Write responses (each 300+ words in length) to the discussion of the two works that we studied this summer that you did not create a web for. (For example, if you wrote about All Souls write one response that extends the discussion of The Omnivore's Dilemma and write another response that extends the discussion of Century of the Wind.)
Respond! Explore! Extend! Debate! Be resourceful. Try to move back and
forth between general, overarching insights and specific textual
analysis. Be resourceful! (What resources do you have? Your notes from
class discussions about the webs. Your passage responses. The notes I posted after each summer session. Comments your peers posted about the
summer sessions. The books themselves.)
Following up with what Meryl said about how a “cute, cotton-tailed bunny” would not sound appetizing at all to children, I realize that I have seen this in progress. Most of the time in supermarkets, the meat products do not look like the animal they came from. They just look like slabs of meat neatly arranged in plastic and Styrofoam packaging. This contributes to the ignorance surrounding the book, as Elizabeth pointed out. If people refuse to acknowledge the fact that meat comes from “adorable” animals such as chickens and cows, then they will just assume that it is just food and conclude that looking into the food’s background is not essential. Unfortunately, this can lead the consumer to eat meat that has unhealthy substances in it, such as growth hormones. This, in turn, supports the book’s main argument, which is ignorance can have disastrous consequences for those who decide to follow it.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I think that Pollan also argues that trying to manipulate nature into something it was never meant to be can lead to serious repercussions as well. Throughout the course of the book, Pollan describes the hindrances of feeding animals substances that they were never supposed to eat in the first place. For example, feedlots feed the steer corn even though they were only meant to eat grass. Of course, it affects the animals by causing illness. However, we are also drastically affected. For instance, by feeding the steer corn, we raise the acidity of their stomachs, causing the E. coli bacteria to become immune to the only defense we had against it; our stomach acids. By manipulating nature in ways it was never to be, we, inadvertently, end up harming ourselves as well. Unfortunately, because they make profit from using corn, the companies that produce meat have no intention of stopping the usage of it on their feedlots. This shows that greed plays a major part in the book. By having no concern for the consumers, the food companies are contributing to the obesity crisis in America. However, it is not entirely their fault. The consumers also play a role by making poor choices about what they eat. This, in turn, leads us back to the argument of ignorance in the book, thus we see the never-ending cycle of ignorance, manipulation, greed, and then back to ignorance.
In Century of the Wind, Galeano allows the topic of each of the entries in the book to transition from place to place. By doing so, he creates a collage of events that allows us to explore multiple locations and events that occurred during the same time period. As we look at this collage of nations, we see that each one is encountering a time of pain and suffering in its history, particularly the countries of Latin and South America. By looking at this, we can see how each country is connected to each other through pain and suffering. However, as Zoe mentioned in our discussion, Galeano uses a humorous tone when describing these tragic events. This, in turn, adds to the argument that it is ridiculous to fight our lives in order to avoid facing calamities. Instead, we should treasure the lives we have been given, despite the sufferings and tragedies we encounter, because life is so precious and it can be easily taken away from you.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Galeano uses a dramatic and poetic tone throughout the book. He often tells the stories of the passages using poetic language. For example, when uses a metaphor that compares the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with suns. This sort of narration contributes to the novel by subtly enhancing the power of the tone each entry embodies while it exposes the cruelty of the dictators’ ways on his people. It also alleviates the pain of suffering many of the passages mention by veiling it in the beauty of poetry. In addition, this sort of tone helps Galeano use humor and irony in his book without it sounding misplaced. For example, when he talks about the British prince has to use the bathroom in the Paris Hotel. At first glance, the passage seems climactic. However, Galeano has cleverly disguised the humor by hiding it in the same dramatic tone as the book. Galeano’s writing style lets him arrange words so that even the simplest of situations seems dramatic at first glance. Because of this, he is able to add other effects into the novel without breaking the tone of it. I feel that if Galeano had not done this, the passage’s humor and the novel’s overall despondent tone would have clashed and the passage would have felt out of place in the book
About Omnivore's Dilemma, I was very interested to listen to what everyone had to say about this. What I could gather/what struck me as important was the battle about industrial vs. processed. Buying processed food is much more convenient and cheaper for the average person. It not only taste good, but parents are happy because it keeps their children happy.The downside is that it's not healthy and the way it's been made is "unappealing". On the flip side, buying organic seems to be a much healthier choice. Organic food has quality not quantity. In this book, I didn't feel that Pollan was really pushing us to either side of the argument. He was mainly just putting out facts, probably in the hopes that with enough facts he could persuade reason. When you have finished reading the book, at least for me, I know I wanted to eat healthier. Pollan made it seem very worth it to spend the extra buck or two. I really liked what Elizabeth said about mothers hiding the real terms for animals from their children.. "People should know what they are eating, don't call it beef." Like I said, I really enjoyed listening to other peoples opinions about Omnivore's Dilemma, and I found that I agreed with their opinions for the most part. It was a very eye-opening book to say the least.
ReplyDeleteBeing the first book we discussed, I wasn't very aware we should have been taking notes on it. Nevertheless, I will discuss my opinion on the book and try to recall my peers points of view. First of all, I really liked what Pauline said about Zoe's comment. The book would be really sad and almost depressing without the humor in the stories such as Miguel and his many lives. The book is full of collective short stories about America, mostly from the South of the Borders point of view. Correct me if i'm wrong, but what I gathered from reading is that Galeano's stories were about the hardships of life from places such as Mexico. Other times, the point of view would switch to the US. It was very intriguing to read. What I found interesting was the way Galeano wrote each passage. He wrote them with almost a sense of indifference. The way he stated every single fact left you feeling like it was common for such tragic things to happen. Yet, it wasn't and I think Galeano did a very good job of portraying historic events in this way. Yet, like Pauline said, Galeano made his passages seem poetic. Even if something was simple, it seemed incredibly important and almost dramatic. It was a very interesting style of writing. I liked the way he weaved stories in throughout the book. There were certain stories that kept reappearing. I actually looked forward to following up on those, Galeano made them seem very important. Century of the Wind turned out to be an extremely complex yet intriguing book.
ReplyDeleteLife goes on. This is what I have learned form Eduardo Galeano's novel, Century of the Wind. As Rachel previously said, I did not fully realize we were supose to be taking notes on the subject, and our conversation was not as thorough as it was with the other two books, but I will do my best to explain my understanding of this book.
ReplyDeleteGaleano's book went through a history of life in the Americas, and was often broken up by short stories involving characters like, Miguel Marmol. Galeano touched up on soft spots filled with death, despair, and destruction. Regardless, every new passage involved more life. Life does not stop living, and Galeano fully portrayed this in his stories.
During our open conversation, Maddie said something that caught my attention. She said, “Life is a hair's breathe away”, and I find this very insightful. I agree with her statement completely, and it sums up a good deal of what I believe Galeano was trying to portray. One thing that I did not see while reading the boook, but do now, is Galeano's humor. I believe I read it too realistically and didn't understand his comic sense of relief. He said horrible events so drastically non-chalant that it added to his sense of humor, for lack of better word to describe it.
I also agree with another thing one of my peers announced. I forget who exactly it was, but I believe it was Romy, said that throughout the book Galeano is attempting to link the two Americas together. Often times, we think of North and South America as two different worlds, when they actually have a lot in common. I have never really pondered this until now, but I can deffinitely relate to places in South America more now.
As Pauline and Rachel have said, Galeano writes in a very interesting style. He most deffinitely writes like a poet would, with a vast vocabulary and numerous metaphors. Galeano also uses an intersting structure, too. His passages are short, and very few last more than a page. I enjoyed this style because if you got bored with a topic, it wasn't long before he switched to a new one. Also, I noticed that the structure of the titles of his passages changed throughout the book, too. Galeano sometimes makes the title of a passage the first word in his first sentence, too. Other times, he leaves the title as just that, strictly an overview of his upcoming passage. This writing style intrigued me, and made it an easier read because of that. Based on all that I have said, I find ,Century of the Wind, an extremely interesting and complex arrangment of the history of the Americas.
I broke those up into paragraphs but they came up as one when I posted? How do I fix this?
ReplyDeleteThere was a lot of talk during our discussion of Omnivore’s Dilemma about farming, and I’m going to try to talk a bit more about what Pollan seems to think is one of the sources of our eating problems. Pollan talks a lot about different types of farms, and he especially talks about his favorite one, Polyface, because it neatly sums up every argument Pollan makes throughout the book Polyface does everything naturally and as humanly to the animals as possible. He lets the animals live as they would live and uses them as resourcefully as possible. In fact, his farming technique reminds me of how precise and calculating the Native Americans were when they hunted, using everything possible and making sure there was no waste. This approach to food is Pollan’s over-arching argument. His argument is not that industrial food is inherently bad, in fact he defends it from a business point of view because it is the fastest and cheapest way to get food to people. Pollan just says that if it is possible, it is better for the earth and, if you care enough, better for your mental health and is practically guiltless. This is probably the one thing he wants to point out, that there are better ways to get food then they way we are used to; going to the supermarket, looking at the food for a few seconds to decide which one is cheaper and then buying it without thinking. However, he does seem to make exceptions. Up until the point that Pollan has to kill a chicken, he seems to think it’s ok. But when he actually has to do it, the only way he can do it is to detach himself from the situation. So he sort of revises his opinion to the idea that you can eat any animal you want if you can bring yourself to see the animal killed. If you can get that close, and when you are eating, not forget that you are eating what used to be a living thing, you don’t have to feel guilty.
ReplyDeleteAlong with Rachel I was not aware of any follow up discussion with the first book we discussed, Century of the Wind. This said I will try to remember what was said and what I thought about or made connections to at the time. While discussing this book I remember talking about human nature and the will to rebel and survive. As much as I believe this is true I believe that human will is not based on the idea of rebeling under unfair leadership. I think another part of human will is conquering weaker humans and controlling them. What would the people be rebelling against if noone ever had the idea to lead them in the first place. One example to support my theory that humans like to lead and be in charge of lesser establishments is the American Revolution. The colonies rebelled unfair leadership by the monarchy of England. And what was the first thing they did after they rebelled? These same colonists who expressed the human will to rebel proceeded to participate in a slave trade where they controlled the African race. Also these colonists with the human will to rebel took advantage of the Native Americans and killed and controlled them. In my mind there is a human will to be independant but that is only half of the mindset, people also like to be incharge and controll things and people. I believe Galeano represented both parts of this in the book but we only discussed the first half in class.
ReplyDeleteWhile discussing Omnivores Dilemma I made a huge connection to what I thought was the main argument of All Souls. Someone mentioned that not many people went into farming because you have to grow up farming to end up in that industry. In my rhetorical analysis of All Souls I mentioned the idea that who you are is majorly dependant on your environment. I believe that this is a universal truth to any person and any place. I thought it was interesting that this point would come up in both books, even though it is true to anything in the world I did not expect it to come up in this discussion for Omnivores Dilemma. In my mind i think Pollan wrote this book to show that we do have a choice but he was not telling us what to choose. All he did was present both sides of an argument. If he had to say one thing to the reader i believe he would say, "You have a choice, you can make a difference, but you do not have to." In my mind this makes his book more powerful. Anyone can write a persuasive argument where they tell you what to believe. It takes much more skill to present both sides but still make the reader think what you want without ever saying this. This is possible because although he does present both sides he creates a stronger argument for the side he is choosing without making it to obvious. The little things like making people connect to his experience at McDonalds are what makes the book powerful. By using this one example he shows how industry is changing animals into unrecognisable food. This is also genious because he uses a powerful example that everyone can relate too. I believe that Pollan is a very good argumentitive writer and he presents an almost perfect argument.
Continuing on the path of the Omnivore's Dilemma, i would like to add the fact that some people don't necessarily want to know what they're eating. A girl that i work with is not even the slightest bit interested in what she's actually consuming. Her view on the foods is, if it tastes good, she eats it, and if you attempt to tell her otherwise, she will block you out. For example, she picks up a croissant (which are the most fattening bread, because of it's light, fluffy, butter-rich dough) and starts eating it, the only thing she is thinking about is the taste. She feels that if she knows what is actually in the food, she won't want to eat it anymore. In her mind she would be saying "bye-bye" to too many of her favorite foods, which brings me to the point of fast food restaurants.
ReplyDeleteThink about this, if every single person that sets foot in a fast food restaurant knew exactly what they were eating, rite down to the names of the chemicals used in the formula that mimics that "burger" taste, how many people would actually eat there? Some people are only interested in taste, which is fine if you go to McDonalds and eat a burger that was basically made in food lab by scientists testing different chemicals to make that perfect mix of burger flavor. Personally i wouldn't want to be the lab rat that sits down to eat their new chemical creation, but that's just me. How about you...?
I have to agree with Winslow and Rachel on the point that Century of the Wind was not clearly/ fully discussed. I remember (correct me if i'm wrong) that the idea of all countries were connected in the book by the universe. Death, love and fear seem to connect these snippets of history together to simply form the world that we live in. With the way it was written, the booked jumped around from country to country, person to person, and finally one tragic story to the another. I would also like to touch on the point that Zoe brought up with her comment on the humor of the book. I know others have also commented on this fact, but it really does say something about the personality Galeano had towards history while writing this book. Some passages seem almost monotone as he describes a vivid and descriptive scene of a man being stabbed to death, but he almost makes it seem somewhat calming. When you do something over and over again, it becomes natural for you to become accustomed to whatever it is you are doing. Century of the Wind created that effect by reading tragic events through out the book. At the beginning, it's almost as if to surprise you here and there, but near the end, it is also seems to be there to train you to not be effected by them.
ReplyDeleteAll Souls, is a book that I believe many of us can relate to. I think this is the main reason so many of my peers chose to write about it. I liked that so many can write about it because it helped us get a more thorough discussion that I truly enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of, All Souls, is the fact that there are so many potential “meanings” of it. We all had different perspectives of what Michael MacDonald was trying to get across to us, although they often overlapped and connected. Personally, I believe he was trying to explain to us that we can not disconnect ourselves from our surroundings, and to be better ourselves, we must learn from what is around us. He was brutally honest about situations that have happened in his life, such as the cocaine incident, and all of his sibling's deaths. These events were hard to cope with, but he was not silent and it made him a better person in the end. Unlike so many people in Southie, he could relate his neighbors' problems to those outside of their neighborhood, in places like Roxbury and Charlestown. Those around him were not willing to do so because of the fact that the majority of the people living in those places were minorities. If those in Southie could step up, and admit they had a problem, they could've stopped it before it caused dire consequences between those that they loved.
Pride. What is it? When does it stop being a good thing, and start to destroy? Mr. Cook brought up the fact that often times, pride blinds us. I agree with this because we have seen it do just that to many living in Southie. They were so prideful of where they lived, that they would not admit to their problems without feeling like a “snitch” or “betrayer”. I agree with my class's statement that to be able to fully assess a situation, you have to step outside of it. I also agree with pauline's assertion that the people should remember the silence, almost in order to not do it again. Michael MacDonald surely gets your mind buzzing in his novel, All Souls.
I agree with the previous statements made by some of my classmates that consumer’s minds are being manipulated into blocking out the images of the animals we are actually eating. The way they are presented to us makes you think of only eating meat or beef, not an actual animal that was once living a, possibly inhumane, life. If the labels on some of our meat said cows and pigs instead, I believe there would some people who would think differently before eating it. The tone Pollan had in his writing I thought was objective toward the big industries, but that he had more sympathy for smaller farmers. He is pushing readers toward certain decisions, but he does it in a very subtle way.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the issue of whether or not the more intellectual and book smart people should be the ones working on farms rather than the “dumbest ones,” as Salatin says, I think this is not necessarily the problem. I believe it is the motivation and compassion farmers have when they are growing the food that will end up on other American’s plates, that is more of an issue.
I also, like Winslow, found a connection between The Omnivore’s Dilemma and All Souls. When Pollan is discussing the Polyface farm, which previous discussions have stated he promotes as the best possible option, he is also able to talk about the problems with it. The fact that he can even give the downsides to the things he is subtly promoting, I believe makes him a more reliable source as an author. One of the points I made in my web for All Souls was MacDonald’s ability to make such an impact after still talking about the horrible decisions he may have made in the past which may have discredited him for some readers. The utter honesty the authors both have in their writing is something that makes me think more carefully about what they are really saying and for me, improves the impact they are each trying to make.
I thought about doing my web on All Souls, but as was pointed out, I decided it was too difficult for me to write a good few paragraphs about the argument because of the fact it was a memoir and I didn’t feel like it had one clear argument, which was why I found it interesting that almost everybody did theirs on that book. I did however gain a better understanding of the book from everyone’s thoughts on it. I agree with Pauline that one of the major points was to remember the silence and pride that snowballed into destruction for families in the Southie. I also liked the idea that someone put out there (I can’t remember who, sorry whoever you are) that said standing up and breaking the silence didn’t necessarily make you a traitor, but loyal in a different way than the people who kept quiet, maybe more so depending on who you are and what your perspective is on the whole situation. I completely agree with it. I would also like to add that I felt like the book was an example, and MacDonald wanted to prove that you can change. He did a fantastic job demonstrating it too, starting in the beginning with the chapters about segregation and how he hated the African Americans and ending with him helping out in neighborhoods like Roxbury. Which also contributes to Romy’s comment about how honest MacDonald wrote, because he certainly could have portrayed himself as better as he actually was. I think the honesty really helped engross me in the book, making the struggles he faced clearer than they might have been. I pretty much think that everyone who wrote about All Souls had great ideas about what the argument was as well as clearly understood the book, and didn’t disagree with any of it.
ReplyDeleteTo build of what Winslow said about Century of the Wind, I don’t think you have to look any farther than the book for examples of those two different types of wills that he describes. The book often references the governments of these Latin American countries and the U.S., and when it does, the governments are rarely portrayed well. They have headings like, “The Government decides Truth Doesn’t Exist” and things like that. The book clearly seems on the side of rebels of any denomination. But there are examples of the rebels gaining power in South America and then imposing their own regime that may not be better than the first. And the book gives us these examples to force us to remember all that has happened to these countries. There was talk about how All Souls was really about remembering bad things that happened and taking measures to make sure it doesn’t happen again, but I think that description fits this book much better. The fact that it is written in the style of a newspaper, skipping pages between stories, gives it an air of fact and makes it seem like a history book blended with a newspaper. And all of the stories have their own little morals in them, even if you don’t realize it at first. All of these passages were specifically chosen to convey some sort of point. And this is where the remembering part comes in. If you can figure out what the moral is, you can tell what actions let to what consequence to you know what was done well, or what shouldn’t have been done. And then if something like this comes up again in the book, with a similar storyline and setting, you can figure out what should be done to best solve the problem. And that is why you need to remember, because if it happens today, we can’t make the same mistakes we did in the past.
ReplyDeleteThe Omnivore's Dilemma:
ReplyDeleteLike was discussed in class, Pollan describes the current status of the omnivore's dilemma in the food industy's precarious position of unsustainability and in our inabilty to revert to older methods of harvesting sustainance from the land. Pollan addresses this by confronting the issue and exploring the feasability of different options for reform, never questioning the need for change.
In exploring different methods of reform, Pollan educates the reader, and with knowledge comes a responsibilty to act on that knowledge. By this means, Pollan can expect his book to effect change, and if the reader is without a sense of this responsibilty it would not. So Pollan puts it upon himself to act on the responsibilty of being a consumer to learn what it is he consumes, forcing the reader to believe that it also must be responsible. Aside from forcing his audience into a position of decision, Pollan leaves the situation to the individual reader to figure out. He always leaves the reader with a choice, no matter how much he tries to guide it. By this, though, not only does he describe the omnivore's dilemma, but he puts the reader in the midst of it.
while he was dealing with it, he used different logical conclusions to persuade himself, because, like he discusssed at one pint in his book, humans can justify anything they like. in this way, he becomes a vegetarian--but not because it is his choice to do so, like he encourages the reader to do by simply educating and not convicting--he becomes vegetarion out of moral squemishness, which is not so logical and is something for which he criticises the animal rightists.
Lastly, we discussed in class the essense of chicken consciousness--to tell the truth, there can't be much there, judging by the way they're nasty, similar little ingratful creatures; but I don't think that this is the issue that should determine our treatment of them--this should be based on the extensiveness of their nervous system and their ability, not to register and think about, but to receive, pain--so that the issue is the net inflicted pain involved with the chicken industry. This also solves the problem with the retarded kid scenario that utilitarians suposedly wage on the meat industry--humans simply have the most complex nervous system. As far as conscious quadropeligics, who's really gonna kill them? the whole argument is even stupid--just dont' inflict misery and use your natural gut instinct because it usually right, and also look at accepted treatment of livestock and cripples over the ages and analyze it because what is accepted over culture and time usual is right. that's also a huge problem with modern society--we've developed technology so quickly that our world is vastly different than anything we've seen before, so we don't know what to do with it, all we know is what's not good, i.e. what doesn't jive with our sense of justice.
This is actually the perfect time for me to respond about Omnivore’s Dilemma, having just come home from volunteering on a new CSA in Essex. Being there, and working with the farmer, Noah, made me think a lot about our discussion about intelligence, and the social feeling behind farming. Noah started up the farm just after graduating from Hampshire College, with help from a friend of his who is still attending school. The farm reminds me a lot of what Pollan wrote about Polyface, though on a much smaller scale (two acres at the moment). They follow organic procedures, but are not certified. Noah and I talked about some of what we mentioned in class, and made an interesting point about farming compared to other jobs, explaining that if he got paid for his labor the same hourly rate an electrician did, he would have to charge five dollars for a head of lettuce. Noah is very passionate about the farm, and listening to him made me think about why people go into farming. I believe it is something you have to feel strongly about, and take pride in. People take jobs they don’t like every day, in some cases, they spend their lives doing something they hate. That’s not something I can see happening with farming. One of the points that Pollan makes is that none of the big agribusinesses have the people making the decisions actually doing any of the manual labor. I think this makes a huge difference in a person’s investment in the food they produce, because on a small farm, if you don’t treat your livestock in a humane manner, you have to witness their suffering every day, as opposed to sitting behind a corporate desk. Thinking about all of this lead me to another argument that I believe Pollan was making about ignorance. The people in charge of the large farms get to be ignorant of their own harmful practices, and this makes it possible for them to remain outside the greater issues surrounding farming.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLike Danielle, I also enjoyed reading the style Galleano chose to write his book with. Because so much of it was dense facts, being able to switch off to different topics that occurred in different places made it easier for me to focus on the point Galleano was trying to get across. The lives of so many people in the book were taken for granted and I believe part of his overall message was how genuine the lives of these people really were. Looking back to these events that occurred in the Americas and seeing how many people were killed or tortured without question is really able to make an impact. However, with so many depressing scenes, Galleano was able to have a humorous tone witch has been brought up by some of my classmates. The tone he had was one of the contributing factors that made the book interesting and easier to process and read.
ReplyDeleteI felt irony was a crucial part of the point Galleano was trying to make through this book. Pauline pointed out a good example of it and there were many, many more throughout the text. The different points he was able to make with irony really contributed to the overall impression the book left you with.
The appearances of Miguel Marmol throughout the book, was an important element Galleano added in. From it, you were able to take a break from all the depressing and tragic events constantly occurring but I also think it had a higher purpose than that. I believe Miguel represented some kind of hope that shone throughout the entire course of the book, just to show readers that there was still good and that obstacles could be overcome with perseverance. Overall, Galleano’s story is one that is truly able to grasp and influence its readers.
Starting with The Omnivore's Dilemma, a lot of what we discussed in class had to do with the ignorance of the people. Agreeing with what Pauline said about how in supermarkets the meat products do not look like the animal they came from, that is an important point because people do not even realize what are the background of how the meat got there. Mr. Cook brought up the interesting question, Is Pollan scolding us? My thought on this is no, he is not scolding us, he is just making suggestions; giving us the knowledge that we deserve to know about what we put inside of our bodies. This reminds me of a discussion my class had in Health. Ms. Bridges asked the class, Who is to blame for the obesity in America; the fast food restaurants or the people? I believe that the people are to blame for this nation-wide issue. Fast food restaurants, such as McDonald's, are there for business. Business is always about money. These people don't really care about the health of the people. Although, over the years less fattening and more healthier foods has been added to the menu such as salads and fruit bowls. They even came out with a chart listed with all of the calories each meal or food item contains. People still continue to eat here, which in my opinion is an unhealthy choice. This relates to the question, “Is he scolding us?” because Pollan warns us from every aspect of what we are eating, where the food we eat comes from, and how the food is processed. It is up to the consumer to determine whether or not to change the way they eat no matter if the food comes from the grocery store or a fast food restaurant. It we can we will, if we can’t we won’t. Another question that Mr. Cook asked which made me think is, Why aren’t the “smart” people the one growing our food? There were many different arguments to this question. Following up about what Abby said, farming is not a subject that is introduced before/after high school. Traditionally, students work hard during their whole high school career to get good grades to graduate, to get into a good college. These intelligent students have worked hard reading books and doing more mental work than physical work, they wouldn’t want to throw it all away to be a farmer. I noticed how my classmates stereotyped people are either “smart” or “dumb.” During the class discussion, I recall Romy contrasting the life of a doctor and a farmer. If they were to trade places they would be considered “dumb” because a doctor does not have the knowledge of a farmer and would not know how to grow crops, and a farmer wouldn’t know how to operate on a human. This brings up what Winslow mentioned that who you are is dependent on the environment you grew up in. If a child grows up in the farming environment, they are likely to become a farmer and if they don’t go to school and become “book smart” they are stereotyped as “dumb.” I can relate to this because both my parents, having come from Italy, they did not receive any type of education. My mother stopped going to school at the age of six due to her being sick and missing a lot of it. She grew up doing house hold chores such as cleaning, sewing, and cooking. Her parents grew up with no education, my grandmother was and still is a housewife, while my grandfather is a fisherman. On the other hand, my father did manage to graduate high school in Italy before moving to America with my mother. His father, being born and had grown up in Italy, had no education either and became a fisherman, which is what my father had did and is still doing now after moving to America with my mother. They are who they are based on the environment they grew up in. As for me, growing up in America, I am living in a different environment than they grew up in, I am being introduced to many different types of opportunities and will not follow in their footsteps. The overall argument of Pollan’s book is to inform his readers of what their eating and to have them decide to chose their way of eating.
ReplyDeleteI also feel like the Century of the Wind discussion was brief, but what I got out of it was the belief that the book was about the constant life and death cycle, and how even when there’s death, life will always go on for the most part uninterrupted. I heard Maddie say a lot of interesting things about Century of the Wind that I never would have considered, and I think she put a lot of time and thought into analyzing the book. I believe I heard her mention something about the struggle for life and death though, and how easily life can be taken away. I agree with this as well, and think that Galeano was trying to get this point across. But I want to add that I feel like the book was more of a celebration of life, rather than mourning death, even though there are times in the book that are so utterly depressing that one could get stuck on the idea that the book was doing the latter rather than the former. I also think that using Miguel Marmol as the reoccurring escape artist was another way for him to try to understand that life was about life, as well as death, and it’s the balance between the two that makes it worth living. It was also a sort of relief from all the pain that was being written about in other stories since Miguel always got ‘reborn.’ His methods of doing this were interesting, because the way he wrote was so unbelievably sad, comical, and matter-of-fact all at once and that really grabbed my attention and made me unsure as to how to feel about the whole thing. Galeano definitely got his point across though with his writing, and made his argument about his opinion of life clear to me.
ReplyDeletefirstly, being a memoir, the book is one big blog of existence being processed, and in a way, this is a ritual that many peoplr seem intersted in (e.g. last year i took writing for pub and half the kids wrote memoirs for their final projects) so that, if you walk through the biography section in that lovely dark and creeky metal backroom of the sawyer free library, there are more there than could ever interest a person. so i really have to start with what Mr. cook said about rituals being an act of removing oneself fom a situation in order to reflect on and process it. this aspect of the book, it being what it is, is unnavoidable. But then, Zoe says that this is not the end, like a reflection vould be presumed to be, like the biographies of useless dead people whom noone cares about and never will, but this time, the book, like the vigil is a beginning, because the vigil was "the first time anybody acknowledge that what happened was not natural." Really, the book made all sorts of cases and, yes, had persuasive arguments, but what it illustrated was what it itself was--it is a self-contained phenomonon similar to The Omnivore's Dilemma in this respect. It illustrated a turning point, realization, and release--a beginning--from every previous occurance and trauma. even in this, though, the previous events have to have concluded, and all sorts of stuff. i just keep erasing everything i like because i'm still deciding what i think about the book. manipulative, yes, and dramatic, and painfully real, and finally persuasive. it makes the case that--what. i'll go back do that. It compells me to action, demanding that if i love something i must take charge of fixing it. it makes me realize how important grass-roots organizations are. it demonstates how government programs need to coordinate with local organization in order to be affective. it shows how only locals can understand a place. it shows how it takes a lifetime to reconcile with our lives--no--to know what to do with our lives--no--to form a right relationship with the world. All Souls makes the case that love compells action.
ReplyDeleteI just have to say that i love danielle's way of putting it that "life goes on" and Winslow's idea when he stated "I think another part of human will is conquering weaker humans and controlling them." firstly, that's just hilarious to read, secondly, it's something would never think to say, and lastly, my big sister says it's reminiscent of nietzsche's idea encapsulated in the will to power, which she says fed the idea of ubermenchen and untermenchen--but then, mr. cook dislikes Hitlers comparisons (or am i wrong?) but all mass murder harkens to all the other instances of subjugation and mass murder.
After listening to everyone's thoughts, one that stood out to me when talking about the Omnivore's Dilema was Elizabeth's. I found it clear that the author did not expect a world change, but what I took from it, was that his goal was to make people aware. I was able to see that everyone is their own person and although the ideal world isn't realistic, the author offers us with alternatives to take babysteps in bettering our lives. I also felt he was harsh in his ways of guilting the reader into feeling bad about the past decisions they have made, it makes more of an impact. Another topic i felt passionate about was the farming. My thought on that is brief in the sense that i think along with my classmates, that the people that are passionate about it are the ones who should make a career out of it.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing I felt extremely passionate about in the discussion of All Souls was the message that the most powerful in my opinion. I think the author did an amaing job of giving us the message of not forgetting where we came from because it is such a huge part of who we are. I wanted to expand on what i was saying in class. I have seen first hand in Gloucester, people taking their pride and turning it into ignorance. I am a Gloucester girl through and through, and my home is a huge part of who i am, and i think this could be said for most of the people living here. I also think that changes the way people view not only their town but others. It's as if people want to make their home seem superior to everyone else. It's not always easy to admit that a place that you love and are a part of has faults. I also agree with Mr. Cook when he says that to appreciate something you really have to leave for a while. I can't wait to explore what else is out there, knowing that Gloucester will always be a home i can come back too. Maybe leaving would allow me to appreciate such a beautiful place that much more.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Century of the Wind I had a very difficult time defining a central argument, and so listening to every body share their views in class over the last few days has left me with a lot to think about. I’ve heard a lot about the connection of life and death, and the importance of understanding the significance of both, but for me, a lot of what Galeano wrote struck me as a commentary on the similarity of the people living in the Americas. He wrote about different time periods, different countries, and yet the humanity of them all came through in a very recognizable way. Another thing that holds true for me is the importance of the humor in Galeano’s writing style (as mentioned in class). I feel that without his wry, and sometimes-ironic way of “reporting” the news of the event, the book would have been wildly depressing and difficult to get through. Written the way it was though, it lead the reader to notice and wonder at the absurdity of human behavior, and life in general. This was another of the main themes discovered and discussed in class last week. I think most of us agreed that a lot of Century of the Wind highlights just how strange people can be. Someone mentioned that this book highlights the underdog of history (I can’t remember who it was…) and I think that that’s partially what makes for such an entertaining, and interesting book. These stories have not been told before, but we do have connections ready to be made from the other side of the story. History is written by the victorious, and hearing about the losing side has never been better. Although Galeano writes with humor, he also manages to convey a large amount of feeling in considerably small pieces of writing. His staccato passage style keeps the book interesting and intriguing.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I love what Maddie said about All Souls "All Souls makes the case that love compels action."
ReplyDeleteJust sayin..
As for Century of the Wind, Galeano structures his book so that different stories about the Americas overlap. I’ve noticed that for some of my classmates it was easy for them to understand, but for me it was a bit confusing. I like the way Galeano structured the book in chronological order, that made a lot of sense to me. I also like how the passages were short and simple. He compressed them and got straight the point of the story and didn’t add in anything that was irrelevant to that certain part of the selection. Throughout the course of the novel, we come to find that the story of Miguel Marmol life is told. Miguel Marmol is a perfect example of what Danielle says about the lesson that is learned from this novel is that “life goes on.” Miguel went through a lot of deaths and tragedies. He was an important element, as Katie had said. I believe that is the central argument of this novel. By telling of Miguel’s life, he demonstrates how when someone dies, life just keeps going on, unchanged. I believe that Galeano did put him in there intentionally for him to represent some sort of symbol of peace or hope. Like Danielle, I did not quite the humor that Galeano used in this novel either but I agree with what Zoe said about how the humor was an important concept and without it the novel would be quite depressing.
ReplyDeleteWinslow P
ReplyDeleteAlong with Rachel I was not aware of any follow up discussion with the first book we discussed, Century of the Wind. This said I will try to remember what was said and what I thought about or made connections to at the time. While discussing this book I remember talking about human nature and the will to rebel and survive. As much as I believe this is true I believe that human will is not based on the idea of rebeling under unfair leadership. I think another part of human will is conquering weaker humans and controlling them. What would the people be rebelling against if noone ever had the idea to lead them in the first place. One example to support my theory that humans like to lead and be in charge of lesser establishments is the American Revolution. The colonies rebelled unfair leadership by the monarchy of England. And what was the first thing they did after they rebelled? These same colonists who expressed the human will to rebel proceeded to participate in a slave trade where they controlled the African race. Also these colonists with the human will to rebel took advantage of the Native Americans and killed and controlled them. In my mind there is a human will to be independant but that is only half of the mindset, people also like to be incharge and controll things and people. I believe Galeano represented both parts of this in the book but we only discussed the first half in class.
While discussing Omnivores Dilemma I made a huge connection to what I thought was the main argument of All Souls. Someone mentioned that not many people went into farming because you have to grow up farming to end up in that industry. In my rhetorical analysis of All Souls I mentioned the idea that who you are is majorly dependant on your environment. I believe that this is a universal truth to any person and any place. I thought it was interesting that this point would come up in both books, even though it is true to anything in the world I did not expect it to come up in this discussion for Omnivores Dilemma. In my mind i think Pollan wrote this book to show that we do have a choice but he was not telling us what to choose. All he did was present both sides of an argument. If he had to say one thing to the reader i believe he would say, "You have a choice, you can make a difference, but you do not have to." In my mind this makes his book more powerful. Anyone can write a persuasive argument where they tell you what to believe. It takes much more skill to present both sides but still make the reader think what you want without ever saying this. This is possible because although he does present both sides he creates a stronger argument for the side he is choosing without making it to obvious. The little things like making people connect to his experience at McDonalds are what makes the book powerful. By using this one example he shows how industry is changing animals into unrecognisable food. This is also genious because he uses a powerful example that everyone can relate too. I believe that Pollan is a very good argumentitive writer and he presents an almost perfect argument.
Romy H
ReplyDeleteThe message I got from Century of the Wind is that life moves on. Even through all of the horror and struggle, the peoples’ main goal is to remain happy. Galeano’s history of the Americas gives the reader a closer insight into what as really happened in North and South America. Take Miguel Marmol, for example, by seeing how many times he was a ‘hairs breath away from death,’ it makes the reader appreciate life more. There is war going on right now, and there always will be whether it involves the government or only two people. It is human nature to conquer and be the greatest we can be. Humans instinctively want power and we will always fight for it. I think the point that Galeano wanted to make is that even with the constant battles, life is short and we should make the best out of it.
In the Omnivore’s Dilemma I believe that Pollen wasn’t trying to shove his beliefs on us or make us change our eating habits, but to inform us and make the reader less naïve and ignorant. Before reading this book, I have to admit I didn’t even think about how often corn was a major ingredient in most of the food we eat. Nor did I know how much science was actually involved in growing corn. It is clear that Pollen leans towards Polyface. Everything is natural and humane. The animals aren’t caged and are free to roam as they should. Sadly, Polyface isn’t realistic. A solution to this problem would be for Americans to eat less meat. A lot of us eat meat everyday, multiple times a day. Polyface can’t produce meat as quickly as a slaughterhouse can. If our meat intake decreased, the amount of Polyface farms could increase.