Summary & Response of Readings (DRAFT 3)

Annie Hoang
English 1301, Midterm
Dr. Murray
November 30, 2010
Summary & Response of Readings (DRAFT 3)

Summary

In 1855, Chief Seattle wrote an ironic letter to President Pierce known as "Letter to President Pierce, 1855". In the letter, he mentions and points out the flaws as well as the inconsiderate actions of President Pierce. However, the considerate Chief 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 President Pierce was strengthened and 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 President Pierce "is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs"(642).

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

W.C. : 265

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. Chief Seattle showed that President Pierce actions were greedy and heartless. His white men only wanted more and more for themselves. Therefore, they just end up taking what they wanted away 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 directly. 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).

In doing so, 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 in the letter is shown to be an understanding one. He is able to show that 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"(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" (642).  Indirectly, Chief Seattle expresses his grievances towards the actions of President Pierce taking away the land of the fellow Indians. Chief Seattle overall throughout the letter showed full understanding towards the disputes and his intent was to inform President Pierce what was going on, and what he should take into consideration to help both sides.

           W.C. : 317

Work Cited

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.

Draft #2 of Summary&Response

Annie Hoang
English 1301, Midterm
Dr. Murray
November 30, 2010
Summary & Response of Readings (DRAFT 2)

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 President Pierce. 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 President Pierce 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 President Pierce "is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs"(642).

In response to President Pierce's action, in the introduction, Chief Seattle clearly insisted that he was 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" (642).

W.C. : 257

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. Chief Seattle showed that President Pierce actions were greedy and heartless. His white men 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 in the letter is shown to be an understanding one, in which he shows that 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"(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" (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. 291

Work Cited

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.

History Book Critique

Annie Hoang
Howard Bodner
History 1301 (Honors)
November 30, 2010
James M. McPherson, the author of the historical book, Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution, received his bachelor degree of arts in 1958 at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota. Later in 1963, McPherson obtained his doctorate degree at John Hopkins University. His first book was The Struggle for Equality 1964 which he was awarded the Anisfield-Wolf Award. Among the many of his wonderful books, in 1989, his book Battle Cry of Freedom was a Pulitzer-Winning book. Almost a decade later, in 1998, McPherson received the Lincoln Prize for his book, For Cause and Comrades. Aside from winning individual book prizes, in 2007, McPherson was the firsts person to be awarded the $100,000 Pritzer Military Library Literature award.
In the book Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution, McPherson examines the role of Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War. In doing so, he gives insights of Lincoln as Commander in Chief as well as Lincoln's presidential leadership during a time of crisis. Most importantly, he also talks about Lincoln and the new meaning for liberty in the book while also showing the relationship between freedom and slavery. Not to forget, McPherson also provided how well Lincoln was able to persuade the Northern people that war was necessary
McPherson explains that the Civil War had started because during the time, the southern states felt that the northern states were over powering and that the government was too strong. Therefore, as a result, they did not think that the government had the rights to tell them what or what they were not allowed to do. Thus, the southern states had concluded that they wanted to secede from the Union. However, Abraham Lincoln as president felt this action was illegal and unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the southern states still attempted to leave the Union in which aroused the president and led him to call for a bloody violent war. A civil war was the only thing left that Lincoln felt that would help keep the Union united.
As "Commander-in-Chief" Lincoln was mainly responsible for this unconditional victory of Union forces" (McPherson 68)."But as a portrait of Lincoln the strategist of Union Victory, they are incomplete. The focus is too narrow; the larger picture is some how blurred. Most... studies are based on too restricted a definition of strategy...[however] we can divide our definition of strategy into two parts: First, national strategy (or what the British call grand strategy); second, military strategy (or what the British call operational strategy)" (McPherson 70). According to McPherson, Lincoln's strategy was the second strategy known as the military or the operational strategy however McPherson said that "it is impossible to understand military strategy without also comprehending national strategy" (McPherson 70). Although war has commenced "Lincoln took seriously his constitutional duty as commander in chief of the army and navy" (McPherson 66). Throughout the "time of crisis, Lincoln frequently stayed at the telegraph office all night reading dispatches from the front, sending office dispatches of his own, [and] holding emergency conferences" (McPherson 66). In addition, the hard working president also borrowed books that were about military strategy from the Library of Congress (McPherson 66).
Lincoln once proclaimed that ""The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now are much in want of one" he also proclaimed that "We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different but incompatible things, called the same name-liberty""(McPherson 43-44). Later, "in April 1864, Marylanders were debating a proposal to amend their own constitution to abolish slavery in the state" (McPherson 44). However, the proposal split the white population of Maryland in half. The side that was supporting the proposal was those that wanted to take a step closer to liberty while the other side was "condemning it as a despotic blow against liberty" (McPherson 44).
McPherson stated that it is a must that the government needs to protect a citizen's liberty, however at the same time, "it must also be prevented from becoming so strong or corrupt as to undermine that same liberty" (McPherson 46). Later, McPherson exclaimed that "for the national consciousness- indeed the nation itself-was forged in struggle for these civil liberties against what Americans considered overweening government power. This consciousness-this struggle-also helps to explain the paradox of the coexistence of American liberty and American slavery" (McPherson 46). Since abolition of slavery was the second issue of the Civil War, according to McPherson, Lincoln did not approve of holding slaves, however, he also did not wish to put forbid slavery in those states that were already slave holding states. McPherson said that "it was not that Lincoln wanted to preserve slavery. On contrary, he said many times: "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." But as president he could not act officially on his private "judgement [concerning] the moral question of slavery." He was bound by the Constitution, which protected the institution of slavery in the states" (McPherson 30-31).
Although Lincoln wanted slavery to die out naturally on its own, he northerners made it impossible. McPherson made it clear that Lincoln was very angry! Angrily Lincoln had said, "They "must understand,"... "that they cannot experiment for ten years trying to destroy the government, and if they fail still come back into the Union unhurt."[McPherson also added that] In a metaphor that he used several times, Lincoln said that "broken eggs cannot be mended." The egg of slavery was already broken.."; in another words, "you cannot make an omelet they say, without breaking eggs-that is, you cannot make a new society without destroying the old one"(McPherson 36). As a result, Lincoln was determined that only war would help resolve the issue.
This book was well developed, and was written in a way that engages the reader. The reader is most likely able to be very attentive during the process of reading in order to understand and comprehend what is going on. Once the reader is able to understand the reading, then they are most likely to become very engaged in reading the book and wanting to read on and learn more about what is going to happen next. The book was indeed very persuasive! It guided the reader to a better understanding of what was going on and why President Lincoln decided to do what he had done. McPherson did not at all seem to be authoritative. His writing contained all details and perspective that would guides the reader to understand where both sides are coming from, although he does favor Lincoln a bit more. The information that was presented in the book was exactly like what a history teacher would say and lecture about in a class. All information were reliable and are most likely what I am able to find from other sources. I would definitely recommend this book to other students who want to gain more understanding to what happened in the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln's position. Not to forget, those who also want to know what each side had fought for.

“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.