Thursday, January 25, 2007

SAMPLE ESSAY #1

Eroticism in the Poetry of Walt Whitman

Walt Whitman's poems often alude or directly state sexuality. While he tries hard to write about women and men the same, he treats homosexual eroticism and heterosexual eroticism differently.

In the poem "I Sing the Body Electric," Whitman has equal stanzas for both men and women. But they are all very different. When Whitman describes women he seems to be very detached and speaks from a more general veiw. In each section about women he mostly writes stuff about them that has to do with things like motherhood. But not sexually. As Whitman is describing the two sexes in their daily lives, the woman was a mothering cow. In stanzas about the auction of slaves, he describes the woman as "the bearer of them that shall grow and be mates and mothers." Every time Whitman describes women, he goes back to this maternal image of them. Even when Whitman has a few short lines about the female sexuality, he immediately has a line of "She is to conceive daughters as well as sons.

Whitman's writing style is also different when he writes the female sections. His words seem to be more natural and flowy like a woman is just a part of nature. He uses phrases like "folds of their dress" and "bend of legs, negligent flowing hands..."

Even though Witman gives male and female equal time in the poem, you can tell he is clearly drawn to the man. He was compairing a woman in flowing dress on the street to naked swimmers and wrestlers. The way he describes man is so much more passionate and erotic. He always seems to talk of women from a detached voice but seems to actually be watching men, or physically touching them. He describes an old farmer then says "you wish to sit by him in the boat, that you and him might touch each other." Whitman is never physically with any woman he decribes.

Try as he might, Whitman is clearly prone to homoeroticism. You simply can't compare birthing mothers to naked swimmers and say Whitman is not homoerotic. Even though he acknowledges women's sexuality, he simply does not find them erotic.

SAMPLE ESSAY #2

W.E.B. Du Bois at Odds With Booker T. Washington

Du Bois voiced his first public criticism of Washington in The Souls of Black Folk, a series of essays permeated with his growing resentment. What caught the public eye was the section entitled “Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others,” which, though it recognized the Tuskegee educator’s achievements, unmistakably took him to task on a number of counts. Washington’s educational program, declared Du Bois, was “unnecessarily narrow,” and had developed into a “gospel of Work and Money to such an extent as apparently almost completely to overshadow the higher aims of life.” His failure to see, in Du Bois’s estimation, that no educational system could exist “on any other basis than that of the well-equipped college or university,” and his corresponding overemphasis on industrial training was stunting the growth of Black higher education and destroying the opportunity for developing the best minds of the race.

As Du Bois admitted, however, some of the criticism of Washington stemmed from “mere envy” and from “the disappointment of displaced demagogues and the spite of narrow minds.” Even Du Bois’s own attacks occasionally showed a distinctly personal element. But Washington could afford to me magnanimous; the fact that the Anti-Slavery Society, a British organization, should have felt it necessary to ask his advice before extending a welcome to Du Bois demonstrates how completely Washington dominated the scene. It was this very domination which the opposition group so resented. Their differences with Washington sprang from a sincere and significant disagreement on the approach to Black advancement, but mainly they feared that the ascendancy of the “Tuskegee Machine,” as Du Bois called it, had given Washington a power over Black affairs which they felt should not be vested in any individual.

In the realm of civil rights Washington had spoken against disenfranchisement and lynching, but his protest was far too mild for Du Bois, and his voluntary surrender of full citizenship had “without a shadow of a doubt” aided White society’s supposed design to take away the Black ballot and assign Blacks to “a distinct status of civil inferiority.” Furthermore, Du bois asserts, Washington’s emphasis on self-help released White society, Northern or Southern, from any and all responsibility to the betterment of its Black counterpart. It was not a problem for one race or for one region, as Washington tended to think, but a problem for the nation as a whole. For Du Bois, a Black could not hope for success “unless his striving be not simply seconded, but rather aroused and encouraged, by the initiative of the richer and wiser environing group.”

Finally, Du Bois warned of a group of “educated and thoughtful” Blacks who were alarmed by some of Washington’s theories and who had never accepted whole-heartedly his leadership, thrust upon them as it had been by “outer pressure.” Their criticism had been largely hushed by public opinion, but they now felt “in conscience bound” to ask of the nation three things: the right to vote, civic equality, and the education of youth according to ability. So far as Washington preached thrift, patience, and industrial training for the masses, they would support him. “But,” Dubois concludes, “so far as Mr. Washington apologizes for injustice, North or South, does not rightly value the privilege and duty and voting, belittles the emasculating effects of caste distinctions, and opposes the higher training and ambition of our brighter minds – so far as he, the South, or the Nation, does this – we must unceasingly and firmly oppose them.”
During the last twelve years of his life Washington was pursued relentlessly by his self-appointed gadfly, Du Bois. Soon abandoning the measured, restrained tones of The Souls of Black Folk, Du Bois elaborated his attack to take issue with Washington on almost every point of his program. This is not to say that the public viewed them as champions of opposing armies, as Du Bois often characterized their ideological relationship; for most laymen of the time had not even heard of Du Bois. But within the narrow circle of Blacks anxious to have a part in determining race leadership and program, the struggle between Washington and Du Bois was of real significance.
Except for a common dedication to the cause of race advancement, the personalities of the two men seem to differ as widely as their ideas. Washington was a practical realist, interested primarily in attaining tangible goals; Du Bois was romantic, willing and eager to fight for principle even at the expense of the surer gains he saw as the fruits of compromise. In contrast to Du Bois’s poetic temperament, Washington’s was simple, direct, prosaic. Though Du Bois as an intellectual liked to deal with ideas, while Washington preferred men and things, Du Bois was by far the more emotional. Washington was first and last an American, while Du Bois characterized himself first and last as Black. Washington possessed a genuine humility and an ability to identify himself with the common man; Du Bois was imperious, egocentric, and aloof. To Du Bois, Washington’s faith in man and God was somewhat naive.

In his critique of the Tuskegee philosophy, Du Bois denied the hypothesis on which Washington’s program rested: the necessity of cooperation with the White South. He could not agree that there was a solidarity of interest between the Southern Black and the Southern White which made the race problem one to be solved from within. The price for cooperation and support, according to Do Bois, was too high: “Today the young Negro of the South who would succeed cannot be frank and outspoken. . . . He must flatter and be pleasant, endure petty insults with a smile, shut his eyes to wrong. . . . His real thoughts, his real aspirations, must be guarded in whispers.” Even had he rationally accepted Washington’s premise, Du Bois would likely have found it hard to follow him emotionally; for to Du Bois the White man was an enemy rather than a friend.

Since both men were educators, their divergence in educational philosophy became the focal point of their most widely publicized and ideologically telling disagreement. To Du Bois, an intellectual who had no doubt that the really important things in life lay in the realm of the mind, Washington’s emphasis on bank accounts and ownership of property was an abhorrent debasement of human (and especially Black) potential. Deploring the fact that “for every social ill the panacea of wealth has been urged,” he insisted that “the object of all true education is not to make men carpenters, it is to make carpenters men.” He wailed at Washington’s sense that education should begin at the bottom and expand upward.

He therefore championed the cause of higher education for the best Black minds at institutions like Fisk, Atlanta, and Howard, setting forth the doctrine of the “Talented Tenth,” a term which became the trade-mark of his educational philosophy: “The Talented Tenth of the Negro race must be made leaders of thought and missionaries of culture among their people. No others can do this work and Negro colleges must train men for it. The Negro race, like all other races, is going to be saved by its exceptional men.”

Washington vigorously denied that he opposed the higher training and ambition of the brighter minds of the race. “I would not by any means have it understood,” he insisted, “that I would limit or circumscribe the mental development of the Negro student.” Recalling the many industrial schools of Germany, where Du Bois, ironically, received much of his education, he made plain his opposition to the “ill-advised” notion that industrial education meant class education to which Blacks should be confined. Industrial education “should be given in a large measure to any race, regardless of color, which is in the same stage of development as the Negro,” he maintained.

SAMPLE ESSAY #3

The Lost Colony of Roanoke, 1588

Almost all Americans have heard of the lost colony of Roanoke. There are many things, however, that you might not know. Did you know, for example, that Roanoke was one of the first English colonies on American soil? How about that Europeans were the very first to settle on Roanoke? What about how the colony was lost in 1588? There are several different ideas on how this colony was lost that even historians can’t agree on.

Some people say the entire population was killed off by a hurricane. Oddly, however, all of the buildings were still there, just deserted. A hurricane would have destroyed the buildings, not just the people.

Others think that Roanoke was ravaged by a disease. Strangely, there were no bodies found. How can you die and have your body disappear? Quite a ridiculous theory isn’t it?

Another theory is that the 90 men, 17 women and nine children of Roanoke simply left the colony and settled on Chesapeake Bay to keep other English settlers from stealing their land. This idea also has problems.

First, these weren’t the original English settlers, but a second group coming to pick up the fifteen men that were stranded on Roanoke by first colonists the year before. This second group’s mission was to save that original group of 15, but was delayed by a storm and ended up stranded themselves and had to rebuild Roanoke.

Second, this group was actually waiting to be helped by the English because the natives were angry and they were kind of scared. In fact, they sent the Governor, John White back to England to ask for help. Unfortunately, Governor White got delayed by storms and the captain refused the passage back to Roanoke because it was winter.

Then, England’s war with the Spanish required all available larger boats. Governor White had to get smaller boats with greedy captains who attempted to rob other boats but got robbed themselves. This left the colonists at Roanoke for two years afraid of the natives who might attack them. So, the colonists were not afraid of the English, but were actually waiting for them.

This led to another popular theory that the people of Roanoke were killed by natives. Again, though, there were no bodies found at the site. Strangely, there was also no evidence of any recent battle.
It could also be that the people of Roanoke went to live with the only friendly group of natives, the Croatoans. Actually, the word “croatoan” was carved in a fence post and was also is the name of a nearby island. This is very probable. It might be what really happened!

It is an incredible fact that historians up to now have no sure explanation about what exactly happened to the colonists and the residents of Roanoke in 1588. There are several different theories about what happened during that three year period. Some, as we know, include a hurricane or the spread of a disease. Even peculiar yet popular theories such as extraterrestrial abductions have been issued. After looking at all the theories and evidence, the most probable explanation for what happened to Roanoke is that the colonists were stranded, waited for the English, but had to leave the colony and stay with the Croatoans.

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

"Self-Reliance" Assignments

Assignment on Emerson’s “Self-Reliance”
Quotation Analysis Exercise (20 pts for content, 20 points for style)

Hopefully you have read this essay, otherwise, this is going to be tremendously taxing. Your job here is to teach the class what the following quotations from “Self-Reliance” mean. You will have ninety seconds per group member to do so starting Friday, the day after tomorrow. You may use any means at your disposal to accomplish this. You may break your discussion of the quotation among yourselves any way you see fit, but consider that you will each be scored individually. Bear in mind the diversity of depth, length and quality of our Thoreau assignments before the break. Some were brilliant and thoughtfully put together. Some were sloppy and half-hearted at best. Try not to be the group that squanders its time and slaps things together at the last moment, it will be obvious. In order to receive full credit for the content of your presentation, you must do the following:

Find the quotation your group has been given in its original context.
Discuss what it means within that context.
Discuss how it could be applied now.
Discuss what the impact of its current application might be.

Style credit will be awarded according to our Analytic Traits for speaking.

1. Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.
2. Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.
3. Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist.
4. What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think.
5. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.
6. It is easy to see that a greater self-reliance must work a revolution in all the offices and relations of men; in their religion; in their education; in their pursuits; their modes of living; their association; in their property; in their speculative views.
7. Traveling is a fool's paradise.
8. Insist on yourself; never imitate.
9. Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other.
10. The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet.
11. Society is a wave. The wave moves onward, but the water of which it is composed does not.
12. Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.

Assignment on Emerson’s “Self-Reliance”
Discussion Question Exercise (20 points for content, 20 points for style)

Below are your discussion questions for “Self-Reliance.” You will have ninety seconds per group member to respond to them in class one week from today. As you may have noticed from my seeming inability to approach such things in a consistent manner, questions like these can be approached and addressed in a variety of ways. Individually, cooperatively, competitively… It’s almost as if I’m just not quite sure of the one best way to do things, isn’t it? Given the subject matter here, I think it only fitting to leave you almost entirely to your own devices in deciding how you will deal with one of these questions. You may choose any single question below to answer. Please note, however, that if you choose a question already chosen by anyone else, you will be grouped together during your response time on Wednesday. So, things could work out like a group presentation, like a forum, like a debate, like an individual speech… It’s all up to you. Of course, everyone will have to rely on themselves for their grade.

Both Style and Content credit will be awarded according to our Analytic Traits for speaking.

1. How is Emerson's idea of Self-Reliance different from and similar to the common use of the term (take care of your own needs and don't depend on others outside yourself)?
2. Is Emerson really saying, "Believe anything you want to believe and do anything you want to do"? Is he really saying, "Nothing outside yourself matters"?
3. In what ways is Emerson speaking religiously -- that is, about our relationship to the divine?
4. Emerson's religious ideas are claimed today by groups as diverse as the Unitarian Universalists and the Mormons. Does this make sense? How have such different religious groups made use of Emerson's ideas, especially those in "Self-Reliance"?
5. How does Emerson's "Self-Reliance" inspire the environmental and sustainable growth movements today?
6. What would Emerson think of the survivalist movement?
7. What would Emerson think of 21st century American capitalism?
8. Would Emerson's ideas as expressed in this essay result in a stronger or weaker government? More or less democracy?
9. Was Emerson a liberal or conservative -- and in what ways? (You might also want to read Emerson's essay "The Conservative.")
10. What would Emerson think about today's libertarianism?
11. If you're familiar with the work of Ayn Rand, how is Emerson alike, how is he different?
12. What would Emerson say about the human capacity for good and for evil?
13. How have Emerson's ideas helped shape our concept of the American Dream?

ANALYSIS OF EMERSON'S "SELF-RELIANCE"

THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE: http://www.transcendentalists.com/self_reliance_analysis.htm
IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW ANY OF THE LINKS OR SEEK MOR INFORMATION, I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU GO THERE AND BEGIN YOUR DIGGING.

Help in understanding Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay, Self-Reliance:

"It is said to be the age of the first person singular" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Nothing at last is sacred but the integrity of your own mind." - Ralph Waldo Emerson, from Self-Reliance

Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay "Self-Reliance" is often the first or only exposure students get to Emerson's thought. Here are some resources to help understand this essay:

Background:

What is Transcendentalism?
An essay introducing the background and context of Transcendentalism, for help in understanding where Emerson's ideas came from.

Transcendentalism - Definitions
From Emerson himself, with some dictionary and other simple definitions listed as well.

Transcendentalism
Basic information on Transcendentalism - links to the two items above plus more.

Self-Reliance Online

Self-Reliance - HTML searchable copy of the text at EmersonCentral.com

About Emerson's essay, "Self-Reliance"

On Self-Reliance
Ann Woodlief's excellent introduction to the Emerson essay, Self-Reliance.

Emerson and the Irony of Self-Reliance: An American Response to Nihilism
An article by Alfred I. Tauber (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader). Looks at the problem of selfhood in Emerson's essay and relates that to relevance today, especially in religious belief in our increasingly-secular age.

Versions of Romanticism From Emerson's Self-Reliance
A short essay, some selections from the essay, and some excellent questions for thinking about Emerson's ideas.

Culture of the Common Man
A short introduction to American culture about 1841, looking at Emerson's essay and its relationship to ideas of democracy, culture and the masses.

Self-Reliance and Ralph Waldo Emerson
A Unitarian Universalist minister muses about the position of Emerson in that faith today, where he's often considered a "prophet of religious liberalism."

Self-Reliance (1841) - about the book and its author

Essays based on Self-Reliance

Note to lazy students: don't think to copy these -- your teacher also knows where they are! They're here to show some examples of how students have approached the topic. Rely on your own self!

After Reading Emerson's Self-Reliance

Self-Reliance and Creative Destruction - by Bryan Caplan

Self-Reliance Now - Kristen Rosenfeld

Ralph Waldo Emerson's Self-Reliance - Piper S. Colemanscurry

Response to Emerson’s Self-Reliance

Writing about Self-Reliance

If you're trying to write an essay on what Self-Reliance means, be sure to take Emerson's own ideas into consideration! A good teacher assigning an essay on Self-Reliance will admire a student who takes Emerson's thought seriously. Parroting back what you think the teacher wants to hear about Emerson is to violate the very spirit of the essay!

But that doesn't mean that you can write just anything. Emerson's essay urges us to take our ideas seriously, not lightly. Does your idea resonate with your innermost voice of reason and conscience?

Quotations from "Self-Reliance"

It's worth thinking about these quotations. Try to figure out what they mean. Sometimes they make more sense when you see them in context -- do a search on the essay online to find their context.

Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.
Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.
Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist.
What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.
It is easy to see that a greater self-reliance must work a revolution in all the offices and relations of men; in their religion; in their education; in their pursuits; their modes of living; their association; in their property; in their speculative views.
Travelling is a fool's paradise.
Insist on yourself; never imitate.
Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other.
The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet.
Society is a wave. The wave moves onward, but the water of which it is composed does not.
And so the reliance on Property, including the reliance on governments which protect it, is the want of self-reliance.
Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.


Some questions to think about:

How is Emerson's idea of Self-Reliance different from and similar to the common use of the term (take care of your own needs and don't depend on others outside yourself)?
Is Emerson really saying "Believe anything you want to believe and do anything you want to do"? Is he really saying "Nothing outside yourself matters"?
In what ways is Emerson speaking religiously -- that is, about our relationship to the divine?
Emerson's religious ideas are claimed today by groups as diverse as the Unitarian Universalists and the Mormons. Does this make sense? How have such different religious groups made use of Emerson's ideas, especially those in "Self-Reliance"?
How do Emerson's "Self-Reliance" and Thoreau's ideas (in "Walden" and elsewhere) inspire the environmental and sustainable growth movements today?
What would Emerson think of the survivalist movement?
What would Emerson think of 21st century American capitalism?
Would Emerson's ideas as expressed in this essay result in a stronger or weaker government? More or less democracy?
Was Emerson a liberal or conservative -- and in what ways? (You might also want to read Emerson's essay "The Conservative.")
What would Emerson think about today's libertarianism?
If you're familiar with the work of Ayn Rand, how is Emerson alike, how is he different?
What would Emerson say about the human capacity for good and for evil?
How have Emerson's ideas helped shape our concept of the American Dream?
Should students read more essays of Emerson, or just this one? Is this the best selection from Emerson for a high school or college student?


A closing thought:

Like many thinkers, Emerson's thought evolved through his lifetime. He later came to value social reform movements and group action more than he did in his early life. This was perhaps partly due to the maturity one gains in the life cycle, perhaps partly due to the failure of individual philanthropy to solve the increasing social problems of his age, perhaps partly due to the issue of slavery, in which the individual interests of slave vs. slaveholder were in stark contrast. But certainly, Emerson's later writing was more interested in relationships among people, and ethical behavior, than early works like "Self-Reliance" may indicate. Nevertheless, the worldview expressed in "Self-Reliance" is not, I would contend, one of radical separation of the individual from the rest of the universe, though Emerson has sometimes been accused of that view.