Recent Changes

Tuesday, March 29

  1. page A Nursery Rhyme- Spider and the FLy edited ... The Handmaid's Tale : Allusion to a Nursery Rhyme {spider_and_the_fly_parlour.JPG} ... of…
    ...
    The Handmaid's Tale : Allusion to a Nursery Rhyme
    {spider_and_the_fly_parlour.JPG}
    ...
    of her favorites -favorites, and she read it to me countless number of times but I didn'tnever really understandunderstood it. But
    ...
    or atleast, come to recognize it. The nursey Rhymenursery rhyme my mother
    "Maybe it was a Parlour, the kind with spiders and flies" (89)
    - Atwood
    ...
    Unto an evil counselor close heart, and ear, and eye,
    And take a lesson from this tale of the Spider and the Fly
    I am sure everyone read the poem, or had the poem read to them as a child.
    I
    believe this
    ...
    of nostalgia -regarding of childhood
    ...
    and nursery rhymes. A time with mommy,rhymes, when she used to read nursery rhymes. When one waswe were learning to
    ...
    learning to analysecomprehend what was
    Our feelings would then interact with Offred's feelings - the pain of losing her baby daughter, a daughter for whom Offred might have read this nursery rhyme to.
    (view changes)
    1:34 pm

Monday, March 28

  1. page Why the Indians didn't fight the colonists edited Earlier in this school year I learned that the Native Americans who converted into Christianity …

    Earlier in this school year I learned that the Native Americans who converted into Christianity did not fight the Colonists who stole their(Natives') land and forced them to migrate west. Infact, these natives sided with the colonists and fought AGAINST their own people. WHY?
    Later, I watched a PBS Documentary titled "We Shall Remain" and found my answer. Here is my explanation:
    {http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://www.eaglegiftsgalore.net/Papers/Native%2520Amer%25201.gif&sa=X&ei=8a2QTeGBD8nngQek_YTADQ&ved=0CAUQ8wc4BA&usg=AFQjCNEVc4mUDDMYvaCoKDexeHlZO_l_Ng}
    Q: Why do you think some native people who converted to Christianity chose to fight with the English? Why didn’t tribes join together in fighting the English?
    In the documentary We Shall Remain by the PBS American Experience, the trials and tribulations of the initial settlement of the Plymouth Colony is explained in an exciting chronological reenactment. As the documentary drew toward the end, it discussed the great Philip’s War – the clash of the Natives and the English colonists - and why some native people who converted to Christianity chose to fight with the English, and why the different tribes did not join together in fighting the English.
    In the spring of 1630, a fleet of English ships arrived at the north coast of Plymouth with one thousand new immigrants – which significantly raised the number of pilgrims in Plymouth Colony. When the Wampanoags began to feel threatened by the growing number of pilgrims, they “got the idea that somehow if [they] are to survive at all, [they’ve] got to at least say that [they’re] assimilated; [they’ve] got to say that [they were] Christian. Whatever that means, or [they’re] going to be wiped out completely.”(Doe).
    In order for natives to convert to Christianity, Natives were required to experience a “conversion experience that was witnessed by the congregation and that was deemed sufficient that you've been saved.”(O’Brien). Hereby, natives were coerced into believing in the Christian god, and grew to believe that they had been “saved” by Christianity (Doe). A set of documents, Tears of Repentance, written by the natives who had gone through the conversion experiences stated that Indians were made to cut off their long hair against their will. Consequently, the natives were forced to throw away Native tradition, culture and their previous beliefs, which angered many Indians. But as the effects of acculturation and the Christian religion dug deeper into their veins, natives began to believe firmly in the Christian god. “When they said the devil was my God, I was angry, because I was proud. I loved to pray to many Gods. Then going to your house, I more desired to hear of God... then I was angry with myself and loathed myself and thought God will not forgive my sins.”(Native).
    While the Natives believed strongly in the Christian god, they seem to have feared him more than they loved him. In all three Native accounts presented in the documentary, the Natives were “angry with [themselves] and loathed [themselves] and thought God will not forgive [their] sins. Accordingly, the Missionaries are deemed to have installed religious fear in the natives – resulting in faith through fear rather than faith through love and innate will.
    The English Missionaries not only coerced the Natives to express belief in the Christian god but also demanded that the Natives replace their culture with the English culture. Consequently, the missionaries “tear[ed] apart many native communities”. (Calloway). As the Plymouth Colony’s foothold in America stabilized, the English grew stronger and thus began to see the natives as inferior beings.
    Because the English no longer needed the Natives, fur trade between the natives and the colonists declined while the colonists’ demand for Algonquian land increased. “More and more Native People, for whatever reason, were choosing to move to praying towns. The world that Philip had created [collapsed] around him.”(Richer). When the Natives willingly moved to the praying towns, it was a sign of acquiesce - a sign that the Natives were now one with the colonists - assimilated both religiously and culturally. Because the converted Natives were too set into the concept of a Christian god and the Plymouth colony, by the time the war began, those Natives sided with the English. The Natives were spiritually Christian, thus a part of the Plymouth colony. Correspondingly, the children of the converts who were born in the Praying Towns knew only of the Praying Town and nothing of the Native culture. The children of the Native converts were, essentially, no different from the children of the colonists.
    The Phillips “war spread to Connecticut… into Rhode Island and …into eastern New York. Tribe after tribe after tribe became involved in this” (Edmunds) yet the tribes did not join forces. The reason for this is believed to be a long history of distrust among the Indians. Although the groups spoke similar Algonquian dialect, they were not allies with each other. Therefore when the war spread, the tribes each fought their own war with the English colonists.

    (view changes)
    8:49 am
  2. page Fairy Tale Reds edited Little Red Riding Hood & Red Shoes {http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&…

    Little Red Riding Hood & Red Shoes
    {http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/illustrations/ridinghood/images/woodroffe_hood1.jpg&sa=X&ei=wquQTfm5F4PZgQeN0dy8DQ&ved=0CAUQ8wc4CA&usg=AFQjCNGAJ6ovktVUxzobfRFekzmO0-YcnA} {http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/illustrations/redshoes/images/anderson_redshoes1.jpg&sa=X&ei=BKyQTbmlJ8b2gAegg_yeDQ&ved=0CAUQ8wc4Ag&usg=AFQjCNFBR28MKEHv9GrVd46GlsLdx9BfjA}
    The Handmaid's Tales alludes back to two famous Grimm's brother's fairytales - the Little Red Riding Hood and Red Shoes.
    Both tales are about a young girl donning a red clothing article, just like Offred and the other handmaids.
    (view changes)
    8:41 am
  3. page Sun Blocks and Skin Cancer! edited In this blog, I will discuss the precautionary principle as applied to Sun Blocks and Skin Cancer.…
    In this blog, I will discuss the precautionary principle as applied to Sun Blocks and Skin Cancer...........
    (This is a response based on an online research I did earlier in 2011)
    {http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://media.onsugar.com/files/2010/03/13/1/192/1922153/e3b3902c70885777_sunblock.xlarge.jpg&sa=X&ei=gKqQTbGGF8HSgQea3bGmDQ&ved=0CAUQ8wc4Cw&usg=AFQjCNFCzDIW-d3QMxlS4uftlr1jyM58SA}
    Sun Blocks and Skin Cancer
    The precautionary Principle is a response to uncertainty - in the face of harm such as risks to health or the environment. In general, it is the official terminology for the idea: people planning to do something should prove it safe before carryout their plan. Most people have been exposed to the precautionary principle through their parents. As children, we all heard the sayings “Better safe than sorry!” and “Look before you leap”. As the popular saying goes, it is always better to be safe than sorry, and thus the precautionary principle must be followed when possible consequences of human actions are very large or could be catastrophic.
    Precautionary Principle is applied to diverse areas including pollution, toxic chemicals, food and phytosanitary standards, fisheries management, species introductions and wildlife trade. Because one tiny human mishap can potentially risk catastrophic harm to so many areas of health and environment, it is crucial to be mindful of the potential harm of our actions before deciding to act upon it.
    Many are unaware of the statistics which points to sun blocks as the most probable factors of skin cancer. Studies have shown that those who apply sun blocks on a regular basis are more susceptible to skins cancer than those who do not. But because the media – powerful proponents of cosmetics including sun blocks – continue to advertise sun blocks as a healthy barrier to harmful UV-rays, people have adopted a positive attitude towards the application of sun blocks.
    Such statistics must require the government to apply the precautionary principle in the case for sun blocks. Because statistics point to sun blocks as a major factor of skin cancer, sun block sales should be put on suspension until satisfactory epidemiological research ensures that they are safe. Through this application of the precautionary principle, the general public can be more aware of and safe from the potentially damaging artificial chemicals in sun blocks.

    (view changes)
    8:36 am
  4. page Simon Bolivar's Ideas edited ... Bolivar's ideas will may find this helpful. {http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&…
    ...
    Bolivar's ideas willmay find this helpful.
    {http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://www.sdgmusic.org/bannister/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Simon-Bolivar.jpg&sa=X&ei=sKiQTaPtE8b2gAegg_yeDQ&ved=0CAUQ8wc4Aw&usg=AFQjCNElAXgyPc20FprRmkKCyF-GBmcvXQ}

    Bolivar's Ideas
    According to the Message to the Congress of Angostura written by Bolivar in 1819, Simon de Bolivar believed that the British system of government was a better model for Latin America. In the land of Spanish Latin America resides a “mixed species of aborigines and Spaniards” who are neither fully Spanish nor American. These Latin Americans are in a delicate situation, struggling to “maintain [themselves] in the country that gave birth to [them] against the opposition of the invaders”. Thus far, the role of Latin America has been to remain passive and to support its mother country – Spain – with all its resources while continuing to fully conform to the Spanish rule. Latin America has been “strictly...political existence nil... [and thus] have been placed in a state lower than slavery”. In order to establish “proper morals...practice virtue...and liberty” Bolivar states that Lain America must adopt the British form of government.
    Latin American national representation is divided into two chambers- that of the Representatives and the Senate - similar to that of the British Parliament. Therefore “nothing in [the] fundamental laws [of Latin America] would have to be altered” for Latin America to adopt a similar legislative system to the British Parliament – a law making body that “legally and properly represent[s]” the citizens. If the Senate of Latin America was hereditary, like that of the British, “rather than elective”, like that of the United States, it would “be the basis, the tie, the very soul of [the Latin American] republic. The establishment of a hereditary law making body like the Parliament would bring about a “counterweight [power] to both government and people; and as a neutral power it will weaken the mutual attacks of these two eternally rival powers”.
    In addition to the proper balance attained through the hereditary senate, an executive power - like that of the British - would prescribe “national happiness”. A president, chosen by the people, will be aided by the Constitution and by his ministers to govern justly. Following the British example, the Latin American government will achieve social order, peace and justice with a “strongly proportioned... government”.

    (view changes)
    8:27 am

More