From Peter Elbows perspective it is absolutely necessary to establish a writing process in order to explain his/her views of writing. His view of writing really begins with the writing process. Using it is beneficial when it comes to how you organize your views within an essay. He also believes that the writing process can definitely be improved by giving students the opportunity to have a group of peers to share their writing with. From my experience in writing 101 this quarter I found it beneficial to have peer review where we can give and also get comments on pros and cons to our writing. I entirely agree with Elbow on his view of writing because it’s essential to having a productive essay to have peers to talk to about your writing. While writing you can often get stuck and having those peers to go to is something to look forward to when writing an essay.
Peter Elbows view of writing matched my view of writing well because writing is something that takes creativity and lots of practice. The peer review really gave me a good understanding of what I needed to focus on and fix to make my essays better. Like Peter Elbow, I believe that group work does highlight the “interactive nature of creativity,” but I also feel that having the group peer review didn’t always benefit me. For example, many people just focused on what was working in the essay and didn’t give any feed back as to what I should work on. That is the whole objective of having peer review isn’t it? Well Elbow said that, “If they don’t agree or have trouble understanding, so much the better- so long as their minds are not closed.” I feel that many minds were closed during peer review, I don’t know if that was because they didn’t want to give feedback or they just were posting so they would get credit but I would’ve really liked to get some good constructive criticism to work off of. Overall my experience in writing 101 has changed my view of writing drastically, like before, in other classes where we would have to write a boring 5 paragraph structured essay with no peer review. Peter Elbow and I are on the same page when it comes to having a writing process and using peer review to benefit our writing.
This fall quarter my writing process has developed from writing word webs to outlines that pretty much are the first rough draft. This writing process has changed the way I put/formulate my ideas and how I stay focused on the topic at hand. Learning about Bacon's Rebellion (all key components) first, before choosing a topic to write about definitely helped/improve my thought process. I began with the topic that I thought most, interested me. I believe that doing this writing process helped the way I wrote my essay, for example the quotes that I used made my ideas/thoughts shine. Also, the way I broke the paragraphs up accordingly, to what sub-topic I was talking about. Overall doing this writing process, compared to previous learned writing processes, has made me grow into a better writer.
Since I've been writing about history lately it has changed the way I learn about History. Writing about history changes my perspectives of what happened. I think that history is important to how we operate today. One of the huge occurrences that changed history was the Newspaper. Historical events that happened were often wrote in the newspaper. Mainly to form public opinion, which changed the way people thought.
During the course of this essay I picked the pace up and gathered my info as quickly as I could. Like essay #1, I struggled a bit getting started and putting my thoughts on paper. The only advantage I had while working on Essay #2 was the fact that I got to write about myself so to speak, rather than giving information as a 3rd party person. It gave me a chance to use my imagination and basically write a story. That's another thing that I noticed, how this essay gave us the option to write the following; Letter, Story, and or announcement. Essay #2, gave me the freedom to do basically what I wanted, but of course by following the rules given. If I were to write this paper all over again I would have tried harder to get it done faster, by this I mean have a concrete outline and have all the research done. with explicit citations for the paper.
During the course of this essay I picked the pace up and gathered my info as quickly as I could. Like essay #1, I struggled a bit getting started and putting my thoughts on paper. The only advantage I had while working on Essay #2 was the fact that I got to write about myself so to speak, rather than giving information as a 3rd party person. It gave me a chance to use my imagination and basically write a story. That's another thing that I noticed, how this essay gave us the option to write the following; Letter, Story, and or announcement. Essay #2, gave me the freedom to do basically what I wanted, but of course by following the rules given. If I were to write this paper all over again I would have tried harder to get it done faster, by this I mean have a concrete outline and have all the research done. with explicit citations for the paper.
My wife and I had just moved to Connecticut where we were forced to make a decision, to become a loyalist or patriot. The sudden force and demand to choose a side was intimidating. The Americans were very forceful in the attempt to establish patriots, not just in the state of Connecticut but rather where ever they possibly could. By this time I’ve realized that Connecticut was highly populated with patriots, making my decision hard. I could either choose loyalist or patriot, but what was so good about being a patriot? I thought to myself, did they have some kind of opportunities or advantages that loyalist didn’t have? Why was being a patriot so favorable by the Americans in the state of Connecticut? Well, as I began to think of my decision to become a loyalist or patriot; I studied both sides, trying to find pros and cons. Comparing and contrasting loyalists and patriots was no easy task because it could be favorable for both sides. The key theme that I began to see was that it was highly dependent on whether you were on the side of Britain or on the side of America. With this I notice that the loyalists had common ties with British economics and politics, and that the patriots were favored by the Americans because of the mutual feelings for “POWER.” In general, loyalists had strong cultural and economic ties to England.” (Roark P.229) I believe that to be an effective leader during this time, you not only need power, but also the strength and courage that come from the people you’re governing. In other words, don’t run or manage things the way you want too, but rather as how everyone as a “whole” wants to.
During the 1760s and 1770s, the years leading up to the American Revolution, I decided upon becoming a loyalist because I felt that we loyalists should stand up for what we believe in and not be subjected to the patriot acts of violence and cruelty.
The Americans attempt to gaining power in Connecticut
America was all about gaining power at this time but, didn't have everything to effectively do so. They would force and persuade many neutrals to gain their trust and allegiance. The Americans focused highly on patriots and neutrals for gaining power. Neutrals were people who didn't know what side to be on. Nevertheless, being a neutralist was very powerful at this time because they could either choose to be a loyalist or a patriot. The patriots were favored by the Americans because they seemed to have power and were very forceful towards the loyalists. Being a loyalist wasn't always a bad thing, if you were loyalist, you had good connections to England’s culture and economics. The main reason that England and the loyalists had a connection was because they both believed in having a monarchy and aristocracy in government, making it stable. A large number of loyalists continued being loyal to the crown in the 1770s, to keep the power that they had intact. The patriots’ only task was to increase their own power, by doing what they had to, being violent and vulgar to the loyalists to consider themselves hierarchy.
Connecticut during 1700s
During the 1700s Connecticut had many advantages that other states didn’t. They focused mainly on being a well known state for goodness and peace. “Few places in the world,” he believes, “presented a fairer example of peace and good order.” (G.A. Gilbert, the Connecticut loyalists) I believe that living in Connecticut gave my wife and me some advantages in choosing to be loyalists. For example; Connecticut thought that being a stable individual state was important and having peace with other states as well. On the other hand the Americans and the patriots believed in having their own independence to gain freedom and liberty. The British had what was called, “British rule,” which meant that Britain would rule over everyone. I being loyalist, agree with this because I thought their ruling and beliefs were correct and were a good way of taking charge.
Social issues in Connecticut
The social issues that affected my choice to become loyalist were the acts in which the patriots treated the loyalists. I believe that being a loyalist is harder than being a patriot because we were accused of being unjust and wrong in our ways of “British rule.” For we can hardly determine whether the Revolution originated in social and economic unrest, in deep-seated ideological tensions, or in a constitutional dilemma until we take seriously the activities of the loyalists during the Revolution.” (Paul H. Smith, The American loyalists: Notes on their organization and numerical strength.) With this I gather that the patriots thought of loyalist as being imaginary and nonexistent, even though they very much were. Approximately 20-30% was loyalists during the 1760s and 1770s. Yes, the patriots outnumbered the loyalists in Connecticut but that didn’t stop many of us to stand up for British rule. Nevertheless, I encountered advantages to being a loyalist economically. Under British rule, we always tried to control trade to and from North America, which gave us somewhat of an advantage. We also imposed laws and taxes, so that we could trade with colonies and to make sure that they don’t take trade into their own hands. This would in turn benefit Britain’s trade with other colonies.
During the 1760s and 1770s, the years leading up to the American Revolution, many people were forced to choose to be loyalist or patriot.
Arriving in Connecticut
Meanwhile my wife and I had just moved to Connecticut where we were forced to make a decision, to become a loyalist or patriot. The sudden force and demand to choose a side was intimidating. The British were very forceful in the attempt to establish patriots, not just in the state of Connecticut but rather where ever they possibly could. By this time I’ve realized that Connecticut was highly populated with patriots, making my decision hard. I could either choose loyalist or patriot, but what was so good about being a patriot, I thought to myself. Did they have some kind of opportunities or advantages that loyalist didn’t have? Why was being a patriot so favorable by the British in the state of Connecticut? Well, as I began to think of my decision to become a loyalist or patriot; I studied both sides, trying to find pros and cons. Comparing and contrasting loyalists and patriots was no easy task because it could be favorable for both sides. The key theme that I began to see was that it was highly dependent on whether you were on the side of Britain or on the side of England. With this I notice that the loyalists had common ties with England’s economics and politics, and that the patriots were favored by the British because of the mutual feelings for “POWER.”
Britain’s attempt on gaining power
Britain was all about gaining power at this time but, didn't have everything to effectively do so. They would force and persuade many neutrals to gain their trust and allegiance. Neutrals were people that didn't know what side to be on and the choice didn't matter so much to them. Being a Neutralist was very powerful at this time because they could either choose to be a loyalist or a patriot. Patriots were favored by the British because they seemed to have power and were very forceful towards the loyalists. Being a loyalist wasn't always a bad thing, if you were loyalist, you had good connections to England by culture and economics. The main reason that England and Loyalist had a connection was because they both believed in having a monarchy and aristocracy in government, making it stable. A large number of loyalists continued being loyal to the crown in the 1770s, to keep the power that they had intact. The patriots only task was to increase their own power, by doing what they had to, being violent and vulgar to the loyalists. The social issues affecting my choice to be loyalist or patriot are the way the British treat the loyalists. The British and the patriots called loyalists Tories, which was a slang or rude term to describe the loyalists.
During the 1760s and 1770s, the years leading up to the American Revolution, forced many people to choose to be loyalist or patriot.
----I: Britain was all about gaining power at this time but, didn't have everything to effectively do so. 1) They would force and persuade many neutrals to gain their trust and allegiance. a. Neutrals were people that didn't know what side to be on and the choice didn't matter so much to them. b. Being a Neutralist was very powerful at this time because they could either choose to be a loyalist or a patriot. c. Patriots were favored by the British because they seemed to have power and were very forceful towards the loyalists. 2) Being a loyalist wasn't always a bad thing, if you were loyalist, you had good connections to England by culture and economics. a. The main reason that England and Loyalist had a connection was because they both believed in having a monarchy and aristocracy in government, making it stable. b. A large amount of loyalists continued being loyal to the crown in the 1770s, to keep the power that they had, intact. c. The patriots only task was to increase their own power, by being violent and vulgar to the loyalists. 3) The social issues effecting the choice to be loyalist or patriot are the acts in which the British treat the loyalists. a. The British and the patriots called loyalists Tories, which was a slang or rude term to describe the loyalists. ----II: Being loyalist, I understand what Britain and the patriots think of me. 1) Yet I will stand up for myself and my fellow loyalists no matter what because that is my choice. a. I know that the patriots are favored by the British and will be backed up by the British, but I also know that I'm not the only loyalist, not by a long shot. b. The state of Connecticut is where I'm from and patriots are much more favorable than loyalist. c. Maybe compare and contrast "Patriots and Loyalists" --- Here
During the 1760s and 1770s, the years leading up to the American Revolution, forced many people to choose to be loyalist or patriot.
Britain was all about gaining power at this time but, didn't have everything to effectively do so. They would force and persuade many neutrals to gain their trust and allegiance. Neutrals were people that didn't know what side to be on and the choice didn't matter so much to them. Being a Neutralist was very powerful at this time because they could either choose to be a loyalist or a patriot. Patriots were favored by the British because they seemed to have power and were very forceful towards the loyalists. Being a loyalist wasn't always a bad thing, if you were loyalist, you had good connections to England by culture and economics. The main reason that England and Loyalist had a connection was because they both believed in having a monarchy and aristocracy in government, making it stable. A large amount of loyalists continued being loyal to the crown in the 1770s, to keep the power that they had intact. The patriots only task was to increase their own power, by doing what they had to, being violent and vulgar to the loyalists. The social issues effecting my choice to be loyalist or patriot are the way the British treat the loyalists. The British and the patriots called loyalists Tories, which was a slang or rude term to describe the loyalists.
During the 1760s and 1770s, the years leading up to the American Revolution, forced many people to choose to be loyalist or patriot.
I: Britain was all about gaining power at this time but, didn't have everything to effectively do so. 1) They would force and persuade many neutrals to gain their trust and allegiance. a. Neutrals were people that didn't know what side to be on and the choice didn't matter so much to them. b. Being a Neutralist was very powerful at this time because they could either choose to be a loyalist or a patriot. c. Patriots were favored by the British because they seemed to have power and were very forceful towards the loyalists. 2) Being a loyalist wasn't always a bad thing, if you were loyalist, you had good connections to England by culture and economics. a. The main reason that England and Loyalist had a connection was because they both believed in having a monarchy and aristocracy in government, making it stable. b. A large amount of loyalists continued being loyal to the crown in the 1770s, to keep the power that they had intact. c. The patriots only task was to increase their own power, by doing what they had to, being violent and vulgar to the loyalists. 3) The social issues effecting my choice to be loyalist or patriot are the way the British treat the loyalists. a. The British and the patriots called loyalists Tories, which was a slang or rude term to describe the loyalists.
Overview: The loyalists of Connecticut weren't as powerful as the patriots, but they did have a political advantage. Thomas Paine was on of the many that chose patriots over Loyalists.
I: The events leading up to the American Revolution. 1)Economics was a large factor in the start of the American Revolution. a)Cause b)Effect c)Result II: Loyalists vs. Patriots and the public opinion in Connecticut. 1)
I believe the writer is Thomas Paine because it’s titled Thomas Paine (1737-1809). Common Sense. 1776.
--Who is the audience?
The audience in this document is the reader, as Thomas Paine establishes in his text. For example Paine uses He, Himself, and His to distinguish that he is not talking about himself but rather about the reader/ audience.
--Who do the writers represent?
The writer represents American Independence in my mind because Thomas Paine argued for American Independence. He represents Common Sense, in society and government. His knowledge of both is outstanding. He thinks of society in a good way and believes that the government is equivalent to “Evil.” I believe that Thomas Paine represents himself, his knowledge, and the American people.
--What is being said, argued and/or requested?
It is being said that Thomas Paine agrees with society opposed to government. Paine talks about how society is based on people getting together to make good things happen, as a team. Then he talks about the government and how it’s evil and only focuses on protecting things such as life and property, but why is it just based on that. I think that the government focuses too much on “status,” meaning how the government is doing, how the government can be better in terms of money. That is all I get out of what the government is; they are all about the money, the government could care less about the people in reality.
--How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
This document is really straight forward in terms of common sense; Thomas Paine argues that the British are basically idiots because their system of government says one thing and does another. The British in Paine’s eyes is thought of as liars and untrustworthy. Paine is against British Monarchy.
--What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The proof and/or justification in this document comes all from Thomas Paine; he spoke of the British Monarchy and how it was unjust and untrustworthy. Common sense was enough to prove his points to the American people.
