ARGUMENTATION : Sarah Gudger

           Slavery has existed for hundreds of centuries, separating families without remorse. Ripping away the love that only a mother can fully fill within a children's heart. Sarah Gudger, a 121 year old woman shares her painful experience of having her mom taken from her due to slavery. She states that 'the stars don't shine as bright as they did back then' having said that she puts herself in a state of some kind of depression. Of course who wouldn't be quite depressed if their mom got seized from them at such a young age. I agree that the stars wouldn't shine as bright as they did back then if my mom would have been taken from me due to: the lack of happiness, the resentment, and depression. 

           Happiness is due to the chemical released from your brain, which is dopamine and can be released by showing acts of love, being shown love or other events. Withholding someone precious to a persons life can furthermore restrain that chemical leading to resentment and depression. Sarah Gudger had to pass through the most important face of her life without the most important person a child could have, which are her parents.She was a small child when this event had occurred and a century later, she still remembers it with clarity, having a traumatic impact in her life. That is why her starts don't shine as bright as they did before. It could be interpreted as a metaphor that shows how her life has changed due to slavery. Resenting those who cause her world to go dull, could also be the reason why her starts don't shine as bright as they used to before, because her life has gone dull. There is also the problem with depression where everything goes dark and there are just events where can make her a tad bit happy, but her world goes back to being dark.

             There are many different ways her perspective could be interpreted, although it could just be a metaphor for having her mom taken away. Everything just dimmed down. Slavery is something that was very popular, having it happen to thousands of children. There are different levels, according to each child, who take into these traumatic experiences into account throughout their whole life. There are other children who decide to forgive and move on. She could have done something to fulfill that void resonating in her life. There are different ways every person deals with their problems, its just in their will to make the change or have the same attitude of when the incident happened.

Argumentative Essay: W.E.B. DuBois

          W.E.B. Du Bois was one of the most important African-American activists during the first half of the 20th century. He co-founded the NAACP and supported Pan-Africanism. He believed that in order to survive you must humiliate yourself for your own sake. He believed that a person should stand up for their nations flag even though they did not believe in its justice. He believed to oblige to people who are more privilege to receive noblesse oblige from them. Humility, even if deceitful, is necessary for self-preservation and survival.
           Humility is having or showing a modest or low estimate of one's own importance. Exactly what thousands of people do to live. A rich person in a "ghetto" high school will humble themselves to fit in. They wont speak about their riches, they wont speak about their expensive house, don't speak about the fact that if they wanted to their parents can buy the high school. They must humble themselves so they don't get hate for bragging. Dali Lama, a very important figure for the Buddhism culture humbles himself by showing that he's just an ordinary person like everyone else. He was in an interview and started making farting jokes, and actually farted. He humbles himself so those who are "superior" to him know how important his culture is to his people. There's that worker who kisses their bosses butt just to get a raise. They do it in order to succeed, in order to get more money. It doesn't matter if their boss is arrogant, rude, obnoxious. There are thousands of important people figures who humble themselves for the benefit of others in order to succeed and there's others who don't.
           There's a very important figure in our country who does not humble himself for the benefits of others. Which is our president Donald Trump. He speaks his mind and doesn't care about what others have to say about it. He succeeded by not being humble, by speaking his mind, the truth in which he believes in. Although that also can get you to succeed, it doesn't help with your sanity. It doesn't help with self-preservation because once he is out of commission everyone will see him as that "obnoxious" president who ruined our country. Yet he doesn't care about that he's self centered and just cares about himself right now. It wont matter until he is out and thinking about what he has done, his mental health will eat him away. 
             In conclusion, it depends on the person itself and how they are raised for them to know humility. For them to know what humanity is actually like. Humanity needs humility to understand each other and succeed as a whole not have one person succeed and leave the rest of the world oblivious of the great opportunities. Humility is necessary for humanity to advance, it's necessary to keep us sane, it's necessary for survival. For the survival of our race. 

Argumentation: George Eliot

George Eliot, an English Victorian novelist from the 19th century once said, "The important work of moving the world forward does not wait to be done by perfect men." With more clarification, Eliot asserts that flawed leadership is not something you should be ashamed of, it shouldn't influence your progress. I support her assertion because we as a whole are not perfect human beings nor do we have to pretend to be. Some individuals prefer to show the very best versions of ourselves, some don't. With the recent events going on in society, it is clear that . 

Argumentation: Emily Dickinson

             The dark romanticism movement was a very depressing time that surfaced in the 18th and 19th century. Stating that every person was evil in the core, the demonic in sex, the greed every person had internally. An American poet, Emily Dickinson, influenced by the dark romanticism movement, believed that the brain is far more powerful at creating horrors than the outside world. There is a correlation between the way a person perceives the world and the actual, outside world. That is due to what they have faced. To some extent, the brain can create far worst horrors that are incompatible with the real world.
              The brain can condition a person to think and feel a certain way. A persons reality may not be the reality that consists that way. Their experience can dictate how they view the world. There are psychological issues like post dramatic stress disorder which creates a condition where there's persistent mental and emotional stress, occurring as a result of severe traumatic experiences with dulled responses to others and the outside world, that can't be cured. There are other psychological issues like prejudice and discrimination that the outside world creates for a person. There are also physical damages that can be perceived as something horrible. Like how if a persons leg gets cut off, that is fully physical pain. There are mass murderers, who kill and destroy a persons figure, torturing them, that's fully physical pain. There are people who injure others with their fists, knifes, legs, until the victim is unable to speak, to move, that's fully physical pain. There are people who get paralyzed, unable to move for the rest of their life's, that's both psychological and physical damage. There are bully's, who drive someone to suicide, that's both psychological and physical damage. There are people who don't rationalize.
               Some psychological and physical damage is produced from the outside world, some are within us, within our primitive nature, characters that are passed down through previous generations. There is greed, there is anger, there is jealousy, there is the self instinct to kill when your life is in danger. These aren't created by the outside world, they're from within us. Within ourselves we already have that evil, the world is what triggers the horrible things people do. A person can imagine self destruction, can imagine graphic morbidity, can imagine horrors that release into the real world. Per se, the McKamay Manor haunted house, a person must have imagined those horrors for it to come true.
                In conclusion, the brain can create horrible millions of horrors but the outside world is responsible for letting those horrors out. The world is what provokes a person to act a certain way. It could be financial problems, family problems,

Argumentation #2: Ralph Waldo Emerson

         Ralph Waldo Emerson was an American essayist, lecturer, and poet who led the transcendentalist movement. Transcendentalism had arose in the early 19th century, it had two respects: "the importance and efficacy of human striving, as opposed to the bleaker Puritan picture of complete and inescapable human depravity; and the emphasizing of unity rather than the “Trinity” of God." He not only spoke his mind every day, at every time, he influenced people to do the same. He believed that people should speak their minds, to state with clarity everything that they want even if it contradicts every word they said the day before. I believe that people should speak their minds, but to a certain extent.
           A human being is meant to have a voice, meant to speak their minds without being afraid of others putting them down, that is why we have freedom of speech and writing. Although, this world isn't always all sunshine and rainbows, everyone has a different opinion, a different voice. There will always be someone contradicting what you say, there is always going to be someone opposing another. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's a good thing. Everyone should be their own person, following what they believe is right. However, people should be open minded, knowing it's not just them in this world. There is a limit to ones words, a line that they mustn't cross for example a filter. Just like everyone has a voice, everyone has feelings. We all get angry, sad, happy, depressed. Everyone should be considerate of others feelings, of others opinions, knowing that sometimes themselves are not right. Yet we all undoubtedly don't know what is right or what is wrong, we have an idea of what should be right of what humanity should be, of how we should all be like towards each other, and that's what we could use to make our own paths. 
              There are billions of uncertainties, billions of questions that we all have but we should all just try to make the best that we can from the information that we have now. We should all strive to be better together with unity, following our hearts. Not bringing each other down with each others opinions but expressing ourselves in a way that isn't insensitive. Yes, speak your mind in hard words today, speak your mind in hard words tomorrow, speak your mind in hard words until you can no longer speak but be mindful of others opinions and others feelings. 

Argumentation : Are materialistic things really a persons Happiness ?

               There is a difference with desiring materialistic objects and emotional connections. A person can  desire both, another could want just one of these things. It all depends on the person itself, wether they’ve always been one to strive for greatness for the better of their mental health or just materialistic wealth and be comfortable with that only. Although a good or bad hearted person will always want to be happy one way or another. Dalai Lama concentrates on the sole purpose of a person true happiness, he believes it is only achieved through the practice of ones contentment. While I do agree with his statement on my behalf, not everyone thinks alike.
                My grandma, per se, is not a bad person; she likes materialistic things even if it costs her own kids happiness. She is just the type to be happy with jewels and tangible objects. Price is all that matters, “the higher the price the happier I am!”  is what she says constantly. It’s not that she is discontent with herself but she views the world as materialistic things being the all, and that’s just a way of life to fill a void. Or so I like to think it is, if she truly is that way to be happy with just materialistic objects then that’s her. There are different people that don’t  feel the need to change, that feel good about themselves being who they are, and that’s also a way of contentment for a person who lives like this.
                 On the other hand there’s my dad. He doesn’t need a lot of clothes, shoes, accessories, hats., and so on, to be happy with himself. He doesn’t care of anyone’s opinions what so ever, not even his children’s opinion. He practices true contentment. However, that doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t strive to be someone better then he was the day before. He is ambitious, and likes business he strives to make his business grow wealthier. It’s not because he needs it but because it gives his life a purpose, something to look forward to. Have it be friends who give emotional support or business that gives economical support.
                   Contentment lies withing a persons body, mind, and soul. Yes, Dalai is correct when he states that discontent will always lead to wanting more, more, and more because a person is not true with itslelf. A meaningful life is not being rich, being popular, being highly educated, being perfect: it is about being real, being humble, being able to share ourselves and touch the lives of others. It is only then that we can have a full, happy and contented life. Of course that’s only the way of a persons view, there’s multiple ways that someone could view it. It’s up to the person itself to find meaning of their life.

Assertion Analysis : John Winthorp

          Puritans, those who believed that everyone and everything had to live according to the scriptures and only the scriptures. Anyone who wasn't a puritan was doomed to burn eternally in hell. It was made up of members in a group who were English Protestants, it initiated in the late 16th and 17th centuries. They sought to reform the Churches and wanted to simplify and regulate forms of worship. John Winthorp, who was an English Puritan lawyer, clarified the importance of sustaining purity in their faith to other puritans through fear on their way to America. 
           
            In this sermon Winthorp explains how those who follow the Puritan belief are looked upon, since they are "pure" and follow the word of God.  Since they are seen by everyone if their belief system is contradicted or not followed they will be executed and doomed eternally. It would be the worst crime of all to make the slightest mistake making their beliefs unworthy of God. Destroying their world. 

            John Winthorp inflicted tremendous amount of fear into others to spread his word. He uses syntax in his entire sermon because it is just one sentence. Using just one sentence implies that there is no opening for the opinions of others. Inflicting fear with no opening to question, forces a greater deal of fear. He also uses a biblical allusion as to say they were a "City upon a Hill". He directs this claim to those who are already informed of the belief. Inflicting fear and using the reference that they are superior, not letting his followers think for themselves and just agree to his words give him more power implying that his Puritan belief stay alive. 
        
               The tactic of fear that John Winthorp used has become the most common concept to gain power in the modern world. Individuals whom are not strong born leaders fall back on inflicting fear upon the civilians by creating bigger problems then stating they are the only solution. Insinuating that the one in power is the only solution, creates trust. Empowering them even more. Although this tactic has resulted in being successful, it has given power to the wrong people molding the creation of destruction.

Socratic Seminar : Question #1

         Black Elk shared a religious ceremony, his right of passage, the path where a boy now becomes a man. The ceremonies that are traditionally passed are supposed to be confined between those who are within the tribe. American Indians whom have shared their past, their cultural stories in which have been either carried through generations or explained only within their circle, with "outsiders" are criticized for doing so. Once he shared his story with a white man, letting him publish it, outraging the American Indians and was frowned upon because it's the European ethnicity that ripped away the Indians cultural background and destroyed their world. Elk was just trying to endure his tribal cultures, and bring up the hope for his tribe to once again be superior letting the "outsiders", who believe in a superior power like God, know that his tribe is superior. He was trying to get the word out, expanding the knowledge of his tribes existence with the world.

Assertion Analysis: Wooden leg

       Wooden Leg was born into the Cheyenne tribe. He got his name "Wooden leg" because he was the only one who could outlast tireless walks alongside his uncle, in which he ended up inheriting his name. His Native culture (and native culture in general) is to be respectful toward animals and nature in general. They value everything equally, as if hey are one with nature and the Earth itself. Wooden Leg was an excellent leader and a role model to kids. As a respected person from all the wonders he did and heroic play in the battles his respect thrived throughout his tribe. 
            Wooden Leg fought in various battles for his tribe. He captivated the thought and way of life of himself through admiration and protection. He accustomed himself to some American ways, but never betrayed his Indian roots. He took value for his culture and history. He believed that things should never be uprooted from their birthplace. He understood they can be cut, modified, and weakend but he stated that when something is cut off completely, the person accountable acted out of sadness and prayed for the fellow thug that has lost. This doesn't just refer to nature, but also to the Indian culture. Colonizers came and stripped Indians of their beliefs, it was the Indians job to protect their roots and try to preserve them as much as they could. 
                The metaphor that Wooden Leg is stating is that Native culture and the people within that culture is given the acceptance to integrate into American culture and at the same time preserve their Native lifestyle. He believes that engulfing American culture isn’t uprooting himself from the Native culture but simply just cutting away his native ways and praying for forgiveness. He preserves Native culture for instance, Wooden Leg was a Christian priest himself believing that both power(s) in Native and American culture we're the same.
                   Wooden Leg believes assimilation is acceptable as it follows the old Native teaching of being cut but not uprooted. He is an example of an optimistic case who befriends the oppressor after being oppressed. He accepts the American ways, intigrating himself into that life style while still having his Native roots. Other Natives might call this naive, and destruction towards the culture itself. Yet Wooden Leg strongly believes it's a better option to keep his culture alive. 

Assertion Analysis : #7 Chief Joseph

              Chief Joseph was a leader of the Wallam-wat-kain band of Nez Perce, a Native American tribe of the inferior Pacific Northwest region of the United States. He led his people in an attempt to resist the takeover of their lands in the Oregon Territory by white settlers. It was 1100 mile journey and during the whole time they were fighting American soldiers. They got trapped just forty miles from Canada and on October 5, 1877 at Bears Paw, Chief Joseph made his speech of surrender called "I'm tired of fighting".
              Chief Joseph's speech is about being tired of fighting. He has already lost almost everybody in his tribe, he doesn't want to lose anyone anymore. All of the elders have already died or have been killed and how the younger people were the ones that were still alive. But the elders had more experience, the younger people don't have that much experience which can lead to their death. He knows that if he continues fighting more of his tribe are going to get killed and he doesn't want that to happen, which is why he surrenders. He gives in extreme details how "the little children are freezing to death", he uses pathos to make the audience feel remorse or sad about how even kids are dying because of something stupid such as a battle which everybody just keeps dying in. He talks about how some of his people are running away trying to hide in the mountains and how they have no water and no blankets. He talks about how he has to find his children, but maybe he should look for them amongst the dead, since the conditions that they are in are really bad. Since they're is so much death around them, some people are getting lost and Chief Joseph thinks that maybe he should look for them in the dead because they have probably died already. With his last words he says "hear me chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad", it sounds like he's saying sorry to his chiefs because he is surrendering, he's telling them the reason why which is that he is tired of everybody around him dying and that he can't keep up with it no more.    
                Native Americans were damaged really bad by white settlers. They got killed, raped, and were enslaved by them. They had to flee their land because it was taken over by white settlers. For those who are non-natives Chief Joseph kinda explains it in his surrender speech. It's like you can hear almost the emotions that he is feeling, which are anger and mostly sadness. He doesn't want his tribe to suffer anymore because of the white settlers, so he is giving up to give them a better faith different than death.

John Deer : Assertion Analysis #5

         We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves. Civilized is something that describes us human beings as in having manners, following laws, utilizing silverware, actually having a law set in place that helps with criminals. Yet human beings are far from “civilized”, some people don't even act as human beings leaving a man/women/child in need to fend for themselves when they can't even protect themselves with basic needs. John Lame Deer uses satire, irony and non-examples to prove the fact that they as Natives were civilized before the white men showed up showing them the true meaning of “civilized”.

        John Lame Deer explains his view of the Natives before the white men came to make them “civilized”. He sarcastically states, “We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.” In the previous sentence he had used non-examples to explain this statement, "We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property." He was sarcastically stating that they were uncivilized even though they had much more freedom and humanity in them then the Europeans. He was also explaining how all of the characteristics that the Europeans brought from their world were irrelevant and selfish. They had a different mentality that was full of greed, unlike the natives that had much love for their own people and helped them out. Ironically he knows the European ways were just uncivilized and severally wrong. The natives were able to survive for hundreds of years with out the "fundamental things that are so necessary for a civilized society."

                 To close, I would like to say that I agree with what John deer is saying. He states it without completely criticizing the people who destroyed his culture, that the reason for being told that their way of life was "uncivilized" was was for the very reason that they were more advanced and civilized people who didn't need these ways of life as in greed and selfishness, property owning, to keep them in tact, because they were already living a perfect life before being forced to leave their culture and change their way of life by the real "savages". I feel that if the Europeans would have stopped being so selfish and self centered and considered that maybe the peaceful way of life the Natives were living and harmonious our world wouldn't be the messed up and greed full place that it has turned into till this day.