English 1101
You will compose a two to three page response
to one of the assigned texts (i.e. Doskoch, Anders, Lefkowitz, Naylor, or
Egan). In this response, you must analyze a major point from one (or possibly
two) of the aforementioned essayists and then use that analysis as the
foundation for your extended comment.
Your analysis should run less than a page and your own creative,
individual response much longer—a page and
You should follow a few helpful hints while
crafting and editing your papers. Please
do not waste your time (and mine) opening your essay with shopworn observations
(“In today’s society…” or “Throughout history…”); you would do much better to
cut straight to the subject so that discussion and development far outweigh any
spindly, dim-eyed, limp-backed, wizen-toothed preamble you might otherwise give
birth to. Also, do not over-summarize
the source text. Take for granted that
the class and I have already read the material.
Requirements: Quote from your source
text (but sparingly, NO BLOCK QUOTES.)
Write formally (but not
in overblown, pretentious rhetoric and prose.)
Rough Draft due TBA; Final draft due TBA
Three to four pages,
Titles such as Analysis of Lefkowitz’s
Article will not suffice.
1. To what extent does militia mentality
contribute to school shootings—at Colorado’s Columbine High School in 1999 or
the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007?
Write an argumentative essay on the appeal militias or militia mentality
hold for some young people. To develop
your ideas, consult Bernard Lefkowitz’s piece “Don’t Further Empower Cliques.”
2. Read through a pro-gun magazine such as
Soldiers of Fortune or American Rifle,
studying both the articles and the advertising.
Write an essay in which you analyze the ideology implicit in the magazine.
To what extent does the publication’s ideology match that of the militia groups
described by Doskoch? Are these
periodicals dangerous? Do they inflame
militia thinking? Or, are they harmless
readings for those peaceably inclined
in militia activity, hunting, and outdoor sportsmanship?
3. Do you accept or disagree with
Doskoch’s claim that terrorism is mostly a transnational phenomenon, that
Americans should not confuse homegrown militia operations with terror groups
who violently oppose American civilization?
Also, how does your opinion here impact your attitude about
infiltration? Do you favor Doskoch’s
argument that infiltrating these groups pose more harm than good?
Anders
1. As “Beauty and the Battle” shows,
winning acceptance in one group might mean alienating another. What has Heather Whitestone given up by not
learning to sign, by not socializing primarily with other deaf persons? Has she
paid too great a cost by assimilating into the mainstream? What implications, good and bad, does her
mainstreaming hold for other disabled people?
2. In an essay, reflect on the reasons
behind “crab theory” (para. 17) in any minority group. To develop your evidence, you might interview
members of a minority group and ask them about their experiences with
intragroup critique. To what extent does
the mass media play a role in encouraging crab theory?
Construct an essay around the author’s split between
mutilation and modification. Is there
possibly a gray space between these two phenomena;
in
other words, is body modification a serious problem that people are not taking
seriously enough at the moment? Why or
why not? Are modifiers concealing a
dangerous and unhealthy psyche behind a performative disguise and claims of
pride and self-assertion? Or, are we
trying to impose an unfair and prejudicial standard on people who simply choose
not to assimilate fully into the mainstream?
Respond to Lefkowitz’s charge that a school’s
celebration of athletes and their accomplishment can “honor this one type of
youngster-aggressive,
arrogant,
and intensely competitive—above all others” (para. 6). How has Lefkowitz skewed his argument? How can athletics benefit youngsters? How much fault should go to the athletes,
coaches, doting parents, and other figures of authority?
Naylor
1.
Recently, the NAACP held a highly publicized press conference wherein
members and guests ceremoniously buried the “N” word, suggesting its
death
in casual and formal discourse. This act
directly opposes Naylor’s perspective.
What stance do you take, for or against Naylor or somewhere in between,
and why do you take this stance? Ground
your argument in your own subject position as African American, Caucasian,
Hispanic, Pacific Islander, Asian American, or Native American. How does your racial identity inform your
attitude toward this use of the word?
How does your race complicate (or simplify) your relationship to the
word?
2.
How would Naylor’s argument apply to other inflammatory words and
phrases, language often infused with hateful contexts and histories.
Consider
bitch, faggot, and towelhead, to
name but a few derogatory terms regarding gendered, sexual, and religious
difference. Analyze Naylor’s concept of
appropriation and then articulate a stance on other forms and acts of
appropriation. Can these words and their
attached identities ever achieve total redefinition? How does your own subject position within or
apart from these identities complicate or simplify your argument?