Shooting an Elephant

1. What will people be pushed to do when their reputation is on the line?
2. Should we always do what others expect of us?
3. Are we more apt to do things when others are watching?

In "Shooting and Elephant" the author, George Orwell, is a police officer in a country where he is the minority. He lived or still does live in public scrutiny. One day an normally tame elephant gets loose and causes chaos which ends up with a man being killed. Now Orwell had to deal with the elephant by either killing it or having it's owner go capture it. As he was finding the elephant a crowd gathered, the same crowds of people that laugh and make fun of him and other Europeans, and waited for him to shoot the animal down. He states, "But I did not want to shoot the elephant" (5). In the end Orwell does shoot the animal down and the crowd is filled with joy, but he doesn't stay to watch the elephant die.

His incident with the elephant caused him to question why he actually did what he did. His reasons were simple: trying to impress the people who thought badly of him, the "natives," and to avoid looking like a fool.  He didn't want to pull the trigger, but he did. Had there not been a crowd would the outcome be the same? I don't think so. When thinking of other situations, when people are watching we are more likely to do things we wouldn't normally do. The whole time Orwell kept thinking of the crowd and their reactions. It is almost human nature. Think of how peer pressure can cause one to drink or do drugs or behave in a way they know is wrong, but makes their "friends" like them more. Having people around also gives people the courage to do things. Orwell states, "I was not afraid in the ordinary sense, as I would have been if I had been alone" (6). When people are watching we find a sort of courage.

COMMENTARY FOR LILY

I feel you could change the title. On the sheet our teacher gave us, it states that the title should reflect somehow that you are writing an analysis, but you do not have to outright say “I’m doing an analysis.” He said that it shouldn’t be similar to the title of the piece you were analyzing. On your thesis I like that it was two sentences. It was very clear on your position, but I feel that it could be stronger if you specifically mention which appeals he used i.e. pathos, logos, and ethos. In each of the paragraphs, if you would want to, I think it might benefit to give a short definition. For one it helps the audience know what you are talking about. However this is an English class and whoever reads it probably knows what they are. The structure of your essay is for the most part clear, although, I feel that the second paragraph on the second page could benefit elsewhere. It sounds mostly like ethos because it appeals to the author’s being knowledgeable so I think you could try to fit it in with the ethos, but obviously not in one big paragraph. You transition your paper well and it flows quite nicely. If you wanted it to flow even more then I would suggest more specific transitions on page three.  

Your paragraphs about the appeals specifically state how the audience reacts to each and I feel you could elaborate more if you wanted to. Looking closer at the logical appeal paragraph I think this might be the “hole” in his argument you were talking about. If it is or is not then I suggest stating in the topic sentence something along the lines of a hole or discrepancy to let readers know that this is the part the author was not completely successful on. I feel ethos is your strongest paragraph, but stated earlier that other paragraph should become part of it. The pathos paragraph might benefit from stating how your examples are pathos like with his use of narrative and how he uses the language appeals to the audience or something like that. In the second paragraph on page three I think you might want to reword that last sentence. I got a bit confused when reading it. Maybe show that these people are opposed to him and that he is showing fairness to their viewpoints especially since they are soldiers.

Tourists: The most hated people

1. Are tourists hated by natives?
2. Are tourists the most racist, ugly human beings or is everyone essentially the same in their self-centeredness?
3. How can someone or a government be so enriched in a culture, but not try to help it?

Jamaica Kincaid, an Antiguan, writes of the misgivings of being a tourist. I cannot help but agree with her when she makes the argument so convincing. Many people while on vacation go to get away from the reality and stress back home. Often times going to countries with people living in impoverished states with unfortunate circumstances. While there, the tourist can feel a sense of shame and anger towards how people are living, but it is a short lived feeling. These people are on vacation, looking to get away from problems, not to have more problems thrust on them by people they don't know or have any interest in. They don't have time in their itinerary to feel bad about other people nor how lucky they have been. They notice the injustice, but choose to enjoy the nature of the places they stay. Of course they are staying at the best places money can buy, too. Kincaid states, "A tourist is an ugly human being" (14).

I don't think it even has to be a tourist who does not care about their surroundings. Many "natives" do not even care where their clothes or food were made. No one really cares how or by what means their food gets on the table just that it is there. By this analysis, everyone is a self-centered, ugly human being, but is that not such a true statement.  There is always something that someone can do for someone else that has had fewer opportunities, but with so many people in the world that is a hard thing to do. No one can really put everyone before themselves, only people they truly, deeply care about. I guess it is a bit harsh, but a tourist is not the only one with those same characteristics.

Regarding the Pain of Others

1. Should the media censor what it publishes, especially pictures of atrocities?
2. What information should the public know and not know? And who is to decide what information should be known or not?
3. If we do show atrocities should the dead be covered or remain nameless?

Susan Sontag in Regarding the Pain of Others questions the topic of the media's publishing of war atrocities. "The scale of war's murderousness destroys what identifies people as individuals, even as human beings," states Sontag regarding the photographs of people so mangled they don't even look like people anymore. Sontag gives many graphic accounts of certain things that had been published and how it is upsetting that one could view others who were condemned to die.One example she gives is in New York's Daily News where they published a picture of a severed hand lying in the remains after the 9/11 attack. Since the Vietnam war, war photography came under scrutiny and a censorship has begun. Censorship indited by military and by the self. Now, there are much stricter rules towards photography on battle grounds, but "there is no war without photography" observed Ernst Junger. Sontag brings up that the dead, quite possibly, should be censored because family members: a mother, father, children, and wives or husbands, could come across a gruesome photograph if they hadn't already.

"Policies about what is to be seen and not seen by the public are still being worked out," states Sontag. She talks about "boundaries of public knowledge," but why should there be boundaries? It is people's right to know what is going on in the world, however gruesome it is. I wouldn't want to be kept in the dark about things. It would be hard if it was a victim that I knew, but I would want the world to know what happened to them. It would be some sort of justice to them, at least I think it would. Who is to decide what we can and cannot see? That should be one's own choice. Many media sources have these "self-policed constraints on what is 'proper' to air." In effect then, the media is choosing what the public should know and not know. 

"9/11" and "A Few Weeks After" --Susan Sontag

1. Is American really a superpower, like people make it out to be if it was so easily attacked?
2. Is the media being controlled by the government so that the public won't know of attrocities?
3. Does Sontag have conflicting views?

While reading both articles, I couldn't help but feel like Sontag had very conflicting views. In her first article she was highly critical of all media, along with political leaders, and how they were only addressing the fear of the public. She went so far as to say, "whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards." I don't know how anyone could say that about terrorists. It seems very unpatriotic like of her to say that, but I know she was just comparing their attack to how everyone else reacted. She also states, "they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management." What else could Sontag expect though? When faced with devastation, death, and loss, wouldn't it be understandable that the public needs a little soothing?

In her second article, well interview, she takes a completely different tone. She talked of how she was stricken by grief . She states, "To not mourn would be barbaric." Well that seems to contradict what was said previously. Her first article seemed to speak out against the United Stated, but her second seemed to speak for it. "To in any way excuse or condone this atrocity by blaming the United States...is morally obscene," believes Sontag. She speaks of how it's a interesting thought that we brought it on ourselves. Doesn't that sound a little contradictory? 

Maybe I'm just taking it out of context. She could be saying that the actions after the attack, how people were reacting, and how the government presented the information was appalling, but that the US itself was not to blame. However, she seems to also have different views on the terrorists themselves. First stating they weren't cowards then stating their righting of wrongs was "shameless pretext." It could be just how I read them both, but she had two completely different tones.

Response to Believe Me, It's Torture

1. Does "waterboarding" classify as torture?
2. Do torture techniques like waterboarding actually get useful information?
3. Are we training our people for something or to resist it?

Christopher Hitchens conducted a very interesting experiment where he himself was waterboarded. His experiences are very vivid which makes his arguments all the more powerful, along with the fact that he himself went through actual torture for the sake of it. He was questioning whether or not waterboarding really is a form of torture. Then he questioned if our people were being trained to resist it or to inflict it. He raises compelling arguments of how, when prisoners were faced with torture and then released that they were then training people on how to survive and resist. Which leads to the question of if these techniques are actually useful of not. Hitchens states , "I knew that I would quite readily have agreed to supply any answer" (2). The part to focus on is the "any answer." When faced with pain and torture would someone admit to something they didn't do? I know that in a situation of extreme pain being inflicted for information, I would quite possibly admit to anything, even something I would never dream of doing.

My questions are kind of off topic with his arguments, but I think its an important question. As a way of getting information, are any torture techniques actually reliable? I'm sure there are many cases where people have admitted to things they didn't do. Of course I'm merely basing my views off of movies. There has to be some truth in those films right? Maybe the way that it should be conducted is not through questioning, but of asking the tortured to simply talk. There is no possible way to really know if what someone who is tortured says is actually true or not. "It is also a means of extracting junk information" (Hitchens 3). I don't exactly know what Hitchens was trying to get at, whether he advocates it or not.

Commentary for Lily

You offer some good research into actual studies where the Internet does in fact lower our thinking abilities. Although great examples, I feel you could make the paper flow a little better. Transitions between paragraphs could help. In your second paragraph I feel you could add a more thorough analysis of the study. There was only one sentence to really explain how it helps your point of view. Also that first paragraph could possibly be split in two; it was difficult to follow a paragraph that was about the length of the page. Other than rewording a few sentences and adding transitions, I feel your argument and paper are quite clear and get your point across well. You followed the structure of a classical argument almost to a T. 

On the topic of your arguments, I felt they were very sound and compelling. In some places though I suggest stating a little information on who did the studies. This would help show that they have the authority to do so. For example if the people conducting the research worked at a fast food restaurant I couldn’t take their findings seriously. The studies that you found really helped support the claim that the Internet is in fact rewiring our brains. I especially enjoyed the research about our brains showing signs of the same kind of addiction to the Internet as to drugs and alcohol. Following the STAR criteria, your evidence was indeed sufficient, typical, accurate as far as I know, and relevant. Although these four all apply the paragraph about addiction, on page three, could be a little more accurate. Most readers will not know what DCM stands for and what it means for people, I have no clue what it is. Including this bit of information could really help your claim. 

On the subject of your refutation, it was quite fair. I feel you could also benefit here by stating a little background on the people you mention. Which large number of experts? Experts of and on what? Are they experts of the brain or experts of computers? The alternative views you use really help strengthen your paper. I doubt people would take the other side and disagree with you. The way you defended your view against the refutation wouldn’t make me change my mind and disagree with you. With how much evidence put forth, a neutral audience would not likely follow the opposition. The reasoning doesn’t sound strong enough.