Quinn Anderson

Senior English

Ms. Fordahl

2 December, 2014

1984

            The government has a right to know what people are reading so they may determine who might be a threat is to me, an unreasonable thing to do. That would be going into everyone’s business which isn't okay. If the government knew that a person has been a threat before to the country then I would say it would be okay to know what the people are reading. Going into for example, a teacher at a school just trying to teach the kids something about the government and they could have taken it the wrong way and could easily get him or her into trouble just for that and not meaning what they actually thought. If the government knew for sure knew that this person was a threat to our country then yes they should have every right to watch and see what that person is reading. If someone was researching something such as stuff about the past and people who were terrorists just for a research and ended up looking more in depth about it and the government thought oh they could be a threat to our country trying to see how other people have done things. When really it was just an assignment that they thought was more interesting than they had expected. To me I really think it’s ridiculous to have to look and see what everyone is reading to determine whether or not they are a threat to our country or not. 

Utopian Promise

Quinn Anderson

English III

Ms. Fordahl

14 April 2014

Utopian Promise

            We started talking and learning about the Utopian Promise and the time period is during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. During these centuries, the Quakers and the Puritans were coming to the "New World" to create Utopian societies that would fulfill God's will on Earth. When they talk about the "New World" they mean the United States. The Quakers believe in taking in other people's beliefs as where the Puritans boot out the other people's beliefs. The Quakers were a society of friends. The Puritans came here because they wanted to purify the church.
             In the story "The General History of Virginia" John Smith talks about how he left England to become a soldier for hire and occasional pirate. Smith's military experience made him a good leader in the eyes of the Virginia Company. The group of investors hoping for huge profits from their New World venture. They hired him to help run the Jamestown colony. Everything in Jamestown started going downhill almost immediately after Smith's arrival. The first president died and the next two were deposed. Smith took control of the colony shortly after. Smith was shot in his thigh and had many arrows that stuck in his clothes but no great hurt, till at least they took him prisoner. Powhatan wanted Smith dead. Pocahontas the King's daughter ended up stopping her father from killing Smith. Later Powhatan sent Smith to Jamestown. He said they were now friends.
              The pilgrims arrived in a good harbor. They had no friends to welcome them in and no houses. They delt with a lot of bad weather. The met the Indians which they feared for awhile. It seemed as if the Indians wanted to start violence. Eventually after two or three months half of their company died. Some causes of death were due to no house living and being infected with the scurvy. Two or three a day died. Samoset was a brave Indian who was brave enough to go talk to the pilgrims. He introduced them to Squanto another Indian who could speak better English. They eventually became friends. They made peace amongst eachother. The Indians helped the pilgrims find food and shelter to survive. Squanto never left the pilgrims until he died. When Thanksgiving came around by this time all the pilgrims that were left were healthy and back to strength. They had plenty of food and other good things.
              In the story "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" Jonathan Edwards basically gives what he thinks is a sermon. The reason why people who sin do not go down to hell is because they ask God for forgiveness. He thinks that everyone who sins should be sent to hell. He gives this sermon and it makes you think what if my pastor gave a sermon and just because maybe I sinned once or twice she told me that I would being going to hell because of that. I would definitely be worried and wouldn't know what to say back. I don't even know if I would go back to church. He basically doesn't believe in second chances. He says, "that we have an opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in the door calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God."
             Arthur Miller wrote the play to warn against mass hysteria and to plead for freedom and tolerance. There's a testimony of a church member who claimed to have seen a person's spirit performing witchcraft. That was enough to sentence the accuse to death. Miller differs from the other authors that we read because he is telling more of a intense story I would say. Whereas, Smith and Bradford told stories about them and their past but wasn't really intense and scary. Their stories were more sad. Edward's story on the other hand was scary to me. How his differs from Millers is that Edwards doesn't even tell a story about his life. He mostly talks about a sermon that was given and how people who have sinned should be sent to hell then switches it up at the end to make the readers less intimidated. McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, especially of pro-communist activity in many instances unsupported by proof or based on slight, doubtful, irrelevant evidence. The Crucible would be based on McCarthyism. The Salem witch trials started in Massachusetts. More than 200 people were accused of practicing witchcraft and twenty of them were executed. I think that "The General History of Virginia" and "Of Plymouth Plantations" go together because they both describe the lives of the main characters in the story. The "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and "The Crucible"  go together because they are both dark stories and talk about myths. I personally don't really know how the first two stories lead up to the two of these stories just because of the way they were told. I thought all of the stories we read were very good.
             
            

            

Quinn Anderson

English 11

Ms. Fordahl

February 18, 2014

Exploring Borderlands

     This past week in class we have been talking about exploring borderlands. I find this topic interesting. To me it shows how different countries have very different cultures and speak completely different languages. We watched a PBS video about it. We read a story called “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”. What is a borderland? A borderland is a region on either side of a national border separating different countries and their cultures.

            Each country has many different cultures, and some don’t. Almost every country has an official language where America does not have an official language. Some people think that if you live in a country and move to another that you’re “illegal”. Just because you don’t speak the same language as everybody else in that country they don’t want you there. I know some kids in my school think that people who don’t speak English shouldn’t be allowed to live here. The Conquistadors were soldiers who settled in Mexico and South America. Mexico’s official language is Spanish. Since the conquistadors were the first there. Chicano’s are people of Mexican decent living in the US. Some people don’t think that that is right. Others don’t mind.

            The lifestyles of different cultures are very different. Like in my last blog we talked about native voices which the Native Americans talked about their history and storytelling but passed them down only by oral tradition. Now we are talking about exploring borderlands. Borderlands are the separation from the different countries. Every culture has their similarities but all of them are very different from one another.

            In the US, there is a borderline between us and Canada and Mexico. There is no actual line that you can see but you will know once you reach a different country just by how the people talk and how their culture is. Canada and the US are very similar in culture wise. The US and Mexico are quite different in culture wise. Historia is a Spanish word for history or story. The Spanish have a lot of history that they talk about.

            I’ve learned a lot about the different cultures for different countries. I never knew there wasn’t an official language here until we started talking more about it. The video talked a lot about the borderline between America and Mexico. Over the years other countries have become more so where they eventually won’t have an official language either I think.

 

           

Native Voices

Quinn Anderson

English 11

Ms. Fordahl

February 5, 2014

Native Voices

 

            For the past few weeks in English class we have been learning about the Native American culture about their sacred land, oral traditions, religion, and many more things as well. We read two different stories from N. Scott Momaday and Louise Erdrich. N. Scott Momaday wrote a little bit about himself and his culture. He wrote the short story called A Way to Rainy Mountain. Louise Erdrich wrote a little biography about herself as well and a short story called “Saint Marie”. I’m writing this essay mainly on the Native oral traditions.

            Oral tradition is the tradition of songs, chants, and performances that were passed down from generation to generation without being written down. N. Scott Momaday talked a little about his life when he was younger about how his father was a great storyteller. He never knew how important the stories his father was telling him until he got older. In the Native culture stories about history is a huge deal.

            In the story A Way to Rainy Mountain, Momaday’s grandmother told him stories orally about the land. Nothing was ever written down until Momaday decided to write about the stories that he was told when he was younger. I wouldn’t say Momaday ended oral traditions but he definitely changed a lot about tradition. He was one of the first to just stop and write about it. His short story was like creation stories.

            Louise Erdrich wrote a short story called “Saint Marie”. It was about a little girl named Marie who went up to a house on a hill with a nun who thinks Marie is possessed. The nun does a lot of cruel things to Marie. I think this short story is just tale-types. Erdrich uses yellow women stories in this particular story. I think Saint Marie is a story that Louise made referring to her Native culture.

            Our culture is a lot different compared to Native American culture. They tell their stories about their history as where we read about our history. Stories do get passed down to different generations but we do it in a different way. Louise started something a little different for Native American culture I think. She told her story about her culture using creation stories.

            In conclusion to my essay I learned a lot about the Native American culture. I learned in the video that many years ago Native Americans talked about their history without writing anything down. All of their stories were down orally. Their land meant everything to them. They believed they came from the land. Their land was sacred. Native American oral tradition is very rare now. 

Same Sex Marriage

Quinn Anderson

English III

Ms. Fordahl

November 25, 2013

 

Same Sex Marriage

 



I think same sex marriage should be legal in all states. Gay marriage is only legal in 15 states. That includes California, Conneticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Iowa, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Why shouldn't it be legal in all states? I thnk it should be legalized in all states because what's the difference if it's two women, two men, or a man and a woman? As long as they love each other it shouldn't matter. Other people's opinions shouldn't affect other people's beliefs in their lives. The government shouldn't be able to decide whether or not people of the same sex should be able to be married. Why can people who have just met go to Vegas and get married then end up in a divorace within the next few days because they made a mistake, but gay couples who have been together for years can't even get married? To me none of this makes any sense. I understand that the bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I think marriage should be with anyone, it doesn't matter if it's two people of the same sex or a man and a woman as long as they are happy and love each other it really shouldn't matter. I know everyone has their different opinions on this topic, but it really doesn't affect anyone but the two people who are together. Personally I don't think it's anyone's business. There are so many people in this world that I wonder why it matters so much to other people. I get that it may be against some people's religion, but for some it isn't. I say if it doesn't involve you, then don't worry about it. People of the same sex have a more difficult time trying to find insurance coverage for both partners because of the state laws. Employers sometimes choose to use the Defence of Marriage Act which is a law that forbids the federal government to recognize same sex marriage. Some pros would be denying them is a violation of religious freedom, marriage benefits should be available to all couples, denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination. The number of child adoptions should increase, it encourages people to have strong family values. The same financial benefits apply to man-woman apply to same sex marriages. Some cons, most religions consider homosexuality a sin. It would weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. All I want people to do is just to think about why they are against it when it has nothing to do with them. Gay marriage doesn't do any harm? Hopefully people will change their perspective on being against same sex marriage, and be all for it.