“Letter to President Pierce, 1855”

Annie Hoang                                                                                                                         
English 1301, Midterm
Dr. Murray
November 30, 2010
Summary & Response of Readings

Summary

In 1855, Chief Seattle, wrote an ironic letter to President Pierce known as “Letter to President Pierce, 1855”. In the letter, Chief Seattle pointed out the flaws and the inconsiderate actions of the President. However, the considerate Chief Seattle did not criticize President Pierce directly. Instead, he criticized himself and his fellow Indians in order to show how ruthless President Pierce’s actions were.

In the letter, Chief Seattle referred himself, an Indian man, as “a savage”; while referring to President Pierce to simply as a “white man”. His intention in criticizing the President was supported by a couple of examples of the President’s doings.  In the opening, Chief Seattle states, “WE KNOW THAT the white man does not understand our ways”; however, after providing an action of President Pierce, he amends his statement into saying “But perhaps it is because the red man is a savage and does not understand”(Seattle 642). Sarcastically, Chief Seattle stands up for President Pierce’s action in which the President “ is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs”(Seattle 642).

In response to President Pierce’s action, in the introduction, Chief Seattle clearly insisted that he as a “savage”; therefore he does not understand. However, in the letter, he shows that he does understand and have a great understanding of matter. He points out that the white man does not appreciate what they already have and they take everything for advantage. On the other hand Chief Seattle expresses that “air is [even] precious to the red man” (Seattle 642).
    W.C. 260

Response

            In the “Letter to President Pierce, 1855” written by Chief Seattle, the main point of Chief Seattle was to make President Pierce aware of what he was really doing, and how it was affecting the Indians. The Presidents actions were greedy and heartless to a point as shown by Chief Seattle.  They only wanted more and more for themselves, therefore they just end up taking what they wanted from the Indians.

            In order to make his point out to President Pierce, Chief Seattle made it as if the Indians were in fault, rather than just blaming President Pierce for everything. In doing so, Chief Seattle therefore insisted that, “perhaps it is because the red man is a savage and [hence he] does not understand”(Seattle 642). 

However Chief Seattle probably only wrote in that ironic tone so that he would not automatically offend President Pierce, in which would result into a pointless unread letter where the reader never finished reading. The tone of Chief Seattle is shown to be an understanding one, in which he understands both sides. 

Subsequently, Chief Seattle brings in the actions of President Pierce where he is said to be “ a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs”(Seattle 642).  Chief Seattle was only trying to be polite, because in his upcoming statements, he insisted that President Pierce takes things for granted and does not value what they already have. However, he boldly points out that even “air is precious to the red man” (Seattle 642).

Chief Seattle overall throughout the letter, showed that he understood both sides of the problem and his intent was to inform President Pierce what was going on, and what he should take into consideration. 
           W.C. 290

Reference

Chief Seattle. "Letter to President Pierce, 1855." The Norton Reader. Ed.
            Peterson, Linda H., and John C. Brereton. New York: W.W. Norton,
            2008. 642. Print.

"Toys"

Annie Hoang
English 1301, Assignment: out of class essay #1Dr. MurrayNovember 16, 2010
​Summary of "Toys" Roland Barthen 

In Roland Barthes essay, "Toys", Barthes criticizes French toys of the modern world. He implies that the toys are only human objects that are only reduced in size to fit the smaller people and all have a specific meaning. According to Barthes, these toys are said to be a cause of the corruption of a child's mind, because these toys are just made for the child to prepare his or herself for the future roles of life. In Barthes' essay, he stated that because of the toys' purpose "the child can only identify himself as owner, as user, never as creator; he does not invent the world, he uses: There are, prepared for him, actions without adventure, without wonder, without joy" (Barthes 342). In Barthes essay, Barthes indicates that since everything is already introduce to the child from when they were young, as they get older, they no longer have to search and learn to adapt to the world since everything was introduced to them. Barthes also compares the simple wood block toys to those mechanical toys. He expresses that the simpler toys are more compatible to the rather than more complex ones. The simpler ones allows the child to learn to create things while the more complex toys take these possibilities of the child to create things away. The wooden although are simple, they wear out slower, and have more positive influence for the child rather than the " toys [that] die in fact very quickly, and once dead, have no posthumous life for the child" (Barthes 343) referring to the more complex toys. Barthes mainly criticizes the toys believing that they should be made more simpler to help with the development of the children mind.

I understand and respect where Roland Barthes is coming from although I do not so much agree with him. In my opinion, both complex and simple toys are important for a child. Simple toys teaches them to learn to want better in life which guides them the these more complicated toys; Toys that will prepare them for the future. Most parents probably do not want their child to be unaware of his or her future. In fact, most parents want to do all it takes to prepare their children for the future, therefore they buy these toys like baby dolls, kitchen sets, and occupation sets. These toys are not all bad, they are just a way of helping the parents introduce to their children to the real world and the future. I do agree that since toys do impact a child, and influence the way the child thinks, the toys should not having the meaning that will affect the child in a way that they will only know how to use and things, and not want to learn to create other things. Thus, when parents are out there selecting toys to buy their children, I guess that they should think twice and see whether the toy will affect the child in a positive or negative way although toys are just meant to be for the good and benefit of the child.

Peterson, Linda H., and John C. Brereton. "Toys." The Norton Reader: an Anthology of Nonfiction. New York: W.W. Norton, 2008. 342-43. Print.

"Toys"

            Remember when you were young and everyone asked you,  “What do you want to be when you grow up” did you ever have some something in mind? I did! I have always wanted to be a doctor up until now. Thus, my parents always bought me doctors’ toy sets. With these toys, I was able to pretend to be a doctor, and have my cousins play the role as being my patient. I would tell them to say “ahh” and pretend to look inside their throats with a flash light and a popsicle stick; then I would even use the toy thermometer and check their temperature. Not to forget, the set also contain a stethoscope where I would try and listen to my play patient’s heartbeats. They toys made me feel that I was really a doctor! It really influenced me in a way that I know what I want to be. Eventually overtime, the pieces either broke or was lost. I really miss that toy set that I had because of all the memories that it had provided for me.

Midterm

Annie Hoang
English 1301, Midterm
Dr. Murray
November 9, 2010
Significant Influence in Life

            What is a home? Is it just simply a place where one sleeps at night? What about a family? What is a family? Is it just people who have the same bloodline? How are they both significant influences in life? Typically, in my opinion, a home is a place where a family wakes up in the morning, as well as a place where they interact with their family. Thus, since everyone sleeps and wakes up in a home with their family on a normal basis, it becomes a routine in which becomes significant influences in one’s life.

            As mention, there are many kinds of home, in one case, in Joan Didion’s writing, “On Going Home” she starts off her essay clarifying what she means when she says that she is going home. She begins saying, “I am home for my daughter’s first birthday. By “home” I do not mean the house in Los Angeles where my husband and I and the baby live, but the place where my family is…”(Didion 9). Further in the reading her view on home is supported with the fact that it is a place in which influences her most. Growing up in her house, she said that her “home” is filled with “mementos” in which she values.  Since Didion came back home, she was able to reminisce her past and be pleased with having so much memories in her home in which had influenced her.  Therefore, so determined, Didion decided that what she wanted was to also give her daughter a “home” and just not a house.

            Another case is in Andrea Barrett’s essay, “A Hole in the Wall”.  Barrett differentiates between a house and a home. In her opening, she bluntly states, “ After living in the same house for fifteen years, my husband and I moved from Rochester -upstate New York, a small city surrounded by farms – to Brooklyn “ (Barrett 12). Her only reason to move to Brooklyn was because of her husband’s job. At first only her husband was excited while she was nervous. Being nervous, she was afraid that the weather would affect her work. However, On September 11^th, a catastrophe had taken place near her new house; two planes had crashed into a building. As a result to the calamity, it brought everyone together. Strangers were now talking to one another in the streets.

            One day when Barrett was on a train heading north of the city, she saw a “news magazine, a special edition devoted entirely to September 11”(Barrett 17) as well as people around her weeping on the sad event, she said she felt “madly homesick” and wanted to go “home,” by home she meant the home in Brooklyn (Barrett 18). Barrett explained that because of the event, she felt that she was part of the story, and had a story to tell just like anyone else. After encountering a room filled with people with stories and heartaches, she said, “This is home now, I realize once more. This is where I live. This is not going to get easier” (Barrett 19). As for Barrett, home for her is a place where she feels that she is a part of and how it influences her. Nevertheless, although she lived at her other house for fifteen years, it did not impact her as much as where she lives now, and calls it her “home”.

            There is no real definition of a home, or how it affects one’s life. However, through Barrett’s and Didion’s essays, you can see two perspectives of their definition of home and family as well as how they influence their lives.