughout life with rules, and comfort in situations. One mishap a government ruler changes could change things for someone else, bad or good. Either way, I do not feel as it is a safe way to protect our people. I think everyone should be able to have their own say and have someone actually recognize it, instead of pushing it aside; to let people speak up for once, and to just listen to what people have to say, instead of making the wrong decision. As my view on what government demands my respect depends on their view, and as well as looking at it the way it could hurt people negatively. I feel as if any government could gain my respect, though based on individual views on certain topics. I feel as this should be the same with any other person, and most will agree with me that it all depends on the topic and situation for us citizens today. Civil disobedience has the exact same meaning as it did before. People still make protests, and there was just one a few weeks ago in Bloomsburg about women’s rights. This is an okay thing because it lets people speak their minds and hopefully let it get taken in to change things for the better. Though it can get out of hand it can change the world majorly, good or bad. If we didn’t have it, most of the things and laws we have today would not be here, also, there would probably be more laws broken and the society itself would be terrible.
The connections you can make between Thoreau’s thoughts and Emerson’s is Thoreau had deeper thoughts but wanted to live a simple life to find deeper meaning like Emerson did. The main meaning and main idea of this proportion is it’s a man’s duty to make everything in his life meaningful, and worth it (every moment in life). In the conclusion, Thoreau explains that you don’t have to go exploring everywhere far and anywhere about when yourself is an undiscovered area, that you can discover yourself through thought. Though, he has benefits of leaving behind society and living in woods. Which includes, having peace and quiet, being able to have time and leisure, and thought to carry out actions, peace of the mind and body basically. Though if I had the option, I’d stay with society as I’m very social and would not be able to do that. I would miss my family along with my girlfriend, my room and all the supplies I have, like showers, cologne, my bed, etc. I personally think whoever does this is crazy. I feel like mentally eventually you would go crazy and end up talking to yourself, making you go insane. I don’t think that this is very sanitary for your own good and mind. I think being unsanitary and going insane would be a dangerous thing for someone to go through. Also taking into consideration that you would be very lonely and nobody would be able to help you, and your on your own for just about everything and I do not feel as if a human should go through that. I feel as if anyone were to take thoughts out of transcendentalism as a modern reader they should take out and highlight the key points and views of it, to really be able to understand this concept. As for all it may not be easy to understand, and for others a piece of cake. Not only this but also to really take in what they’re saying to understand them, as in this writing, you have to pay attention to key words in order to be able to fully take in the true meaning of the story.
The whole purpose of independent reading is to really be able to take in the information you’re reading. Not only this but also not get distracted by others. Reading also is good for you as it increases the knowledge level on your reading skills. Schools encourage us to read, but I feel as if it’s not very well. Schools could encourage us by previewing the books instead of just picking it out independently, or reading as a class the book. Alongside of this, a packet being due at the end of the month or whenever or an paragraph or 2-3 paragraphs about the book giving a summary, would also be good. This would show you that we really are reading and paying attention in the book. Giving different forms of the packet would be a plus, so no one could cheat off another for the question answers. This is how I feel as if the school could help us on our independent reading. The book I picked was “The Bunker Diary” by Kevin Brooks, I picked this book because of the cover, it showed a really interesting impact on me, the other books I gave no interest to, but this one pulled me in particularly. The summary of the book pulled me in as well, the way it was worded and specific detail in the summary made me curious and very interested in it. After reading the first chapter, I’m confused. I’m not exactly sure what is going to happen, the book is dragged out very long. My initial thoughts though were that it’s dragged out much more than it needs to be, in my opinion atleast. I feel as if the wording in the book could be a little easier and if they could make the book a little more simple and get down to the point. I think the book trailer isn’t a good idea, only because if people don’t understand it, they won’t be able to make a really pulling in and serious trailer. I also don’t think it would be good because people could just look up the summary and look up answers to create it.
My initial thoughts on transcendentalism was similar to what it really is. I didn’t think as deep into thought as it really is, by saying this. Transcendentalism makes sense to me. I feel like they should have this right to feel this way, if they really want to, and if it’s not hurting anyone. Though, I do not believe that man is naturally good. Man is not always good, examples that show that are crime. Such as robbery, murder, and identities theft. I do not believe that every man deep down is good. What would cause them to do that if they are good? No man is initially good, we need laws and other excerpts to keep mankind from doing this, even though they may still break this law. Mankind in overall is not good. Deep down, I feel like there’s evil wishes and other things that people feel. Evil from mankind is seen everyday almost. Like bullying, fighting and other crime, even in school. So how can you tell me that mankind is good, if this is the case? I feel like if we didn’t have a government, this world would come to a dead stop, it would become a serious hell hole. Nothing but crime and other mischievous things would be done. In my head, the city would really, actually, be burning to bake powder. I wouldn’t necessarily say this in front of a crowd, as I feel this way. But my argument would be much similar as this is how I truly feel. I would go through a serious process of research, and time to really think upon how I want to word things. Alongside of this, I would provide facts as I did above having to do with crime. Not only this but giving backup information providing you or the reader with information on the background of the fact. In conclusion, I’d but all of the huge pieces of information together, and make sure it’s really well worded, so the reader can take this in and really rethink transcendentalism. Maybe it will change their mind but maybe it won’t. Hopefully people will end up coming to realize this “transcendentalism” idea is no joke, also that it needs to be well thought before just stating your opinion. Everyone have their own opinion but this is mine.
My opinion about my topic has not changed overtime because women should be in combat in my own opinion, still after hearing the cons and negative was from other people and how they feel about it. But who cares, it’s my opinion. Also, there’s enough facts and evidence to prove my point. The only thing it has changed is me agreeing even more about my opinion. The most interesting factual piece of information in regards to your debate topic is that women are legally allowed to be in combat since 1994 but they actually can’t take action. This topic activates these emotions in society due to the discriminatory emotions towards another gender that is equally capable of doing just as good as men do in the position they are placed in. It’s overall not fair. I did not have to figure out how to activate emotional appeal in the audience because it was already a emotionally charged topic due to the discriminative feeling towards women that are in this position that may be in the military feeling this way about wanting to join, and not being allowed. The debate about the topic is important because it’s one of the more important issues that need to be dealt with, due to it being a huge debate people are having today, and how they’re in the military today. The most argumentative piece of information of this topic I heard was about physical strength, both of opposing sides stating that they had different builds so they shouldn’t be in the military, or that they had different builds which caused them to get different injuries quicker. Overall, I’ve learned that when making a debate, you need to have facts and be able to back your facts with evidence and even more information to be able to get your point through. People are hard headed and will do anything to get their way when it comes to getting their point across. This may affect the way I argue now because it’ll make me make sure I have the facts and everything before I start arguing, to back myself up on the spot.
In my personal view, my opinion on women in combat has not changed after hearing the cons of women in combat. Not only that but also hearing adults, teens our age, ect talk about the debate on this, on the internet, magazines, ads, or whatever it may be advertised on, it hasn’t changed. I’ve heard this topic before doing this debate and still felt the way I did before ever reading ANYTHING on it, just the statement, “should women be in combat” was an automatic yes to me, atleast. As other people have their own opinion, I have mine. I feel as if women should still be in combat and be able to serve frontline as in real battle, as legally they do make up 15-20% of the military today, and should be okay as women have legally been aloud to be in combat since 1944. I see this as unfair, it gives women the feeling of discrimination and also in general wrong. They may be women but they still should have the rights we do. The way I argued, may or have not had an effect on changing on the way people think about women in combat. The way that the other people approach this may or may not be the same opinion as mine, stronger with more facts opposing this, or on my side about this. Though I do feel as if kids shouldn’t have as much of say as adults should, as adults are more mature and know about the real world much more than kids or teens would. Adults approach politics on any debate very serious, throwing shade, and true facts about whatever the debate is or what the world is coming to. It seems to be as they have much more time and knowledge on such things that they know what’s best, or really seem to know what they’re talking about. Overall, the best debate I saw in that class was the paper vs electronics one. I feel that it was very strong and seemed as if you were really in a courtroom, and actually arguing about it. It seemed so real, I felt as if I was there.
My topic for the debate happened to be “women in combat”. I was assigned of choosing and deciding the pro’s for this debate. With this possibly of it becoming a thing, it could change the future efficiently. On this topic, there are many positive factors and things that will affect the future that go along with this, such as it will no longer be gender base (that only guys can fight in war front line) and women will feel just as equal on the line as men do, not only this but women are able to show their true mental and physical skills they have learned or will learn to show their just the same, and no different from anyone else. This also will end up leading to a much bigger and much better military, with as much applicants as it would receive if does end up allowed. Doing this will provide a better education of those women who cannot afford it, and will give many benefits and rewards that women just as men will find useful. As of right now, there are many women out there that also want to reach their dreams of becoming in the front to show how proud they are to serve our country, and show how patriotic they truly are. Along side of this I feel as this will change the country as a whole, in a better way. I think women should have this role in the military, and have a option to serve the way they want to. I feel as if no one should be turned down when wanting to serve our country, no matter the gender, gay, straight, etc, whatever they are or decide as themselves. They should feel just as equal in such a role as anyone else is.
The article I chose, was called “PRO/CON is it time for public schools to put religion back into schools?” was about religion in schools, talking about it in class, and other things like that. I think it has both negative and positive sides to this argument. I feel as if you should be allowed to talk about it as long as it does not cause offense or any direct harm to that person from that religion. Today, we do talk about it in certain subjects, but only to an extent. Most kids have no knowledge about religion and seem to point fingers at people because of their religion. As for example, the religion Muslim, most kids point fingers and make fun of students because of past events in history that may had people that were Muslim, or any other foreign country. I do feel though that it should be taught the right way. Not to look at one single event and assume things. Teaching such also gives a key role in history, as I said previously, such as the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and Roger Williams founding Rhode Island, students should be taught these things because of the growing diversity between people in the US and everywhere else today. Not only this, but people in the US and anywhere else are also very racist, not all, but some people are. I’ve heard many comments that people have made over time about different religions, and ethnicities, anywhere from, “they’re dirty, gross, why are they here” ect. Which is not necessary because we are all equal as one. Many people also don’t know there are religious holidays, during the school months or even after school months, many are clueless and people should take notice to those holidays as people do ours. I think if the school board really didn’t want everyone as one to learn about religion, there should be an elective that teaches the basics and much more on about the diversity between religion and ethnicities as well, like religion/ethnicity studies elective. This could be a very broad spectrum which could make a life changing experience for some kids who may want to go to college and be much more than just learning about it. Most schools also take out the key events to be protected by the first amendment and other things, which we should learn because it is important to do so. In my overall opinion, it should be taught.