Month: November 2020

Analyzing the Text

The author uses the word “gambler” to imply that there is an equal chance of winning or losing. He also shows the reader that the main character will bet on anything, just wanting to be ‘open’ to the possibility of maybe winning. In such, we can expect that the main character will ‘gamble’ on her ability to escape, even if it is unlikely that she should escape.

The setting, a boat (15) en route to a new safe place, creates suspense as we catch her in the middle, not quite to safety but on her way. We therefore are still unsure about her success.

History tells us that most house-slaves were women, so this strongly indicates that Freeman is a woman. In addition when she rides behind Titus (59), this is a clue to her gender. Lastly, when she changes her clothes and says she will shave off her hair (67-68), these are all indicators of gender.

It helps keep Freeman’s gender a secret as well as allows the reader to know what Freeman is thinking more intimately. It also blends together the other people present, echoing the confusion of the escape with the confusion of identity.

It leaves the reader with a sense of ambiguity because it is non-specific. Caesar says “white folks” (113) instead of white men. This is more significant when we know Freeman is a woman, and so if she is free, perhaps she can have the same rights as white folks (as stated in the Declaration of Independence), or that it has less to do with gender and more to do with race

There are more risks for Freeman since if her gender is discovered, the British will probably remove her from the army. It also makes her a liar, which complicates her situation as she falsifies her identity.

The narrator means that Freedman has the deed of liberty but is not yet free — she is not free to be herself, not quite yet.

It is ironic that she considers this deed precious because it guarantees the liberties of a man, an Alexander Freeman. It does not guarantee the freedom of Dorothy. And so in fact, it may not be useful as the liberties granted are for a different person.

Analyzing the Text

Imagery used: “shining” “hope” “unfold” “dies” “languished and expired” “sadness.” This imagery, which shows Freedom as a thing growing and then dying, places hope in the Earl, to revive Freedom. She addresses him directly, making him responsible for doing so.

Wheatley uses religion to describe redemption; coming to America exposed her to religion and so she can be redeemed. Freneau finds redemption in moving West, into natural country so as to escape the unhealthy slavery of the East. Both find redemption in movement but Wheatley’s is turned towards religion and Freneau’s towards nature.

In “To the Right Honorable William,” Wheatley describes her enslavement and captivity with reference to the original snatching from Africa’s happy seat. She says that her desire for freedom stems from there, from wanting others never to experience this ‘tyranny.’ Her purpose is to convince the Earl to stop slavery and so she wishes to convey the pang and sorrow of her enslavement. In her other poem: “On being brought from Africa to America,” she describes her enslavement as “mercy” bringing her from pagan land (1). Her purpose here is to remind Christians (Americans) that all souls may be saved and so slavery should not exist.

Words: “proud “despotic” “all-aspiring pride” “pomp” “bliss” “east is half to slaves consigned.” The diction reveals that Freneau’s biggest concern with America is its copying of English governance (royal and elitist). He believes American will break away from this by moving West, into natural country, where greed and pride have yet to be found.

The north American landscape: “lonely plains” “wildest genius reigns’ “savage.” He suggests through the “unsocial Indian,” (21) who retreats before the dark stream of emigration, that they (Native Americans) are like the landscape before the arrival of Europeans: wild, natural, beautiful, free and savage.

Wheatley makes this allusion in order to tie together what the Earl can do for them (slaves) to what Elijah did for God. She connects the two together to emphasize the Earl’s importance and to tie his actions to the bible. Placing it at the end further emphasizes the Earl’s power and worthiness.

“To the Right Honorable William:” slavery is a tool to convince the Earl to help abolish it. “On being Brought from Africa:” slavery is used to show how religion can save. Freneau’s poem uses oppression to convince the reader to move away from the old systems of governance (of pride) and away from slavery, into the freedom of nature. Wheatley’s background as a slave allows her to deal firsthand with slavery, whereas Freneau can deal with it only as an outsider, treating more with oppression than slavery.

Analyzing the Text

Hamilton advocated for a “vigorous central government” (22) and Jefferson “favored states” rights’ (27). This affected their roles as members in the Cabinet as Hamilton took office zealously and Jefferson rather hesitantly.

The conflict between them began over the debt left over from the American Revolution and as to who should profit from the interest of securities (p. 143). This conflict escalated with the argument over the creation of a central bank (99) which was then heightened by the publication of a series of aggressive papers.

Revealing words: “brilliant, brash and charming” “intelligent” “one-man army” “self-reliant” “wits.” This gives us the image of a powerful man with many capabilities.

Hamilton ‘“served up his opinions promiscuously” (49) whereas Jefferson was more soft-spoken (54). Jefferson preferred private correspondence (55) whereas Hamilton loved debates (50). This affected the medium through which their feud would take place — Jefferson would publish papers and Hamilton, speeches.

Hamilton was not a land-owner and so, while he knew agriculture would remain important for America’s economy, he wanted to develop a trading, commercial economy (90). Jefferson owned land and “retained the landed gentry’s disdain for the vulgar realities of trade, commerce” (89-90). In such, Jefferson did not want a central bank and Hamilton did, because a central bank would create a new economy, one that would not rely so heavily on agriculture.

They were similar because they were both excessively ambitious, and hid potent hedonism behind an intellectual facade, as shown in their two great sex scandals (152-3).

Hamilton’s scandal was that he had maintained a long term affair while married. He responded by confessing in great detail and length. Jefferson’s scandal was that he had had a relationship with one of his slaves, and fathered children with her. He neither confirmed or denied this. This is consistent with their personalities because Hamilton is out-spoken and confrontational, but Jefferson preserves the ‘nobility’s disdain for vulgar things’ and is more soft-spoken.

It enhances the ‘irony’ of Hamilton helping Jefferson achieve presidency — it shows also that when one comes to power, as Jefferson did, that previous statements as to how much power should be controlled, change: “Hamilton said he had long suspected that as President, Jefferson would develop a keen taste for… federal power” (188-189). This makes their differences, as pointed out by Chernow, far more ironic.

Chernow is very effective. By the time the text ends, we have a clear image of how these two men differed and why. Through this structure, it seems obvious that due to their backgrounds, personalities, and events, they were destined to be mortal foes.

Critical Vocabulary

Their circumstances and values are not the same.

There are some issues that we all share.

Passions can help form opinions, and opinions can focus and inflame passions.

It would state the new government’s beliefs and tenets for all to read.

They believed that it was fair for those who own the most to benefit the most from tax dollars.

There are less competing groups, ideas, and values to address and overcome.

A greater number of individuals results in more variety.

They each feel that they can easily relate to the other members of the group.

Vocabulary Strategy: Evaluating Nuances in Meaning

Declamation has a connotation of being strong and negative. Madison notes that adversaries of liberty (which he holds dear) make specious (or misleading and false) declaration.

The word alarm heightens the concern to the status of being something that is very dire. He uses this and other words to inflame the passion of the reader.

He uses the word contending because these are cerebral disputes, not physical altercations or fights. He is discussing competing ideas, but they are not the common enemy.

He uses the word cabal to ascribe a bad and secretive intent to the group. He also mentions the word sinister, and the idea of corruption to convey the same idea.

Analyzing the Text

He says existing governments are corrupt and abuse their power, but that the U.S. will not be able to do this because of the Constitution/ Bill of Rights.

They are harmful because they rise against others, wanting to keep them from rights. They create instability and divide in the country.

Protesters and groups that are against the government are allowed to exist in the United States because of freedom given to its citizens. In totalitarian governments the citizens do not have liberty and if they are caught in factions they are severely punished or killed.

This type of government has many people judge others, for example, by jury. Therefore, corruption cannot easily exist. He continues to explain how representatives would run everything. The United States runs on a checks and balances system.

There are always people who desire oppression. There are always people who desire to be powerful, and there are always people who have a different perspective. Religious sects may become political factions. These are effective because they cannot be changed or prevented.

He implies that democracy cannot prevent the effects of faction, leading to a government/ nation’s collapse, but that a republic’s system of checks and balances prevents a faction from taking over.

He says that a large republic rather than a small republic is the same as a Union and its states (federal versus state laws, etc).

Analyzing the Text

The Declaration of Independence states that we are our own country, not the property of Britain. This is important because it identifies the United States as self-governing. The Preamble to the Constitution functions to state the purpose for all of these measures. The Bill of Rights makes it clear that the government in the U.S. cannot have the power that Britain previously had over the people in the colonies.

It is a government for the people, rather than the people slaving away for the government (Democracy rather than Monarchy).

Both are written in formal academic prose, which is to say that they are written professionally and without rhyme. The Declaration is more about the U.S.A.’s relationship with other countries while the Constitution is about the government and its people within the country.

It fulfills his vision because his vision is of an independent nation and an independent nation must have laws for its people. In addition, the Bill of Rights gives freedoms to citizens which they did not have under the King, which is Jefferson’s criticism in the Declaration.

Analyzing the Text

The preamble uses formal, legal language to place the Constitution strictly in an official role. It does not call to emotion but rather reason. The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the power of the government, “abuse of its powers”(13).

The Preamble restricts the power of the government to infringe upon the rights of the people. It clearly states that it wants to “extend the ground of public confidence” (15), and to prevent to “misconstruction or abuse of its powers” (13). Lastly it clearly labels itself as the “House of Representatives” which directly implies representative democracy.

The Bill of Rights gives more rights to the people, that had not been originally included in the Constitution. It relates directly to the Preamble in the Amendments I and II, which restricts the power of Congress and allows the people to bear arms, giving them the ability to remove the government should it abuse its authority.

Amendment V lists the rights of people undergoing a criminal trial: they keep their rights, cannot be forced to testify against themselves, and cannot be accused of the same offense, twice. This law gives citizens important protection from an abusive government if 1. the government wants to deprive an opponent of their rights, by placing them on trial 2. killing off adversaries by willful sentencing and 3. Using the same crime to convict many people.

Citizens make up the government so the government should not have excessive power.

The government does not have power in our homes nor can determine our fate without reasonable trial.

It is separated by Amendment, or right. It is effective because it is organized efficiently, so the reader can jump forward or ahead and each right is clear.

The rights guaranteed in the first Amendment, such as religious liberty, freedom of press and the right to peacefully assemble, may be stated as the right to liberty: it protects the right of people to live with liberty and freedom. It also allows them to restrict Congress’s power, though peaceful assembly and redressing grievances.

Analyzing the Text

Jefferson says that a society’s actions against another society must be explained, and he supports it by providing all of his reasoning for the colonies’ separation from Britain.

When the government is not supporting/ improving a society, that society has the right to form a different and improved system for governing themselves.

He uses parallelism with his repetition of “that” which strengthens his argument by giving many instances and examples of freedoms missing under the British government.

Governments are to secure the rights of people with their consent. When the Government abuses its power and prevents the people from having these rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) it is the right of the people to throw off the government and establish another.

despotism, guards, sufferance, tyranny: The language Jefferson chooses reinforces the idea that the colonies have suffered an injustice by the King. It helps provoke anger towards the British, especially when these words of blame are compared to the duty of state listed above.

The list of complaints shows the extent of the grievances held against the British. It explains exactly, and with great detail, how the British (specifically the King) withheld the three rights of man. The length of the list, and its position as the biggest part of the document, shows that this is where Jefferson is most indignant. He wants to stress these complaints so as to convince his reader that the Americans are right in demanding liberty.

The conclusion builds upon ideas already discussed in the rest of the document but states them here concisely. It uses language (like authority, right, power) to drive home the point that the United States have a legitimate right to be free. The long sentence in the beginning, with its many commas and pauses, makes it more serious— it takes its time in being said, and in doing so reinforces the gravity of the situation. In addition, the repetition of ideas (freedom, independent) emphasizes the purpose of Jefferson’s speech.

Language and Style: Syntax in Poetry

parallelism, parataxis, ellipsis

parallelism lines 29-30. Parataxis lines 29-31. No presence of ellipsis.

The parallelism causes repetition, which invites the reader to look at the line and its significance more closely. They sound exactly the same. Parataxis leads to a choppy reading of the poem; the short sentences lead the reader to read more quickly and affects the meter. Ellipsis makes the work conversational rather than formal and academic.

Analyzing the Text

The sp>
The sp>
The sp>
The sp>
The speaker also describes “black mammy dolls holding white babies.” This imagery directly involving race, furthers the point of power imbalances and mistreatment by various groups by others.

The speaker is implying that the Spanish conquistdors went mad with greed.

The speaker describes DeSoto as mistaken and driven by greed. The Creek are described as very wise, knowing what DeSoto needed better than he knew himself. The Creek are also portrayed as very normal and simple, and not consumed by greed. The descriptions indicate that although DeSoto intended to strip the Creek of treasure, the Creek were smart enough to outwit him.

This imag refers to the trolley car tracks. It relates to the silver blades and crosses because they both represent the onslaught of whites’ progress changing the landscape and the lives of the Creek.

To the speaker, DeSoto represents greed and violence to the Creek. The speaker says that he should have stayed home, and that his heart wasn’t big enough to handle the “New World.” She also refers to him as “mad,” pointing out his overwhelming greed.

The “voices” are a metaphor for Creek culture generally. She describes the voices as “remnants” and “buried in the Mississippi mud” to signify that they have been quieted, or killed. The Creek people and their culture have been literally and figuratively buried by the white people.

The speaker notes that the rocks or earth have a memory, that she has a memory, and that the Creek people have a memory of the tragedy that befell the Creek people. The speaker wishes to convey that the violence and moral wrongs perpetrated against the Creek are still remembered by some. Their story is still being told in the echoes of their “voices.”

The speaker wishes to communicate the idea that New Orleans represents a confluence of many people–their cultures and races. DeSoto is buried in the river, along with the Creek. In addition, New Orleans represents the site of another part of the history of discrimination. The black mammy doll holding the white baby calls to mind the enslavement of blacks by whites.

Critical Vocabulary

Temperature, humidity, cloud cover, and the condition of the mechanical equipment.

She was a stronger player with a greater level of skill.

Different races and ethnic groups are increasingly intermarrying and their children wish to create identities that encompass both parents’ lineages.

Anticipating each possible objections and creating a solution themselves before it was identified by others.

Many districts in the state are heavily Republican and the tend to vote for candidates that share their values.

It was unable to keep up with the others and defend itself from more aggressive animals in the herd.

Vocabulary Strategy: The Latin Prefix circum-

The teacher should circumscribe the questions in the assignment so the students would know which ones to complete.

The public figure should behave in a circumspect manner, avoiding unnecessary risks.

The seamstress would need to measure the circumference of the client’s waist.

The driver could circumnavigate the road block and avoid running into it.

It wold be key to have a witness circumstantiate the actions of the accused.

Analyzing the Text

In the first three p>
His use of irony highlights the dichotomy of how many people think of immigrants. While many people romanticize The Immigrant as a quintessential American bedrock, many people are uncomfortable with immigrants in real life. Many people like the notion of America being founded by immigrants. However, they only like immigrants in the abstract, not when the encounter them in their daily life.

The author means that the conversation is stale and rather boring. By confining the conversation to the issue of black or white, we miss the reality of the variety of affinities that join and separate us.

Rodriguez calls himself and impure-American because he is a mestizo–a mixture of more than one race and identity. He is neither one thing or the other, neither black or white. His background information is persuasive beause he is a living embodiment of the mixtures and combinations that make up each of our American identities.

His word choice here is significant because it highlights that the term “Hispanic” is an artificial contrivance used by one group to label another. Rodriguez’ language choices also make the point that by being labeled by the Nixon administration, various ethnic groups with some shared cultural characteristics were lumped together as a single “race.” The word choices by Rodriguez call attention to irritated tone that encompasses his description of much of the way that Americans define each other.

The author explains that there are white, Asian, and black hispanics, so the comparison is actually of race (Black) to an entire cultural group (Hispanic) made up of various races.

Rodriguez points out that America citizens are an aging population, while the immigrants are younger and having more children. This is important because it shows the inevitability of change and continued mixing of races and cultures in America and the immigrant population grows.

The anecdotes serve to highlight the reality of so many cultures meeting and influencing each other in the United States. In fact, this is often occurring without us even noticing. Each individual anecdote reinforces the position that culture, as well as race, are fluid.

By this statement Rodriguez shows that he feels himself formed and strongly influenced by the people around him. Of course, he was not born as a Chinese person, but he an adopt that identity from being introduced and influenced by the culture. This supports his central claim that a discussion or labels limited to black or white fail to capture and reflect the reality of each of our own experiences of mestizaje.

Critical Vocabulary

It would not cause discord because he would be happy that I gave the computer to him.

It wold be difficult to tell the candidates apart or choose the better candidate because they would both have unblemished, excellent reputations.

The family’s provisions would probably be less healthy because the kids would most likely choose junk food.

The surface would not be pristine because the tree roots would be sticking up from the earth and creating a messy surface area.

Analyzing the Text

In the first paragraph, the allusion places Balboa and Moses as equals. In doing so, Balboa’s importance rises as he becomes one of the important figures of Christianity and Judaism. It makes him appear larger than life and ‘divine,’ as he goes “alone off to speak with God” (3-4).

The author develops self-awareness in Balboa because it makes him human. In doing so he stops being flat character and becomes 3 dimensional. It gives him desires and ambition with backstory — he wants to be remembered because he was a pig farmer (37-8). In addition it shows how far he’s come, from pig farmer to explorer/ruler of the New World.

We learn where Balboa comes from and how he reached the Americas. We learn that Balboa is violent and aggressive, that he wants power and to be remembered. It suggests that power grows in the individual if given the chance (a chance Balboa receives when he escapes Spain).

This line suggests that civilization is a hard and long process which muddies the ‘pristine slopes’ of uncivilized lands. It further suggests that Balboa is giving himself all the credit for bringing civilization to the Americas, but the language implies that this may not be a good thing.

The many references to dogs, especially violent ones like Leoncico biting the chief’s head off, transform the violence from a human one to an animalistic one. It draws a connection between the brutality of animals and the Spaniards in the New World. The violence feels low and raw.

The point of view chosen by Murray is 3rd person omniscient. This choice allows us to go into Balboa’s mind and know him personally (intimately). It gives us more information about the subject and the story.

The irony is that he has accomplished what he wanted, to be the one to discover the South Sea, but that what he thinks is his crowning glory, will not matter. The author presents his discovery this way to demonstrate the great tragedy of Balboa and the consequences of ambition.

The flash forward shows us the end of Balboa, his fall from power. He is killed for treason, and ends in the dirt (with the dogs). It indicates the theme of this story which is that power does not come for free.

Analyzing the Text and Media