skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I. Explain one or two ways your writing has improved (or not) over the semester. Include a few examples from your posts over time, with analysis and links to the original posts, to illustrate how the improvement(s) happened.
First semester was an interesting start for me and in a way, I prospered. Unfortunately, this semester I have been declining. The reason why is composed of various things such as my lingering pessimism or lack of inspiration and unnecessary stress. Throughout this semester, I have been relying a lot on already written essays from other classes and adding to them or quickwrites. I realize this is okay since it's my own writing, but I feel like it lacks a sense of individualism. On the contrary, I have added additional thought to my post about the Holodomor (pt. 2). I thought it was a great addition, because while writing this essay we were required to conclude our thesis with one opinion and that opinion disagreed that the Holodomor was genocide. Knowing me, that conclusion wasn't enough. As I mentioned in previous posts (1), I contradict myself constantly. So it relieves me to say that I was able to revive a good habit of my writing even though it was only a small contribution.
Although I've been failing in creative writing, I've seen great improvements in my essays or reports. After seeing how redundant my first monthly review seemed to be, I hoped for better improvement in the upcoming one. To do that, I got a book I was not so familiar with yet have been wanting to read about. That happened to be Andrei D. Sakharov's Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom. It wasn't the easiest book to comprehend, but I was able to get the basics down. From that, I've also improved my comprehension by breaking down subjects and using a handy dictionary. I was so relieved that I was able to glide through my monthly review. Everything seemed to click since I already knew some background information of the author himself and I was highly interested in the subjects mentioned. It was a great achievement considering the fact that ever since I was a kid, I was terrible at book reports.
But before this lit circle jazz got on, we had the memoir project. I assumed it would be a challenge because at times, I can't be much in deep though about topics like these. I must say, thanks to my constant contradiction and varied perspectives, I was able to get through it.
I'm so glad through months of constant bickering, writing, thinking, and evaluating.. I was able to see improvement. Even though it seemed like this semester lacked quantity, I believe it gained more quality.
II. Do you plan on continuing to publish writing on your blog this summer, next year, or beyond? If so, what are your writing goals and how will you use your blog in the future?
1.) My memory has been terrible and I want to be able to remember days of my life, 2.) To remind myself of things such as mistakes, 3.) To see progression of my writing and living, and most importantly 4.) Not only to cherish past events, but also to feel how fast time has went by.
Like I have mentioned on my blog about personal writing, I will most likely continue writing. As quoted above, writing has benefited me this whole year. Although some things may be embarrassing to look back at, I've learned to cope with it and see how I've improved from some of my ridiculous or immature writing. This year has gone by remarkably fast and reading back at some events or prompts I have written shows me how or how I can improve. As for blogging, I think I'll save it for bigger ideas I wish to share with others rather than diary-esque entries.
I'd really like to use my blog in an informational way. I previously stated on my first final that I enjoy contributing to a small topic or cause that doesn't get enough attention and enlighten those who stumble upon my posts. But I feel like this won't take much of a flight since I'm quite lazy. I guess that's something I need to work on personally.
As for writing goals.. I want to just continue expanding the cranium and getting ideas down. This is directed particularly towards my interest of philosophy, current international events, science, and maybe some art. I like trying to think of different concepts, posing questions, or attempting to respond to certain topics. I really want to become more involved with my interests verbally (reading, writing) to help me become familiar with what I might be capable to do. This summer I might even take on self-teaching basic physics since well.. admissions hates me. Maybe if things go well, I'll record my process, going over pros and cons. It'll be quite the experiment and I've always wanted to write about independent teaching. I also wish to improve on my writing structure. Sometimes I can get a little too sloppy or silly so it's hard to take it serious. Things also tend to go a little off topic.. so I need to work on some basic stuff.
III. Conclusion
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do this but..
This class overall has been a great modern experience since it involved today's technology (the internet!) and independence. I'd have to say that at times I felt like I was incapable to think of topics to write about which sometimes led to blaming on the wide freedom we get on our blogs. Sorry on my part, since that freedom is a privilege. But with that independence, I was able to achieve things I never thought I was able to do since I thought it would require great discipline. This year, I've learned so much about the subjects I've only dreamed of to think about often. Thanks for a great second year, Sutherland, it improved greatly! The chances of getting in your class again will be slim, but if I don't-- I'll be there by heart since I'm trying hard not to be picky with classes ever again..
I. Introduction
Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom is an essay by Soviet physicist Andrei D. Sakharov. His essay includes topics that are in need of better attention such as the use or production of nuclear weaponry, "geohygiene", overpopulation, communist dictators and so on. His perspectives and possible solutions on these typical, yet difficult-to-deal-with topics seem to form a base for situations we now face today. Accompanying Sakharov's essay is an introduction, afterword, and notes by Harrison E. Salisbury which provides the reader some nice background information and clarification in order to comprehend the essay better.
II. What was the author's purpose(s) in writing this book, and how can you tell? How well was this purpose achieved?
I believe Sakharov's purpose was to formally pose current situations that took place in the late 60s and approach them with various solutions. He also wanted to prevent any future conflicts and strengthen the bond between the two superpowers of that time, the United States and the Soviet Union. Sakharov also informs us of the tragedies dogmatic leaders and groups have brought upon (such as Nazism, fascism, communism..). Sakharov begins his essay with "The Threat of Nuclear War" where he explains anti-ballistic missiles are a key factor to a possible nuclear war. He was also highly aware of nuclear proliferation and of course, disapproves it. He believed usage of nuclear energy should be used for the greater good in the least harmful way possible. One key purpose Sakharov has and repeatedly mentions is the threat to intellectual freedom. He believes that things such as war, poverty, and terror threatens "freedom of the personality and the meaning of life". Censorship, lack of education, and bureaucratic governments also restrict intellectual freedom. Without that freedom, universal cooperation cannot be achieved.
You can easily see his purposes since this is an essay and he formally approaches each topic separated by chapters. Sakharov's purpose, I cannot say was the easiest to comprehend, but was put in the simplest way to understand. I'd have to say he has achieved one of the greatest informative essays.
III. What are the strengths of this book, in your opinion?
One great strength Sakharov has in his essay is his ability to prove or support his points beautifully with quotes or situations he has witnessed. Upon exposing the ridiculous and horrifying policies of dictatorships, Sakharov brought up an excellent and humorous example that I have included in my first letter.
[...]by exposing wheat seeds to cold, he contended, a strain more resistant to cold might be developed.
His theories were taken up by Trofim D. Lysenko, who eventually won Stalin's support and appointed a "dictator of the sciences". Under his wing, classical theories and teaches have been poisoned with his senseless crap and many intellectuals were sent to gulag or the execution wall with the help of Stalin and his secret police.
This just purely shows how ignorant and stubborn totalitarian governments are and if anyone were to object, they would be condemned or severely punished. This kind of support just makes each thesis compelling and convincing.
Sakharov also alters his perspective when laying out opinions on situations which gives the reader flexibility and their ability to participate for which opinion they prefer. Another great aspect of Sakharov's essay was the division of two main theses: Dangers and The Basis for Hope. He starts off with the pessimistic yet real view of our world and what is going on, but then ends it with a series of solutions to these misfortunes. This kind of structure gives the reader hope as the title states, and determination.
IV. Find out about the author. How did they end up writing this particular book? Is the author's true life reflected in the book in any way(s)?
Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov was a Soviet nuclear physicist who was notably known as the "Father of the Soviet H-bomb". Other than being an excellent physicist at the time, he was also known to be a human rights activist and dissident. A major point in Sakharov's turn to activism was a secret letter to the Soviet leadership concerning issues of anti-ballistic missile defense with the U.S. and that the government should trust the Americans. The government simply ignored his letter and refused to publish a manuscript which he included.
The views of the author were formed in the milieu of the scientific and scientific-technological intelligentsia, which manifests much anxiety over the principles and specific aspects of foreign and domestic policy and over the future of mankind. [...] In this essay, advanced for discussion, the author has set himself the goal to present, with the greatest conviction and frankness, two theses that are supported by many people in the world. The theses related to the destruction threatened by the division of mankind and the need for intellectual freedom. - Harrison E. Salisbury
Sakharov completed Reflections on Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom in May, 1968. It was shared among the samizdat then published outside of the Soviet Union. From there, he was banned from military research. He then formed the Moscow Human Rights Committee along with two others in 1970. Sakharov was under increasing pressure of the Soviet government to the point where he was unable to leave the Soviet Union to gather his Nobel Peace Prize in 1975. On January 22, 1980, he was arrested and put into internal exile in Gorky. During his time there, he was put under surveillance. He was released back to Moscow in 1986.
V. Conclusion
Despite the fact that this book is a bit outdated, it provided me a basic knowledge of the troubles our world has faced during the time of the Soviet Union. Even today, some of those problems are what we would consider typical and constant. Sakharov's ability to summarize numerous events, issues, possible solutions, and alter his perspective to compose this essay astounds and inspires me greatly. I will admit this was a difficult read with a mix of great vocabulary and names of many brilliant minds that I just simply do not recognize, but I enjoyed the enlightenment and will definitely read this again in the near future.
1. What rules dictate the behavior of young men and women in relationships today?
There's a variety of combinations of "rules" people follow by such as treating you with respect, being honest, sociable, passionate.. It very much depends on the person's preference and tolerance. One major factor in a potential relationship is to not change for that person unless it's for the common good. There's plenty of people who want to be in a committed relationships, others just want to be swingers. Intimacy is best to be avoided in the early times of a relationship or avoided as a whole for youngins'.
2. Name a situation in which the rules have clearly been violated. In other words, what are things "nice girls" just don't do? What are things "nice guys" just don't do?
I don't really understand this question..
But uh, yeah. A lot of kids just looooove to have sex now don't they? Multiple partners? Fo sho. We live in a world where thinking before doing is simply deteriorating. Damn those raging hormones!
I don't know.
3. What are the possible consequences for breaking these rules?
Frustration, shifted opinions or impressions, lack of communication, separation? Typical stuff I suppose.. Just things that would bring more difficulties in building a relationship. Some can deal with it and compensate, others can't. I really don't know.
4. Where do these rules come from? Who "invented" them and who enforces them?
Young relationships are typically guided by mass media, culture, family, friends, and their own judgment. Adolescents are easily manipulated and influenced by these things and sometimes it's not even possible for them to use their judgment. No one should really enforce rules onto another.. People should just depend on their own opinions.
continued from pt. 1
Overall, collectivization was barely profitable. Although it did bring more power over the peasants and an increased production of grain, there were shortages in meat, fruits, and vegetables along with the deaths and suffering of millions. Stalin’s intention of the famine in Ukraine was to crush their nationalism to prevent potential independence and through Soviet propaganda, he was able to achieve the impossible-- silencing the famine world wide. Hopes of international aid was crushed and no one outside of the USSR was informed. Doubts have been raised about the USSR’s condition before in other countries, but that just brought up denial of any issues within the USSR by Stalin. Many western countries were convinced that there was nothing wrong either. This denial continued for decades until the 50th anniversary of the Holodomor in 1983 where a world-wide remembrance took place.
Although the majority of Stalin‘s actions seem genocidal, the famine as a whole shouldn’t necessarily be considered a genocide. Soviet sources claimed that natural causes such as droughts were a major reason. In contrast, Dr. Mark Tauger claims that rustic plant disease was a popular cause. Other causes included human actions such as lack of labor, systemic economic problems, and the peasant resistance during collectivization. By definition, genocide is targeted to one group depending on their religion, race, ethnicity, or nation. Yet the famine didn’t only affect Ukrainians. It affected the USSR as a whole such as Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Russia.
Today, Ukraine’s current president Viktor Yanukovych believes identifying the Holodomor as genocide would be “incorrect and unfair” since it affected other SSR countries in contrast to Ukraine’s former president, Viktor Yushchenko’s opinion. Ukrainians sees Yanukovych’s opinion as denial of the Holodomor especially since they have recently passed a law where if a citizen were to deny the Holodomor, they would be fined. Even after years of suppression, Russia shares a common pain with Ukraine’s past situation.
The Holodomor took a greater toll in Ukraine as part of the larger Soviet famine in the late 1920s to the 1930s. Although Soviet leaders took no action to help reverse this tragic event, it does not fall into the proper definition of a genocide. Therefore, the Holodomor was not a genocide, but an unfortunate event ruthlessly led by a totalitarian leader and should be widely taught to help commemorate those who have suffered and to prevent future encounters.
Although for my paper my conclusion states that the Holodomor was not a genocide, it's still widely debatable. I'm still baffled by this topic since it has genocidal and non-genocidal factors. Aside from Stalin's knowledge of Ukraine's suffering, there has been claims where Stalin primarily targeted Ukraine to "teach them a lesson" for resistance and to annihilate their nationalism (potential independence or detachment from the USSR). It really sounds like a genocide.
There's a (small) number of countries that agree it was a genocide such as the U.S. itself. European countries, in contrast, have yet to fully investigate it like the Americans. PACE or the European Parliament recently removed the recognition of the Holodomor to compliment the opinions of current Ukranian president Viktor Yanukovych and Russia itself. I understand the reason why Yanukovych doesn't want to recognize the Holodomor as genocide (as stated in paragraph 3) and following that, he wants Ukraine to have closer ties with Russia. Continuous pressure on Russia would only drift the two Slavic countries further apart.
I still have plenty of editing to do.. so this whole report thing isn't at its best, haha.
The Holodomor, meaning “murder by hunger”, was a specific part of the larger Soviet famine that took place in the Ukrainian SSR from 1932-1933. The number of deaths ranged from 2.6 to 10 million with a death rate at about 25,000 a day, more than half being children. The exact reason or cause of this terrible famine is still debatable, but Joseph Stalin has been held accountable by many. Stalin’s harsh policies such as collectivization and the liquidation of the kulaks were targeted towards the Ukrainians and played a large role in the famine. So, was the Holodomor actually a genocide?
The First Plan (1928-1933) was the beginning of Stalin’s infamous Five Year Plans to help revive the Soviet Union‘s economy. Stalin wished to rapidly industrialize the USSR to keep up with the other nations. He set up unrealistic quotas that farmers and factories were required achieve. Those who were able to achieve the impossible were rewarded-- and those who couldn’t would be ultimately punished. Families began to have difficulties feeding themselves since a great majority of their harvests went to the government to feed industrial workers. In late 1932, production quotas grew by 44% in the Ukrainian SSR and starvation began to spread and famine grew near.
During The First Plan, Stalin was unsatisfied with individual production which then led to collectivization. Collectivization is where all individual land and livestock were to be given up to the state and farmers were to be put into collective farms. About 20% of peasant households were supposed to be collectivized, yet it was set to 30% in Ukraine. The peasants highly disapproved of this policy since it seemed like a revival of serfdom. Many resisted by slaughtering all of their livestock or scorching their lands. Their continuous resistance led Stalin to launch the liquidation of the kulaks in 1929. During the dekulakization, peasants were either shot, imprisoned, exiled to Siberia, or evicted then sent to the gulag.
As collectivization continued in Ukraine, starvation began to advance. Stalin sent troops to the home of many to confiscate any hidden grain or food matter. Villagers would attempt to save their food by burying them into deep pits or trade valuables for a small sack of millet. “Large numbers of adult peasants and orphaned children moved to the cities, attracted by food rations” (Khlevniuk 54). By the Law of Spikelets, even gleaning was criminalized. Many diseases such as smallpox, relapsing fever, typhoid fever, and malaria took a toll along with the famine. Thousands of Ukrainians suffered as dead bodies were scattered all over villages. Some even desperately turned to cannibalism. Stalin also secured Ukraine’s perimeters so that no person would be able to escape in the search of food or for help.
I have finally obtained a copy of Andrei D. Sakharov's Progress, Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom. Although it's a bit outdated, some of Sakharov's fundamental ideas are still widely known today. I'm highly interested in some of the points Sakharov brings and Salisbury's contribution to this essay. Hopefully it'll be an influential read!
In the introduction, Salisbury brings up a situation that took place in the scientific world of the Soviet Union. He explained that many brilliant scientists were sent to exile or death due to their contradictions against Soviet ideologies. It revolved around a battle between those who supported the classical (and might I say, most logical) genetic theories of Mendel and Morgan vs. Michurin's belief in the environment's ability to change the heredity of plants. Here is an example:
[...]by exposing wheat seeds to cold, he contended, a strain more resistant to cold might be developed.
His theories were taken up by Trofim D. Lysenko, who eventually won Stalin's support and appointed a "dictator of the sciences". Under his wing, classical theories and teaches have been poisoned with his senseless crap and many intellectuals were sent to gulag or the execution wall with the help of Stalin and his secret police.
It is apparently futile only to insist that the more backward countries restrict their birthrates. What is needed most of all is economic and technical assistance to these countries. This assistance must be of such scale and generosity that it is absolutely impossible before the estrangement in the world and the egotistical, narrow-minded approach to relations between nations and races is eliminated...Chances in the economic situation of underdeveloped countries would solve the problem of high birthrates [...] without the barbaric method of sterilization...Therefore, government policy, legislation on the family and marriage, and propaganda should not encourage an increase in the birthrates of advanced countries while demanding that it be curtailed in underdeveloped countries that are receiving assistance.
Chapter 4: Hunger and Overpopulation (and the psychology of racism)
Our world population has more than doubled in the past 50 years and there's no doubt that this increase will continue in future generations. Here, Sakharov states that in order to control these ridiculously high birthrates (particularly in poorer countries) is to receive support from higher countries (like the States).
I. Introduction
Into the Wild is an adventurous travel essay by Jon Krakauer who traces the life of Christopher McCandless, a stubborn young man who decides to "live off the wild". In this book, Krakauer illustrates all of Christopher's travels around the mainland of the United States all the way up into the wilderness of Alaska. Krakauer also includes journal entries written by Christopher himself and flashbacks/interviews of those who have helped Christopher during his journey and his family.
II. What was the author's purpose(s) in writing this book, and how can you tell? How well was this purpose achieved?
Krakauer's purpose is simple, he wanted to go in depth with McCandless' journey and the effects it has left after writing an article on him. He clearly stated his purpose in the author's note: "...Unwilling to let McCandless go, I spent more than a year retracing the convoluted path that led to his death in the Alaska taiga, chasing down details of his peregrinations with an interest that bordered on obsession." Krakauer put Christopher's adventuring in chronological order with refurbished dialogue. With scenes and events supported by McCandless' journal entries and left over memories of those who met him, it truly puts you into heart and soul of Christopher McCandless.
Krakauer ventured the places Christopher has been to, which hard to describe without witnessing it yourself.
I believe Krakauer also had a personal purpose in this essay being a mountaineer himself. I believe he wanted to share the amazing things Christopher has witnessed and the hardships he has endured. He shows this towards the end of the book where he talks about the time he climbed a new route on the Devils Thumb. It was easy to see that this was his purpose although it was given, and I believe it was achieved perfectly. Krakauer took it to the fullest and made this essay so realistic and compelling. His fascination lead him to truly go into Christopher's heart and soul to achieve something no one can even imagine.
III. Pick a character that interested you and write about them in depth.
Christopher McCandless or 'Alex Supertramp', the main man, is a typical yet abstract character. He came from a upper-middle class family and went to Emory University for four years majoring in history and anthropology. He received a high cumulative grade point average and was even offered entrance to the Phi Beta Kappa Society, an honors fraternity, but declined since he thinks titles are full of crap. McCandless was a highly spiritual and idealistic person with great endurance for whatever is thrown at him. Despite his heroic personality, his character has become a cliche. As I said in my first letter, his stubbornness of living in the wild is popular among many other young men who truly believe they can do it. The story of Christopher McCandless and Jon Krakauer himself have received much criticism. I'd have to agree with some of the things people have said.. calling McCandless a foolish man who underestimated nature unprepared or being a disgraceful child towards his parents concerns. Yet-- he knew the risks such as death and was quite aware of his lack of equipment. He wanted a challenge and in a way he wanted to prove something. It's hard to explain the true purposes McCandless wanted to achieve, but you can get a sense of it and it's just amazing. What I also appreciated about Christopher is the fact that he has kept contact with each person he has met during his travels. He would either phone them or send letters maybe even swing by for a visit. Those who have given him jobs let him know that he could come back whenever he needed the cash. McCandless was obviously a loved and sociable person and it made his travels a lot more unique.
IV. For what audience(s) is this book intended, and how can you tell? (In other words, for whom would you recommend this book?)I'd say that this essay is perfectly appropriate for young adults who would be able to understand some emotion that is put into this book. I wouldn't say this isn't for a person who reads something like Twilight though. Definitely not for the kind of people who are into elementary reading. This is also perfect for anyone who has read Jon Krakauer's other works such as Into Thin Air which is about mountain climbing (so along the lines of travel and outdoor struggles).
This book is highly recommend to anyone who is interested in the hardships of living out in the wild or just travel. Into the Wild also gives a sense of preparation for an ordinary traveler to not underestimate anything and that there is no such thing as being too prepared. Although I'm not that interested in such things, I found this book astonishing. To put it in simple words, it shows how to "live life to the fullest" in a way. Christopher was a great kid who did good in school yet knew that there was more to it. He was the kind of person who wanted to escape from our modern society and try to do something new with his life. And with that, he met amazing people and left great memories. It's a great read for people who are curious about hitchhiking especially since it usually has a bad ring to it. Chris' encounters totally contradicts what you would typically think of people who would pick up hitchhikers or hitchhikers alone.
V. Conclusion
Overall, I believe Krakauer did an excellent job reporting about Christopher McCandless. Even though this is the third time I have read this book, it still raptures me. Particular stories about an individual's life intrigue me since everyone is obviously different. I rather look into their perspectives and ideology. Krakauer's ability to relive McCandless' life was done so flawlessly making this book seem too good to be true.
