View this page "please post e1.3 here by 3/14"
0 views
Skip to first unread message
o'c
Mar 12, 2009, 6:18:50 PM3/12/09
to 3226eng101sp09
Click on http://groups.google.com/group/3226eng101sp09/web/please-post-e1-3-here-by-3-14
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.
FASantamaria
Mar 14, 2009, 6:33:08 PM3/14/09
to 3226eng101sp09
Felipe Albert Santa Maria
English 101
O’Connell
In Thomas Power’s 1997 review of Barbara Ehrenreich’s Blood Rites –
Origins and History of the Passions of War, he accuses Ehrenreich’s
writings to be based on “passionate curiosity” and automatically calls
her wrong about her theories on war. Instead, Powers pushes his own
theories that are combative against Ehrenreich, disregarding her years
of research and books. Not only does Powers insults Ehrenreich’s
theory of war is just to “carry out a literary project,” but also
takes it very personal by claiming her as just merely a “reader with
curiosity.” Powers argument and thesis of the writing comes out to be
arrogant and patronizing without any real data except for plain
judgment.
Almost as if being insulted, Powers takes initiative to argue every
aspect of Ehrenreich’s theories. Ehrenreich’s claim, “No matter how
futile, repulsive, or dysfunctional war may be, it persists." To
Powers, he shuts down Ehrenreich’s claim and goes on to say not all
wars is what she claims. Powers even goes on to say that “wars are
possible because of weapons.” Without weapons, great holocaustic
wouldn’t be possible. Weapons are one of the biggest reasons of why
wars occur. Going on to a more personal issue, Powers says
“Ehrenreich brushes past standard military history -- dates, battles,
night marches, and flanking movements. Much of her reading consists of
scholarly books of the past decade or two about war and related forms
of bloodshed among pre-literate cultures.” Powers uses this to show
how “unscientific” Ehrenreich is. Powers doesn’t believe that
Ehrenreich’s use of old scholarly books is proper data. What Powers
doesn’t see is her years of research and his use of just plain
judgment. Powers also implies that her work will be soon “forgotten,"
by making a distinctive connection between Ehrenreich and Robert
Ardrey’s African Genesi. Ardrey’s work, 40 years prior to Ehrenreich,
and Blood rites, according to Powers are “called ‘independent
scholars’; another way of saying untenured, unpublished in the
professional literature, and unencumbered by an appropriate degree.”
Powers doesn’t realize that his theories against Ehrenreich come out
to be outdate and archaic. With the amount of work Ehrenreich has
done to publish Blood Rites and with readers that appreciate her way
of passionately explaining war will always stay on the shelf.
There is no right reason to why we fight wars, but there can be
theories. Ehrenreich does just that. Ehrenreich provides and offers
a passionate and emotional explanation for human’s propensity to wage
war. Powers cancels out all theories, including Ehrenreich, to make
better his own. The argument between these two writers is inevitable,
just like the topic of war. There will always be someone to counter a
theory and a writer. War is just as the same. War is inevitable and
will always be countered by another war to stop the previous war.
Maybe that is why war occurs, lack of cooperation? No. War is
basically inevitable because fighting is inevitable and arguments are
inevitable. Both writers look at war on two different levels; macro
and micro. At the moment, with U.S. as an example, as long as
politically-organized groups have clashing interests, and as long as
the cost of war is not prohibitive, wars will continue to occur. No
matter what may happen in the past with our ancestors or what truly
the roots of war are, War is now because of what is happening now.
English 101
O’Connell
In Thomas Power’s 1997 review of Barbara Ehrenreich’s Blood Rites –
Origins and History of the Passions of War, he accuses Ehrenreich’s
writings to be based on “passionate curiosity” and automatically calls
her wrong about her theories on war. Instead, Powers pushes his own
theories that are combative against Ehrenreich, disregarding her years
of research and books. Not only does Powers insults Ehrenreich’s
theory of war is just to “carry out a literary project,” but also
takes it very personal by claiming her as just merely a “reader with
curiosity.” Powers argument and thesis of the writing comes out to be
arrogant and patronizing without any real data except for plain
judgment.
Almost as if being insulted, Powers takes initiative to argue every
aspect of Ehrenreich’s theories. Ehrenreich’s claim, “No matter how
futile, repulsive, or dysfunctional war may be, it persists." To
Powers, he shuts down Ehrenreich’s claim and goes on to say not all
wars is what she claims. Powers even goes on to say that “wars are
possible because of weapons.” Without weapons, great holocaustic
wouldn’t be possible. Weapons are one of the biggest reasons of why
wars occur. Going on to a more personal issue, Powers says
“Ehrenreich brushes past standard military history -- dates, battles,
night marches, and flanking movements. Much of her reading consists of
scholarly books of the past decade or two about war and related forms
of bloodshed among pre-literate cultures.” Powers uses this to show
how “unscientific” Ehrenreich is. Powers doesn’t believe that
Ehrenreich’s use of old scholarly books is proper data. What Powers
doesn’t see is her years of research and his use of just plain
judgment. Powers also implies that her work will be soon “forgotten,"
by making a distinctive connection between Ehrenreich and Robert
Ardrey’s African Genesi. Ardrey’s work, 40 years prior to Ehrenreich,
and Blood rites, according to Powers are “called ‘independent
scholars’; another way of saying untenured, unpublished in the
professional literature, and unencumbered by an appropriate degree.”
Powers doesn’t realize that his theories against Ehrenreich come out
to be outdate and archaic. With the amount of work Ehrenreich has
done to publish Blood Rites and with readers that appreciate her way
of passionately explaining war will always stay on the shelf.
There is no right reason to why we fight wars, but there can be
theories. Ehrenreich does just that. Ehrenreich provides and offers
a passionate and emotional explanation for human’s propensity to wage
war. Powers cancels out all theories, including Ehrenreich, to make
better his own. The argument between these two writers is inevitable,
just like the topic of war. There will always be someone to counter a
theory and a writer. War is just as the same. War is inevitable and
will always be countered by another war to stop the previous war.
Maybe that is why war occurs, lack of cooperation? No. War is
basically inevitable because fighting is inevitable and arguments are
inevitable. Both writers look at war on two different levels; macro
and micro. At the moment, with U.S. as an example, as long as
politically-organized groups have clashing interests, and as long as
the cost of war is not prohibitive, wars will continue to occur. No
matter what may happen in the past with our ancestors or what truly
the roots of war are, War is now because of what is happening now.
saydie p
Mar 14, 2009, 9:32:19 PM3/14/09
to 3226eng101sp09
Sul a (saydie) Park
Eng 101.
E 1.3
From Thomas Power’s review on Barbara Ehrenreich’s novel
“Blood of Rites” he states his position towards her writing by
exclaiming that war is a very questionable matter for the nation we
live in today. Through the pass periods of history we are able to
understand the differences and similarities faced by our neighboring
countries for the topic based on war. Thomas feels that Barbara’s
novel is detailed and well written but he does not accept her
reflections towards the subject of war. He acknowledges her as a
refined intellect from her background education which lead her to be
who she is, but he states that she does not cover correct aspects as a
whole.
As a fellow reader I have to side with Thomas’s point of
view since he got into dept on the many flaws Barbara has on war. Her
words as we all know are basically collective theories that move
around quite often, this shows that she does not go straight into the
main point of what she has to say in total. For humans that live in
this nation there are many questions that are very difficult to solve,
such as the following causes of troubles: poverty, diseases, natural
disaster causes and the deep reasons for the deaths faced by the
incidents such as airplane crashes. Thomas brings out the reasoning
that war is the factorized answer of disagreements; he feels that war
is a continuous cycle that involves the sides of both the weak and
strong. On the other hand Barbara has a curious imaginative passion
thought that foretells informative studies of history and culture from
the past that she includes for her motives of theories of why war has
occurred in this society.
I believe that we do not have a complete final solution for
war. The reason why I feel this way is because the world has two sides
that will keep a balance like the ying yang. In simple terms it means
that as long as humans roam this earth there is going to be both
hatred and love that conquerors our lives. I also predict that if the
years ahead of us bring war we as a nation will suffer tremendously,
since violence will take hold and we would have to send our brave
soldiers to protect us with their lives in vain. However, there might
be a helpful result this is for the president and his members of the
White House to make a peace agreement treaty with countries so that we
can make allies with one another to solve the problems we have with
war.
Eng 101.
E 1.3
From Thomas Power’s review on Barbara Ehrenreich’s novel
“Blood of Rites” he states his position towards her writing by
exclaiming that war is a very questionable matter for the nation we
live in today. Through the pass periods of history we are able to
understand the differences and similarities faced by our neighboring
countries for the topic based on war. Thomas feels that Barbara’s
novel is detailed and well written but he does not accept her
reflections towards the subject of war. He acknowledges her as a
refined intellect from her background education which lead her to be
who she is, but he states that she does not cover correct aspects as a
whole.
As a fellow reader I have to side with Thomas’s point of
view since he got into dept on the many flaws Barbara has on war. Her
words as we all know are basically collective theories that move
around quite often, this shows that she does not go straight into the
main point of what she has to say in total. For humans that live in
this nation there are many questions that are very difficult to solve,
such as the following causes of troubles: poverty, diseases, natural
disaster causes and the deep reasons for the deaths faced by the
incidents such as airplane crashes. Thomas brings out the reasoning
that war is the factorized answer of disagreements; he feels that war
is a continuous cycle that involves the sides of both the weak and
strong. On the other hand Barbara has a curious imaginative passion
thought that foretells informative studies of history and culture from
the past that she includes for her motives of theories of why war has
occurred in this society.
I believe that we do not have a complete final solution for
war. The reason why I feel this way is because the world has two sides
that will keep a balance like the ying yang. In simple terms it means
that as long as humans roam this earth there is going to be both
hatred and love that conquerors our lives. I also predict that if the
years ahead of us bring war we as a nation will suffer tremendously,
since violence will take hold and we would have to send our brave
soldiers to protect us with their lives in vain. However, there might
be a helpful result this is for the president and his members of the
White House to make a peace agreement treaty with countries so that we
can make allies with one another to solve the problems we have with
war.
Colin C.
Mar 15, 2009, 12:42:32 AM3/15/09
to 3226eng101sp09
In Barbara Ehrenreich’s 1997 Blood Rites, she foolishly speaks of the
flaws of anti-war movements and the passions they demonstrate for
peace. Her mention of anti-war movements is too brief, giving no real
explanation of how it should properly be done with set examples. For
an anti-war movement to occur there must be a war to protest. No one
is starting a war to counter and anti-war movement. Yet she hints how
these movements should be as thorough during times of peace as times
war. If we are to look closely at those tied to a movement I wonder
if we would find many people outside the stereo types of hippies and
college kids. Idealistic and probably uncertain of the reasons to
which are country is at war, you may suspect the organization of these
movements to be sub par. These activist may seem passionate but how
many of them are just searching for meaning in their own lives through
the movement. Looking to it as their purpose. It’s a passion I can’t
believe to be genuine. It may seem greater than the passions of a
solider, who is not setting out to voice his opinion but to do his/her
service to their country. The solider has the true passion of
commitment to their duty even during times of peace. But this passion
of the activist gives Ehrenreich hope for a true anti-war movement.
The real answer to Ehrenreich’s issue with the anti-war movement is
the recently established Department of Peace. A literal branch of
government devoted to preventing war. But realistically no one wants
to go to war or is passionate about going to war. We are passionate
about doing what’s right. And sometimes when we have a choice between
going to war and doing nothing. We must learn that it is right and
just to act.
Ehrenreich talks down on the anti-war movements of late twentieth
century stating “They are reactive and ad hoc, emerging, usually
tardily, in response to particular wars, then ebbing in times of
peace.” Ehrenreich is confusing the what the movement is for with
organization against war. The anti-war activists are against what
the war stands for, why we are in the war in the first place. Not the
act of war itself. The movement would happen after the war has
started in protest of the reason for war, where it seems Ehrenreich
expects the movement to begin before the war. Also when the war is
over why would the movement continue if peace is obtained. As for the
misguided views and lack of organization stated in “They are fuzzy-
minded, moralistic, and often committed to cartoonish theories of the
sources of war-that it is a product of capitalism, for example,” I
can’t help but think of the hippie protestors of the Vietnam War.
There is nothing wrong with speaking out about peace but they aren’t
advocators of a Anti-War organization. I’d say opinionated college
kids, in their search for purpose, finding a cause to fight for and
the hippies of the sixties, seventies and even the modern day hippies
in disguise make up a major portion of the movements and can’t be
expected to be taken seriously. The positive side to the misguided
movements was “the passions that we bring to war can be brought just
as well to the struggle against war.” Yes we humans can be passionate
about anything even collecting old telephones and vacuum cleaners can
be taken seriously. But who’s more passionate. The highly
opinionated activist speaking their thoughts during a anti-war rally
or the Soldier who has been training for years before the war has even
started to be ready to defend his/her country. What Ehrenreich is
searching for is a peace movement. And it would take someone to be
passionate about peace itself to be involved even during times of
peace.
Peace is what Ehrenreich is searching for and recently the United
States has just established a department of peace. The real anti-war
movement. A branch of government to be active in preventing war at
all times peace or war. This is something Ehrenreich hinted at but
does nothing in her book to explain. No follow up on how we as humans
should proceed with being passionate about our struggles against war.
“But nowhere does she make a pacifist’s considered argument that all
war is senseless, self defeating, and wrong.” Powers, T. 1997 Aug.
Roots of War. The anti-war movements happen because of war. And they
happen because we don’t agree with the reasons our country is at war.
But the only solution they represent is to pull out of the fight. And
in doing what’s right, isn’t it better to act than to stand back and
let bad things happen. When we were bombed at Pearl Harbor in WW2
should we have opted for pacifism and not fought back. Or do we as a
country believe in justice. Sometimes you just have to accept the
lesser of two evils.
flaws of anti-war movements and the passions they demonstrate for
peace. Her mention of anti-war movements is too brief, giving no real
explanation of how it should properly be done with set examples. For
an anti-war movement to occur there must be a war to protest. No one
is starting a war to counter and anti-war movement. Yet she hints how
these movements should be as thorough during times of peace as times
war. If we are to look closely at those tied to a movement I wonder
if we would find many people outside the stereo types of hippies and
college kids. Idealistic and probably uncertain of the reasons to
which are country is at war, you may suspect the organization of these
movements to be sub par. These activist may seem passionate but how
many of them are just searching for meaning in their own lives through
the movement. Looking to it as their purpose. It’s a passion I can’t
believe to be genuine. It may seem greater than the passions of a
solider, who is not setting out to voice his opinion but to do his/her
service to their country. The solider has the true passion of
commitment to their duty even during times of peace. But this passion
of the activist gives Ehrenreich hope for a true anti-war movement.
The real answer to Ehrenreich’s issue with the anti-war movement is
the recently established Department of Peace. A literal branch of
government devoted to preventing war. But realistically no one wants
to go to war or is passionate about going to war. We are passionate
about doing what’s right. And sometimes when we have a choice between
going to war and doing nothing. We must learn that it is right and
just to act.
Ehrenreich talks down on the anti-war movements of late twentieth
century stating “They are reactive and ad hoc, emerging, usually
tardily, in response to particular wars, then ebbing in times of
peace.” Ehrenreich is confusing the what the movement is for with
organization against war. The anti-war activists are against what
the war stands for, why we are in the war in the first place. Not the
act of war itself. The movement would happen after the war has
started in protest of the reason for war, where it seems Ehrenreich
expects the movement to begin before the war. Also when the war is
over why would the movement continue if peace is obtained. As for the
misguided views and lack of organization stated in “They are fuzzy-
minded, moralistic, and often committed to cartoonish theories of the
sources of war-that it is a product of capitalism, for example,” I
can’t help but think of the hippie protestors of the Vietnam War.
There is nothing wrong with speaking out about peace but they aren’t
advocators of a Anti-War organization. I’d say opinionated college
kids, in their search for purpose, finding a cause to fight for and
the hippies of the sixties, seventies and even the modern day hippies
in disguise make up a major portion of the movements and can’t be
expected to be taken seriously. The positive side to the misguided
movements was “the passions that we bring to war can be brought just
as well to the struggle against war.” Yes we humans can be passionate
about anything even collecting old telephones and vacuum cleaners can
be taken seriously. But who’s more passionate. The highly
opinionated activist speaking their thoughts during a anti-war rally
or the Soldier who has been training for years before the war has even
started to be ready to defend his/her country. What Ehrenreich is
searching for is a peace movement. And it would take someone to be
passionate about peace itself to be involved even during times of
peace.
Peace is what Ehrenreich is searching for and recently the United
States has just established a department of peace. The real anti-war
movement. A branch of government to be active in preventing war at
all times peace or war. This is something Ehrenreich hinted at but
does nothing in her book to explain. No follow up on how we as humans
should proceed with being passionate about our struggles against war.
“But nowhere does she make a pacifist’s considered argument that all
war is senseless, self defeating, and wrong.” Powers, T. 1997 Aug.
Roots of War. The anti-war movements happen because of war. And they
happen because we don’t agree with the reasons our country is at war.
But the only solution they represent is to pull out of the fight. And
in doing what’s right, isn’t it better to act than to stand back and
let bad things happen. When we were bombed at Pearl Harbor in WW2
should we have opted for pacifism and not fought back. Or do we as a
country believe in justice. Sometimes you just have to accept the
lesser of two evils.
o'c
Mar 19, 2009, 8:53:12 PM3/19/09
to 3226eng101sp09
Olesya Stryzhak
English 101
Essay 1.3
Professor O’Connell, Ed
In Barbara Ehrenreich’s 1997 Blood Rites she wrongly assumes
that
anti-war movements could teach us a lesson such as the passions we
demonstrations and so on, if there is no war at all; if we all go to
such movements to spend our enthusiasm and passion, no one will ever
stay for the country and its people. It's a bit confusing. As Thomas
Powers mentioned in his August Roots of war in 1997 that "she has
confused what war is like with what war is for" (Powers, T. 1997,
Aug.
Roots of war. Atlantic online), she does confuse. Going to the war
doesn't always mean going to kill to become predator, to become evil
and beast, but it's about serving to your country and protecting your
family, and anti-war movements...how can they help to those, who's
ready to attack and protect when needed?
She also mentioned anti-war movements in the late twentieth
century
for those were admittedly feeble undertakings, but in those days
going
to army was a must, comparing to ours, when young and healthy are
going to navy to make money, as if it was their job. As G.W. Bush
said
in his Christmas radio address: "Defending freedom is a full time
job", I'd agree. Back that days, no one wanted their friends being
killed, because once you're young and able to perform as a normal
human being you're going to army no matter who you parents are or any
other consequences. That's why people, parents, friends and anyone
who
was not qualify to go to the army went out to protest against the
war.
Nowadays, it's more materialistic, I'd say. There is no way to
compare
those days, and that people to where and how we live right now.
People are angry and they are wild. Fighting and protecting
instincts
are in our blood, unfortunately. What is Barbara Ehrenreich looking
or
wanting is just impossible. Peace around the world is a great idea,
but is it ever possible? I wear t-shirt with sign "Love+Peace", but
do
I really believe in it? I wish. What can I do for stopping war?
Nothing. Is anti-war movements an exit to a green and happy world? I
really don't think so.
English 101
Essay 1.3
Professor O’Connell, Ed
In Barbara Ehrenreich’s 1997 Blood Rites she wrongly assumes
that
anti-war movements could teach us a lesson such as the passions we
bring to war can be brought just as well to the struggle against war
(Blood rites, 1997, p. 240). There is no point in anti-war
demonstrations and so on, if there is no war at all; if we all go to
such movements to spend our enthusiasm and passion, no one will ever
stay for the country and its people. It's a bit confusing. As Thomas
Powers mentioned in his August Roots of war in 1997 that "she has
confused what war is like with what war is for" (Powers, T. 1997,
Aug.
Roots of war. Atlantic online), she does confuse. Going to the war
doesn't always mean going to kill to become predator, to become evil
and beast, but it's about serving to your country and protecting your
family, and anti-war movements...how can they help to those, who's
ready to attack and protect when needed?
She also mentioned anti-war movements in the late twentieth
century
for those were admittedly feeble undertakings, but in those days
going
to army was a must, comparing to ours, when young and healthy are
going to navy to make money, as if it was their job. As G.W. Bush
said
in his Christmas radio address: "Defending freedom is a full time
job", I'd agree. Back that days, no one wanted their friends being
killed, because once you're young and able to perform as a normal
human being you're going to army no matter who you parents are or any
other consequences. That's why people, parents, friends and anyone
who
was not qualify to go to the army went out to protest against the
war.
Nowadays, it's more materialistic, I'd say. There is no way to
compare
those days, and that people to where and how we live right now.
People are angry and they are wild. Fighting and protecting
instincts
are in our blood, unfortunately. What is Barbara Ehrenreich looking
or
wanting is just impossible. Peace around the world is a great idea,
but is it ever possible? I wear t-shirt with sign "Love+Peace", but
do
I really believe in it? I wish. What can I do for stopping war?
Nothing. Is anti-war movements an exit to a green and happy world? I
really don't think so.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages