Dear Future APELC student,
So you have decided to take APELC! Good choice! AP English is a tough course, but by the end of the year you will be super glad that you decided to take it. Over the course of the year you will grow as a reader and a writer. You'll be surprised by the quantity of the things you're writing and the difficult texts that you are able to read and digest. The first few weeks may be tough, and you might not be seeing the As or Bs you're used to, but stick it out, it gets a lot easier as the year goes on!
If there is one thing you should learn to do early on in the year it is to manage your time. You might be used to putting work off until the last minute, but that is definitely a habit you want to kick early with this class, or any AP class really. A lot of times assigned texts to read are several pages long, and difficult to understand. You will probably want to split it up, and pace yourself, reading a little at a time, not it all in one night. You may even need to read things more than once in order to really understand it. Mr. Yost usually puts up assignments way before they are do, and I would definitely recommend working ahead to avoid becoming overwhelmed, especially if you are taking other heavy-reading AP classes, like APUSH. Also when you, make sure to highlight, underline, and add notes. Mr. Yost always says, "There's no such thing as just reading" and also "There is no such thing as just highlighting." Make sure to come prepared for class with your reading materials so you can participate in discussions.
In addition to not leaving reading to the last minute, also defintiely don't leave studying to the last minute either. There are very few opportunities in this class to earn points and boost your grade, so you'll want to take advantage of the opportunities you get. I would recommend always taking notes on class discussions of the text, and then reviewing them before the test. Also before the test, revisit each of the texts on the test and make sure you understand the author's purpose and the rhetorical devices used to achieve that purpose. Also know the main ideas in Language of Composition.
Another piece of advice I would offer would be not to be afraid to ask for help. Mr. Yost and Ms. Pronko always offer to conference with students on their essays to help them improve. Their advice can be very helpful and valuable, so don't hesitate to ask for their help. That being said, try to show up to conferences with specific questions, instead of just being like "How do I make it better?" Also understand that essays usually require several drafts. You don't want to write it the night before, or even two nights before.
Overall, good luck! You'll do great in this course if you put in the time and hard work that it needs!
Sincerely,
Past APELC student
Monday, June 2, 2014
TOW #29 Why We Fight part 2
Why do we fight? For freedom? For justice? For equality? That's what we've always been told are the driving forces behind the wars we get into. However, is the idea of fighting moral wars a realistic one? Or is it simply propaganda? Though wars are often painted as idealistic fights, the real reasons behind them are often economic and political.
In his farewell address from the presidency in 1961, President Eisenhower discusses the growing focus on the military in the United States. While he stress the importance of having a large military ready for the defense of America, he also warned against the military-industrial complex. He said "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He recognized that the growth of the military and it industry was becoming so large that the need for war and subsequently the placement of power of who could and would support and declare it would become skewed. Years later, the evidence of this military-industrial complex would become very evident. Large cooperations responsible for the production of weapons drive the economy and employ millions of people. Thus the desire for war increases in order to allow these cooperations to thrive and the reasons for war are less moral and more economic.
Besides economic reasons, there are various political reasons that factor into war. Though the US gave up their imperialistic goals decades ago, often the government still desires for control in certain spheres of the world. This is especially true in oil rich regions, like the Middle East. Some people speculate that a main force behind going into wars in the Middle East was oil. Especially after the scary oil embargo of Nixon's era, the last thing oil-dependent US wants is to be cut off from its oil. This is why the US wanted to set up military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, to keep a presence there even after the wars were over. While no politician would want to admit that oil was a main reason for going into these wars and putting many lives at risk, it is very plausible that it was.
Do we fight for the right reasons, or the wrong reasons? It is a very tricky question, on that we would hope to answer confidently with the former. However this is not always the case, and many reasons can drive motivation for war.
In his farewell address from the presidency in 1961, President Eisenhower discusses the growing focus on the military in the United States. While he stress the importance of having a large military ready for the defense of America, he also warned against the military-industrial complex. He said "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He recognized that the growth of the military and it industry was becoming so large that the need for war and subsequently the placement of power of who could and would support and declare it would become skewed. Years later, the evidence of this military-industrial complex would become very evident. Large cooperations responsible for the production of weapons drive the economy and employ millions of people. Thus the desire for war increases in order to allow these cooperations to thrive and the reasons for war are less moral and more economic.
Besides economic reasons, there are various political reasons that factor into war. Though the US gave up their imperialistic goals decades ago, often the government still desires for control in certain spheres of the world. This is especially true in oil rich regions, like the Middle East. Some people speculate that a main force behind going into wars in the Middle East was oil. Especially after the scary oil embargo of Nixon's era, the last thing oil-dependent US wants is to be cut off from its oil. This is why the US wanted to set up military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, to keep a presence there even after the wars were over. While no politician would want to admit that oil was a main reason for going into these wars and putting many lives at risk, it is very plausible that it was.
Do we fight for the right reasons, or the wrong reasons? It is a very tricky question, on that we would hope to answer confidently with the former. However this is not always the case, and many reasons can drive motivation for war.
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
TOW # 28 Why We Fight
The documentary Why We Fight is a film by Eugene Jarecki, and discusses the United States' reasoning behind declaring war in Iraq. Many Americans believe that the reason for fighting the war was as a retaliation for the terrorist attacks on 9/11, or in order to liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime. They would be surprised to discover that these are only the sugar-coated reasons presented to them by the government, who has a hidden imperialistic agenda. In his film, Jarecki, who tries to remain objective but at the end of the film very clearly shows his liberal colors, points out that there were several reasons the government wanted to declare war, like control of the oil rich middle east, that caused them to exaggerate the Iraqi ties to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and their possession of weapons of mass destruction. Jarecki also explains the overpresent "military industrial complex" that President Eisenhower warned America about in his farewell address. War is such a mass industry in America. Large cooperation that produces weapons make tons of money from the government, and also sometimes bankroll politicians. This leads to lots of corruption and also a over willingness for war. This film came out in 2005, a few years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and while the US was still in war in Iraq. In context, this film was aimed at the American public, most of whom had no clear idea of why their country was involved in a war overseas. The purpose of the film was to explain to the American people the true reasons behind the war, and that they had been mislead by their government.
One way Jarecki conveys his purpose is through testimonial. Throughout the film he interviews several people. One person he interviews is a cop from New York who lost his son in the 9/11 attacks. Another is a young man who just signed up for the military. Another is a woman who formerly worked a the pentagon, and a man who formerly worked at the CIA. These testimonials provide a diverse look at the issue at hand. From the point of view of civilians we see the view the government has wanted to present, and from the point of view of the experts we get the real scoop. These testimonials have the effect of adding credibility to the film, but also show the disconnect between what the public knows and what the government knows. By doing so, the film shows just how sometimes things are not always what they seem, as is the case with why we fight the wars we fight.
Jarecki also creates parallelism. On of the interviewees, the NY cop, served in Vietnam when he was a young man. In the interview, the cop emphasizes the shock and anger he felt when he discovered that may of the details of the war had been exaggerated in order to maintain public support for the war. The view cannot help but to draw parallels to the exaggerations made present day to keep morale up for the Iraqi war. In fact, the cop even explains the anger he felt when he was duped once again by the government, saying that they exploited his feelings of patriotism and tragedy following the 9/11 by exaggerating the ties Iraq had to the attacks, making many Americans call for war. By drawing the parallels, the film explains that the misleading by the government is something that has occurred before and something that will occur again. The parallels help make the audience aware of the government, and wary for the future
One way Jarecki conveys his purpose is through testimonial. Throughout the film he interviews several people. One person he interviews is a cop from New York who lost his son in the 9/11 attacks. Another is a young man who just signed up for the military. Another is a woman who formerly worked a the pentagon, and a man who formerly worked at the CIA. These testimonials provide a diverse look at the issue at hand. From the point of view of civilians we see the view the government has wanted to present, and from the point of view of the experts we get the real scoop. These testimonials have the effect of adding credibility to the film, but also show the disconnect between what the public knows and what the government knows. By doing so, the film shows just how sometimes things are not always what they seem, as is the case with why we fight the wars we fight.
Jarecki also creates parallelism. On of the interviewees, the NY cop, served in Vietnam when he was a young man. In the interview, the cop emphasizes the shock and anger he felt when he discovered that may of the details of the war had been exaggerated in order to maintain public support for the war. The view cannot help but to draw parallels to the exaggerations made present day to keep morale up for the Iraqi war. In fact, the cop even explains the anger he felt when he was duped once again by the government, saying that they exploited his feelings of patriotism and tragedy following the 9/11 by exaggerating the ties Iraq had to the attacks, making many Americans call for war. By drawing the parallels, the film explains that the misleading by the government is something that has occurred before and something that will occur again. The parallels help make the audience aware of the government, and wary for the future
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
TOW #27 Reflection
Looking back over my past TOWs I can clearly see massive improvements. Starting out, my posts had no organization. As the year went on, I learned how to set up my Analysis essays, and began to treat the TOWs as mini analysis essays. From then on my TOWs were remarkably more well organized, especially with a clear thesis. I also really improved on finding rhetorical devices within texts, and being able to articulate how they appeared and what their effect was, and how that helped achieved the purpose.
I think one way my posts could still improve is in the quantity of evidence. Often I will only cite one example to back up a point, when it could be strengthened with multiple examples. Overall, I think these TOWs helped me improve on my Analysis essays. They kept me sharp throughout the year when we moved onto learning other essays. I am not sure how much they helped me in gathering material to add to my arsenal of knowledge, but I still think they were useful.
I think one way my posts could still improve is in the quantity of evidence. Often I will only cite one example to back up a point, when it could be strengthened with multiple examples. Overall, I think these TOWs helped me improve on my Analysis essays. They kept me sharp throughout the year when we moved onto learning other essays. I am not sure how much they helped me in gathering material to add to my arsenal of knowledge, but I still think they were useful.
Sunday, May 4, 2014
TOW #26 Mio GPS ad
Reading goal: visual text
Writing goal: good intro
In the past when people would go on road trips they would take along a big fold out map. If they got lost they would have to either stop and ask for directions, or sprawl the map across the hood of the car and figure out the best route to take. Nowadays, in the age of technology, these giant maps are becoming obsolete, replaced by electronic maps and direction-givers: GPS. One brand of GPS, Mio, released an ad that features a several roads looking like they have been tangled up and tied in a knot. In this ad, Mio used metaphor and hyperbole to convey how well Mio GPSs give directions.
Pictured right in the center of the ad is a giant metaphor: roads being depicted as a tangled knot of yarn or string. The metaphor of the roads being tangled like string serves to emphasize the feelings of helplessness and anxiety that people associate with getting lost. When one doesn't know where he or she is going, then the roads might as well be tangled up into a knot. Luckily, the add presents a solution to this problem: a Mio GPS! Through the metaphor, Mio explains that their GPSs are top-notch, and can get people to where they need to go.
The metaphor is strengthened through the use of hyperbole. The extent to which people get lost is clearly exaggerated. Sure people ma take a wrong turn or two, but the roads are never tied up in a knot. The hyperbole has the effect of conveying that a Mio GPS is effective at giving directions even in the unlikely worst-case-scenario, and has the effect of emphasizing just how good the Mio is at giving direction.
This ad appeals to the basic human desire to save time by getting where they need to go. Through metaphor and hyperbole, the ad presents a way never to get lost again: the Mio GPS. It even pointedly asks in the corner "Lost?" Well perhaps if you had a Mio GPS you wouldn't be.
Writing goal: good intro
In the past when people would go on road trips they would take along a big fold out map. If they got lost they would have to either stop and ask for directions, or sprawl the map across the hood of the car and figure out the best route to take. Nowadays, in the age of technology, these giant maps are becoming obsolete, replaced by electronic maps and direction-givers: GPS. One brand of GPS, Mio, released an ad that features a several roads looking like they have been tangled up and tied in a knot. In this ad, Mio used metaphor and hyperbole to convey how well Mio GPSs give directions.
Pictured right in the center of the ad is a giant metaphor: roads being depicted as a tangled knot of yarn or string. The metaphor of the roads being tangled like string serves to emphasize the feelings of helplessness and anxiety that people associate with getting lost. When one doesn't know where he or she is going, then the roads might as well be tangled up into a knot. Luckily, the add presents a solution to this problem: a Mio GPS! Through the metaphor, Mio explains that their GPSs are top-notch, and can get people to where they need to go.
The metaphor is strengthened through the use of hyperbole. The extent to which people get lost is clearly exaggerated. Sure people ma take a wrong turn or two, but the roads are never tied up in a knot. The hyperbole has the effect of conveying that a Mio GPS is effective at giving directions even in the unlikely worst-case-scenario, and has the effect of emphasizing just how good the Mio is at giving direction.
This ad appeals to the basic human desire to save time by getting where they need to go. Through metaphor and hyperbole, the ad presents a way never to get lost again: the Mio GPS. It even pointedly asks in the corner "Lost?" Well perhaps if you had a Mio GPS you wouldn't be.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
TOW #25 IRB Post
Reading goal: IRB
Writing goal: connect to thesis
April 15th, 1865 was a fateful day in America. Famous actor John Wilkes Booth shot and killed beloved president Abraham Lincoln, just as the Civil War was coming to a close. This single gunshot had far wider ramifications than the death of one man. In fact, the entire politics of Reconstruction were changed by the absence of Lincoln's strong leadership. How on earth did Booth manage to assassinate the most important man in America? James L. Swanson explains exactly how in his book Manhunt. In Manhunt, Swanson integrates primary sources accounts to inform people how Booth planned and succeeded in killing president Lincoln.
Swanson integrates a wide variety of primary source documents into his book, like diary entries and letters to give a very accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the people surrounding Booth and Lincoln at the time of the assassination. For example, Swanson includes a letter from Booth to his mother, as well as a recalled snippet of dialogue with a friends, found in the friend's journal. Booth expressed a desire to both of them that he had a strong hatred for Lincoln, who had dismantled the Confederacy of which Booth was so fond of. (7, 37). He even said to his friend that he had the opportunity to kill Lincoln at his inauguration: "What a great opportunity I had, if I had wished, to kill the President." With quotes and primary sources, the audience to able to discern exactly what Booth was feeling, since they are his own words. The same goes for the dozens of other people quoted in the book who viewed the assassination first hand. These sources increase the accuracy of the book and also the audiences understanding.
Swanson, of course, was not at Forbe's Theatre in 1865. He did not witness Lincoln getting shot, or Booth running away, yet he is able to write as if he did. Since Swanson incorporates so many primary sources, it seems like he has the knowledge as some one who was there, and makes the reader feel like they were too. Through his book, Swanson keeps the memory of this event alive.
Writing goal: connect to thesis
April 15th, 1865 was a fateful day in America. Famous actor John Wilkes Booth shot and killed beloved president Abraham Lincoln, just as the Civil War was coming to a close. This single gunshot had far wider ramifications than the death of one man. In fact, the entire politics of Reconstruction were changed by the absence of Lincoln's strong leadership. How on earth did Booth manage to assassinate the most important man in America? James L. Swanson explains exactly how in his book Manhunt. In Manhunt, Swanson integrates primary sources accounts to inform people how Booth planned and succeeded in killing president Lincoln.
Swanson integrates a wide variety of primary source documents into his book, like diary entries and letters to give a very accurate representation of the thoughts and feelings of the people surrounding Booth and Lincoln at the time of the assassination. For example, Swanson includes a letter from Booth to his mother, as well as a recalled snippet of dialogue with a friends, found in the friend's journal. Booth expressed a desire to both of them that he had a strong hatred for Lincoln, who had dismantled the Confederacy of which Booth was so fond of. (7, 37). He even said to his friend that he had the opportunity to kill Lincoln at his inauguration: "What a great opportunity I had, if I had wished, to kill the President." With quotes and primary sources, the audience to able to discern exactly what Booth was feeling, since they are his own words. The same goes for the dozens of other people quoted in the book who viewed the assassination first hand. These sources increase the accuracy of the book and also the audiences understanding.
Swanson, of course, was not at Forbe's Theatre in 1865. He did not witness Lincoln getting shot, or Booth running away, yet he is able to write as if he did. Since Swanson incorporates so many primary sources, it seems like he has the knowledge as some one who was there, and makes the reader feel like they were too. Through his book, Swanson keeps the memory of this event alive.
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
TOW #24 Howard Zinn "Or Does It Explode?"
Writing goal: lots of examples for each deviece
Reading goal: something a little bit longer
There are always two sides to every story, but often one side's story is louder than the other thus more well known. In history, we often do not hear the voices of those who are oppressed. The atrocities they face or faced are often sugar-coated or watered down, because if they were exposed for what they truly are people would be distinguished by their country and the people they are supposed to idolize. Howard Zinn, a renowned historian, feels that it's his duty to give people an accurate representation of history, atrocities and all. In his book A People's History of the United States he retells history that often vastly contrasts the one people learn in school. In the chapter "Or Does It Explode?" Zinn discusses the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's and the racism highly prevalent in the country and the government at the time. Zinn uses real accounts and statistics to explain the true extent of the discrimination black citizens felt during the 1960's.
Howard Zinn is not a black man, and did not live during the 60's, but provided several accounts of those who did. He tells the tale of a black teenager named James Crawford, who was taking elderly black citizen to the courthouse to register to vote. There, Crawford was confronted by the deputy registar, who threatened to "[put] two bullets in [his] head."(Zinn 3) Zinn provides an actual primary source from the encounter, for another worked had taken notes on the conversation and then had them published. Zinn tells not only the account of Crawford\, but of many others as well. He recounts the story of four girls killed in a bombing of a black church, and three civil rights workers, one black and two white, who were beaten and shot by police officers after being released from spending the night in jail (Zinn 3, 4). The accounts add specificity to Zinn's writing. He does not simply say "many blacks were horridbly mistreated". That statement is makes the extent and frequency of the mistreatment hard to comprehend, and all come across as unsubstantiated. But, with the addition of several real accounts, Zinn not only gives a face to the oppressed, evoking emotions, but also adds evidence to his claim, making it undeniable that blacks faced horrendous discrimination while fighting for their civil rights.
Zinn includes specific numbers and statics, which compliment the accounts by painting a picture of just how frequently such discrimination occurred. He explains that "[o]f 22,000 back people in Albany, over a thousand went to jail for marching, assembling, to protest segregation and discrimination" (3) and that in 3,600 people, both black and white, were confronted with violence and were arrested during sit-ins (2). These numbers add to Zinn's credibility as an author, by provide data to back up his claims, but also help the audience comprehend just how widespread the discrimination was. Many people were beaten, jailed, and killed for peacefully expressing their opinion, and the statistics show the extent of this discrimination by quantifying just how many "many" is.
History is not always what it seems. In America the government is praised for being just, and offering freedom to all, but unfortunately this was and is not always the case. Through personal accounts and statistics Zinn portrays the discrimination faced by the black population as they were fighting for this freedom that they were promised by being an American citizen. The picture Zinn paints is quiet different than one found in a history book, but as Zinn says, "the memory of oppressed people is one thing that cannot be taken away." Those who were oppressed will never forget, and neither should we.
Reading goal: something a little bit longer
There are always two sides to every story, but often one side's story is louder than the other thus more well known. In history, we often do not hear the voices of those who are oppressed. The atrocities they face or faced are often sugar-coated or watered down, because if they were exposed for what they truly are people would be distinguished by their country and the people they are supposed to idolize. Howard Zinn, a renowned historian, feels that it's his duty to give people an accurate representation of history, atrocities and all. In his book A People's History of the United States he retells history that often vastly contrasts the one people learn in school. In the chapter "Or Does It Explode?" Zinn discusses the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's and the racism highly prevalent in the country and the government at the time. Zinn uses real accounts and statistics to explain the true extent of the discrimination black citizens felt during the 1960's.
Howard Zinn is not a black man, and did not live during the 60's, but provided several accounts of those who did. He tells the tale of a black teenager named James Crawford, who was taking elderly black citizen to the courthouse to register to vote. There, Crawford was confronted by the deputy registar, who threatened to "[put] two bullets in [his] head."(Zinn 3) Zinn provides an actual primary source from the encounter, for another worked had taken notes on the conversation and then had them published. Zinn tells not only the account of Crawford\, but of many others as well. He recounts the story of four girls killed in a bombing of a black church, and three civil rights workers, one black and two white, who were beaten and shot by police officers after being released from spending the night in jail (Zinn 3, 4). The accounts add specificity to Zinn's writing. He does not simply say "many blacks were horridbly mistreated". That statement is makes the extent and frequency of the mistreatment hard to comprehend, and all come across as unsubstantiated. But, with the addition of several real accounts, Zinn not only gives a face to the oppressed, evoking emotions, but also adds evidence to his claim, making it undeniable that blacks faced horrendous discrimination while fighting for their civil rights.
Zinn includes specific numbers and statics, which compliment the accounts by painting a picture of just how frequently such discrimination occurred. He explains that "[o]f 22,000 back people in Albany, over a thousand went to jail for marching, assembling, to protest segregation and discrimination" (3) and that in 3,600 people, both black and white, were confronted with violence and were arrested during sit-ins (2). These numbers add to Zinn's credibility as an author, by provide data to back up his claims, but also help the audience comprehend just how widespread the discrimination was. Many people were beaten, jailed, and killed for peacefully expressing their opinion, and the statistics show the extent of this discrimination by quantifying just how many "many" is.
History is not always what it seems. In America the government is praised for being just, and offering freedom to all, but unfortunately this was and is not always the case. Through personal accounts and statistics Zinn portrays the discrimination faced by the black population as they were fighting for this freedom that they were promised by being an American citizen. The picture Zinn paints is quiet different than one found in a history book, but as Zinn says, "the memory of oppressed people is one thing that cannot be taken away." Those who were oppressed will never forget, and neither should we.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)