Order 1381350: Executive Summary

Document1003 xTWOBODY_PARAGRAPH9.17.18 xFinal_Draft_Argument_Analysis_FINAL10.17.18 xFinalArgumentAnalysisEssay11.19.18 xArgument_Analysis_Proposal10.1.18_ HousekeepingDiscussion Argument_Analysis_Essay_11.14.18_1 ArgumentAnalysisRevisionMemo11.11.18 FINAL_ARGUMENTATIVEDESCRIPTION9.30.18 ADJUSTMENTSTOPORTFOLIOREQUIREMENTFO.. FinalPortfolio ArgumentDescriptionProcessMemo9.21.18 xArgument_Analysis_Proposal_11.7.17

Type of paperOther
SubjectEnglish
Number of pages4
Format of citationMLA
Number of cited resources2
Type of serviceWriting

In the portfolio, the required documents include: 1. The first major assignment (Argument Desсrіption Final Draft ) 2. the Argument Analysis Final Draft and 3. Your Collaborative Interview Assignment. The third one is not a document like your essays, but you should be including in a document what you posted initially, what others responded to your post/s and your responses to other post/s (including their original so that your response makes sense to me). Basically, you are showing your involvement in the project. In your Executive Summary you should also mention and touch upon your ideas and analysis of our text in the collaborative project, just as you are touching upon your essay writing. Everything to mention in the ES should be documented in the portfolio (as a final draft or rough draft or other document), and conversely, anything included in the portfolio should be covered in your Executive Summary.

Andrew Pelayo

ENGL 1310.101

Professor Kristen Jackson

December 5, 2018

Executive Summary

Over the course of the semester, I have analyzed my writing samples and have identified areas in which I have improved upon. I chose to write an argumentative essay on “Cesar E. Chavez National Monument, California, and the Future” in The Hour of Land. As samples have progressed, I have been able to improve the story line, which follows my claims with specific suggestions and introduce an anecdote to identify with the audience and story. I removed information that did not support my claims and developed information that supported my claims. I removed the following paragraph, which did not support my argumentative essay:

In a grassroots fashion, flyers or emails could be sent requesting that each member of a household only uses 15-20 minutes of water a day, recycle, and as part of an exercise routine, take a garbage bag, some gloves, and pick up litter.

My essay primarily focuses on the trials and tribulations of ethical behavior that pertains to conversation efforts. Through my efforts to improve my argumentative essay, I learned how to include an anecdote to introduce my essay and for it to provide a personal introduction for the audience. I utilized the following paragraph to introduce my essay:

During the course I have enhanced developing and organizing the structure of my writing samples. My Argument Description Preview Assignment clearly indicates that my initial structure of my memo was not well organized and needed to improve on my intro, persuasion, primary arguments, explanation of how the author arranges their ideas and evidence, how the author words and tone attempt to persuade the audience, and the final implications of the argument. Also, during a group assignment, Housekeeping DG 3, the need to clarify the material that should be referenced was an initial challenge. The participant and I referenced specific events that occurred and structured how these specific details impacted the argument and analysis.

Andrew Pelayo

ENGL 1310.101

Professor Kristen Jackson

Terry Tempest Williams, “Cesar E. Chavez National Monument, California, and the Future” in The Hour of Land, pp.351-367

Thesis:

Williams uses historical and current events in an effort to validate why an individual would feel a connection to “utopian based” group and celebrate their successes. Human beings collaborating as a whole to better society, and overlooking cultural differences, can achieve equality and conserve the earth.

First Body Paragraph:

The author, Terry Tempest Williams (“Williams”), begins with a personal story of him and a friend visiting the Cesar Chavez National monument, which leads to the author’s primary claim: he has helped understand why it is important for people to participate in these movements and why might someone leave one. Williams highlights Cesar Chavez’s achievements and quotes, “Together with Dolores Huerta, he founded the National Farm Workers Association (pp.351)” This ultimately developed the United Farm Workers Association (UFW). Williams seems to be directing his comments toward possible students, individuals who care about equality, also individuals who are active in politics and could possibly be conservationists or naturalists.

Pelayo 1

Andrew Pelayo

ENGL 1310.101

Professor Kristen Jackson

October 17, 2018

Argument Analysis of “Cesar E. Chavez National Monument,

California, and the Future” in The Hour of Land

The main argument and/or ethical issue(s) I plan to address are: 1) Who actually decides what is ethical in pursuit of conservation efforts?; and 2) Who do we entrust to appoint people who will follow protocol with what is considered ethical? While the author provides a personal account and history of the detriment that people and industrialization have affected earth, the author fails to provide any probable solutions or suggestions for the reader to follow. I plan to provide potential solutions in an effort to possibly reach a sustainable conversation goal(s).

We have an environment where monetary and environmental objects do not always meet in the middle. Value(s) would need to be internalized and assessed by all, but this more than likely will be on a personal basis. “The development of an ethic of conservation faces another obstacle, which is the widespread perception that ethics, and the question of values in general, are beyond the reach of rational and critical discussion. It is an illusion to suppose that ethical considerations can be sidelined. Conservation objectives may indeed be defended on scientific or utilitarian grounds, but to reach a decision on these grounds presupposes an evaluative commitment to the view that these considerations should hold sway. Value judgements are involved in the decision as to which interests and considerations are legitimate; and the question of legitimacy is a matter for critical evaluation. A common and associated mistake is to picture the values that we hold as immovable points of departure, over which we have little control, and which dictate and shape all our reasonings, so that, unless we happen to share the same values, debate between us will be an empty charade. In our view, this picture is hardly true to the facts” (Holland and Rawles).

The real issue at hand is how do we decide whom makes decides what is ethical and who determines what is beneficial for the future. Several personal suggestions would be: 1) confirm how much expansion and industrialization of earth’s resources is actually required and safe for the environment; 2) How much does one person really need?; and 3) Is the overconsumption of resources really a need or just greed? Environmental surveys could be assessed in order to determine yearly consumption and place a cap on the percentage required to sustain recommended consumption. After these surveys, a panel of global environmentalists could assist with advising corporations and communities on energy conversation and proper disposal of waste.

Ultimately, my plan is to address what is necessary versus industrialization for political and economic gain. In a true conservation effort, information could be gathered to reflect the impact of over-consumption and diminishing resources. In a grassroots fashion, flyers or emails could be sent requesting that each member of a household only uses 15-20 minutes of water a day, recycle, and as part of an exercise routine, take a garbage bag, some gloves, and pick up litter. While I believe opening up a reader to all that the author has expressed in her article, I believe that action is necessary. Small campaigns concerning conservation can be started, small community meetings on how to conserve at home and in the community, and monthly neighborhood litter collection. My youngest sister’s school has a community garden that encourages the students and parents to grow their own vegetables and fruit in an effort to inspire them to eat a healthy diet and to respect their surroundings. My parents’ neighborhood has a yearly community outreach wherein volunteers gather and plant trees in parts of the neighborhood. I do believe starting the conservation effort(s) while children are young has a tremendous impact on their perception of what their surroundings should be and how much they actually need. When time and effort is put into a particular project, I do believe it leaves a lasting impact.

Humans tend to be reactive and not proactive for the most part and do not foresee any issues until it is necessary. There was a recent report by the

UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

that states the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people (Miller & Croft, 2018). While this statement would be sufficient to motivate some individuals in conservation, this may not be enough to motivate others. I believe some people simply will not participate in conservation due to their disbelief in conservation efforts, or they do not have the time to participate.

Neither of my suggestions force people to participate, they only spread information and provide a type action for those that do want to participate. Small efforts can be made be a portion of the population and this could make an impact, but this is truly a deep ethical question that individuals will have to make. Unfortunately, the downfall for the human race and past behavior is an overwhelming need to expand, dominate, and increase resources. Those that would benefit from conservation would be the entire planet. Opinions on conservation, values, and ethics will always vary, but the final goal should be to reach common ground. What can be a downfall is assuming a good majority of people will be sympathetic to the author’s personal account versus the earth’s current condition. The consequence(s) for not conserving could be damaging for all, but only time will tell.

Works Cited

Miller, Brandon and Jay Croft. “Climate Change. New IPCC Report.” October 8, 2018.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html. Access October 16, 2018.

Holland, Alan and Kate Rawles. “The Ethics of Conservation.” British Association of Nature Conservationists.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cbf8/9280433484bc971a60e294b9be1de70fbfa0 .

Pelayo: 1

Andrew Pelayo Pelayo:

ENGL 1310.101

Professor Kristen Jackson

November 19, 2018

Argument Analysis of “Cesar E. Chavez National Monument,

California, and the Future” in The Hour of Land

In July of 2015, my family and I took a vacation to Seattle, Washington to visit a family friend. While in Seattle, we took a quick trip to Mount Rainier National Park and rode the Mount Rainier Gondola. As the gondola traveled to the next destination, I observed the breathtaking skyline and was in complete admiration of nature’s architecture. In The Hour of Land , published May 31, 2016, author Terry Tempest Williams (“Williams”), begins with a personal story of she and a friend visiting the Cesar Chavez National Monument, which leads to her bringing forth her arguments as to why it is important for people to participate in conservation and why others may choose not to participate in conservation efforts. Williams focuses on the negative effects when conservation is ignored in support of capital gain. Williams also implores the importance of human beings collaborating as a whole to better society, and overlooking cultural differences, can achieve equality and conserve the earth. Conserving the world is one of the most critical aspects of ensuring healthy and sustained life. However, there arise issues in the determination of what is ethical in the process of conserving and who to follow in conservation issues. The decision on what is moral and who to follow has raised many arguments in trying to solve the questions. This paper contains an argumentative essay concerning ethical hurdles or what needs to be done to ensure conservation achievement. While the author provides a personal account and history of the detriment that people and industrialization have affected earth, the author fails to provide any probable solutions or suggestions for the readers to follow. I plan to provide potential solutions in an effort to obtain a sustainable conservation goal.

Williams describes the transformation of a 187-acre size land from a mine-affected area into a site of Stony Brook Retreat and a hospital for tuberculosis infected people (Williams). Williams in the narration argues that among the people involved in shaping the American conservation is the poor farm workers led by Cesar Chavez. When Chavez hears of the intention to auction the land he struggles to buy it and luckily by the help of a film producer that he hires is able to make the purchase.. After purchasing it, he sells a parcel to the UFW and the rest he names Nuestra Senora Reina de La Paz. Chavez and makes the land a sanctuary and a home for keeping the farm worker’s dreams and rights alive. In honor of the Cesar Chavez efforts, president Barrack Obama designates the La Paz monument as one of America’s national monuments in 2015.

Williams also argues that the ancient knowledge in conjunction with traditional management of the land serves as both a revolution and a cure between the citizens and the conservation (Williams). For example, in a case of a proposal for a monument in America’s the southwestern region, the chairperson of Utah Dine Bikeyah says that the different tribes in the country demand to see their cultural values protected. The people in the area bordering the Canyonlands National parks would like to see their land protected through the Antiquities Act. One of their elders in an interview with Williams says, “We can still hear our ancestral songs being sung on the mesas.”

In the struggle to generate the spirit of conservation, Williams also argues in support to the ancient advocates of the protection of the wild country and the national parks. Williams says in her text that John Muir’s decisions and recommendations are both noble and worth both admiration and respect. Other historians also recognize the work of John Muir. For instance, Donald Worster says that Muir started a new American religion (Williams, 2016). The term new religion is used symbolically to signify that the act of conservation that Muir initiated has many followers and more will join. It was Muir’s vision that one could protect a mountain while on the other hand; everything else is wide open for development. It is evident from this argument from Williams that Muir is a father of conservation of the environment citing the transformation of Yosemite Valley which Williams says looked like Eden.

However, the decision on who is to decide what is ethical for environmental conservation develops some problems amongst the citizens. For example, the case of a rancher Cliven Bundy refusing to pay for grazing fee and offering death threats (Williams, 2016). Williams argues that from the ranchers’ point of view, the locking up of the federal lands poses a threat to their living style and a violation of their values as Americans. As a result of the risks offered the land management officials and National Park Service are urged to avoid being in uniforms in public for fear of being a target. The main argument of the ranchers was that they were tired of the government telling them what to do.

We have an environment where monetary and environmental objects do not always meet in the middle. Value(s) would need to be internalized and assessed by all, but this more than likely will be on a personal basis. “Our institutions and agencies are no longer working for us. It is time to reimagine the wilderness movement as a movement of direct action, time to reimagine our public lands as sanctuaries, refuges, and sacred lands. Time to rethink what is acceptable and what is not.”

The real issue at hand is how do we decide whom decides what is ethical and who determines what is beneficial for the future when it comes to preserving national parks and monuments. Several personal suggestions would be: 1) confirm how much expansion and industrialization of earth’s resources is actually required and safe for the environment; 2) how much does one person really need?; and 3) is the overconsumption of resources really a need or just greed? Humans typically tend to be reactive and not proactive for the most part, and do not foresee any issues until it is necessary. There was a recent report by the

UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

that states the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people (Miller & Croft, 2018). While this statement would be sufficient to motivate some individuals to turn to conservation, this may not be enough to motivate others. I believe some people simply will not participate in conservation due to their disbelief in conservation and/or climate change, or they do not have the time to participate.

Ultimately, my goal is to address necessary industrialization versus industrialization for political and economic gain. In a true conservation effort, information could be gathered to reflect the impact of over-consumption and diminishing resources. In a grassroots fashion, flyers or emails could be sent requesting that the community donate a minimal amount or petition their congressman in an effort to secure and financially support national parks. While I believe opening up a reader to all that Williams has expressed in her article, I believe that taking action is necessary. Small conservation campaigns can be initiated in local communities and monthly community meetings centered on how to conserve can also provide preliminary information. I do believe starting the conservation effort(s) while children are young has a tremendous impact on their perception of what their surroundings should be and how much they actually need. When time and effort are put into a particular project, I do believe it leaves a lasting impact.

After remembering how I felt when I looked out over the gondola and observed Mount Rainier’s skyline, I could not help but wonder, how much longer will we have such landscapes if people refuse to support conservation. What will happen if people turn a blind eye and do nothing to push forward with legislation to fund the protection of national parks? If all national parks were to slowly disappear, future generations would have to read about prior landscapes and could only admire these landscapes in photographs. From the ancient times, the conservation of the land in American has proven to dig deep in the hearts of the Americans. With the case of Cesar Chavez and John Muir acting as the basis, the motivations seem to take a high notch head start to the formation of conservation sites like national parks and national monuments. Some cases such as the encounter of the rancher and the government prove that the government had a say in what to be conserved and termed ethical. While neither of my suggestions force society to participate, they only provide information and types of action for those that do want to participate. Unfortunately, the downfall for the human race based upon past behavior is an overwhelming need to expand, dominate, and increase resources. Opinions on conservation, values, and ethics will always vary, but the final goal should be to reach common ground. What can be a downfall is assuming a good majority of people will be sympathetic to the author’s personal account versus the earth’s current condition. The consequence(s) for not conserving could be damaging for all, but only time will tell.

Works Cited

Miller, Brandon and Jay Croft. “Climate Change. New IPCC Report.” October 8, 2018.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html. Access October 16, 2018.

Tempest, Terry Williams. “”Cesar E. Chavez National Monument, California, and the Future”
The Hour of Land. Sarah Crichton, 2016.

A brief description of the ethical problem related to your topic, as addressed by your

source (75-150 words): Why is this an ethical problem? Why does this author think it’s an

ethical problem? Who is being harmed? and how? how often? under what circumstances?

A few ethical issues that I addressed in my argumentative essay is the way we treat our

environment and continuously pollute and plummet our resources, e.g., public parks, nature

reserves, national parks, forests, oceans and our overall surroundings. Animals are impacted by

the expansion of humans encroaching on their territories in an effort to expand on an industrial

scale and while humans do not feel an immediate impact, over time the depletion of natural forest

and preserves has diminished air quality and landscape. Another ethical issue is who decides when

humans have sufficient resources. One person’s opinion of what is sufficient versus another is an

argument within itself.

The argumentative THESIS (25-50 words): This is a proposal essay, so succinctly state

your PROPOSAL/PLAN for addressing the ethical problem/issue.

A plan to address these ethical issues is to confirm the expansion and industrialization of earth’s

resources in an effort to satisfy human consumption. How much does one person really need?

How much industrialization is required? Is the overconsumption of resources really a need or just

greed? Ultimately, my plan is to address what is necessary versus industrialization for political

and economic gain. In a true conservation effort, information could be gathered to reflect the

impact of over-consumption and diminishing resources. In a grassroots fashion, flyers or emails

could be sent requesting that each member of a household only use 15-20 minutes of water a day,

recycle, and as part of an exercise routine, take a garbage bag, some gloves, and pick up litter.

Analysis (150 words minimum): How does the other author suggest approaching/solving the

problem? What assumptions does that author make? What kinds of concerns does the author’s

treatment of this issue raise? What are the implications for that way of thinking/approach to

problem solving? Address ALL FOUR of the stasis questions for the other author’s

argument.

The author’s approach is to provide a brief history of our history’s consumption and possibly the

inability to stop. The author cites to several sources in an effort to reflect how the earth has

changed since the Native American tribes originally resided on the land. She also hints at the fact

that humans are degrading earth’s landscape and asks the reader(s) to logically reflect on who we

are becoming as a species. Where will we be in the future if we continue this path? The author’s

stasis questions reference human consumption, industrialization, political and economic gain, and

basically greed. What can be a downfall to the author’s approach is that she is assuming a good

majority of people will be sympathetic to the earth’s current condition. Each individual has to

look deep inside and reflect on this ethical/moral issue of what is best for them at the moment or

what is best for the future.

Your New Stance (75-150 words): Elaborate on the elements of your plan. Why/how is
this a better plan than the other author offered? And because the solutions to all complex
problems create additional issue, what are the concerns people would have about your
solution? What are the potential negative implications of your own plan?

I support the author in tying past and current events to open up the reader’s perception of what can

be accomplished when one person spreads information. The author touches on the subject of

political, economic, and industrial greed. The author also empathizes with the earth and

organisms. While I believe opening up a reader to all that the author has expressed, I believe that

action is necessary. Small campaigns concerning conservation can be started, small community

meetings on how to conserve at home and in the community, and monthly neighborhood litter

collection. The only issues I believe some people would have is either they simply do not want to

participate, they do not believe in conservation, or they do not have the time to participate. Neither

of my suggestions force people to participate, they only spread information and have action for

those that do want to participate.

HOUSEKEEPING DG3

Andrew Pelayo

Oct 31, 2018Oct 31 at 11:56pm

Manage Discussion Entry

(Monday, 29)

The author is pondering an alternate reality and not necessarily, what is an actual
event. The author trails into a “what if” event in the character’s lives in which in an
instance, the characters realize their mother’s suicidal intentions and alter the course of
events. I believe the author is shedding light on the fact that the characters chose to alter
their reality and resent their upbringing. Ruthie and her sibling are raised by relatives and
have a deep seeded history with regard to past deaths in their family and lack of a male
authority figure. Ruthie and Lucille are eventually raised by an aunt after their mother’s
passing, but only to be exposed to their aunt’s eccentricities and vagrant lifestyle. As the
community begins to take notice of the family’s alternate lifestyle, Ruthie and Lucille prefer
to burn their home down and hide on the other side of the lake. The author is shedding
light on Ruthie and Lucille dictating their own destinies. This story does not bring many
questions to mind, just the fact that the characters dictated their own future and preferred
not to live in a community that judged their alternate lifestyle. I believe the author was
shedding light on an individual’s ability to choose their own lifestyle versus succumbing
to society’s perception of what a lifestyle should be.

•

Jason McCarley

Nov 1, 2018Nov 1 at 7:36pm

Manage Discussion Entry

This is an interesting take on how the characters are reacting to pressure presented
by the women in town and the sheriff. The attempt by Ruthie to retreat to an alternate
reality where her mother never commits suicide speaks to the reaction she had not
only to their tumultuous upbringing, but to the reaction the town had to their unstable
aunt. The irresponsible way their aunt lived drew lots of attention by the town’s people
and that had a major affect on both Ruthie and Lucille, but in drastically different ways.
Ultimately Sylvie and Ruth chose to sever their ties with the town and remove
themselves from public judgement altogether. I think that Robinson is also making the
case that the threat of judgement by the public can have a very dramatic affect on

people, and that not all people have the skills to cope with the scrutiny of the public
eye.

ReplyReply to Comment



Collapse SubdiscussionAndrew Pelayo

Andrew Pelayo

Nov 2, 2018Nov 2 at 9:53pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Unfortunately, at times society’s perception of what a “normal” lifestyle should be has
an impact on an individual’s upbringing and sense of self worth. The judgment from
the community seems to have been multiplied and determined Ruthie and Sylvie’s
path in life and ultimately led to their seclusion from society. Either way, the hope is
in the story, they found peace in their solitude.

ReplyReply to Comment


Collapse SubdiscussionJason McCarley

Jason McCarley

Nov 4, 2018Nov 4 at 4:28pm

Manage Discussion Entry

In Housekeeping, you chose the passages that describes Ruthie’s vision of an
alternate reality where her mother did not commit suicide. Given that both Ruthie and
Lucille took such different paths in life, how do you think Ruthie and Lucille’s life would
have turned out had their mother never committed suicide?

ReplyReply to Comment


Collapse SubdiscussionAndrew Pelayo
Andrew Pelayo

Nov 4, 2018Nov 4 at 11:32pm

Manage Discussion Entry

While one person cannot claim that having a specific individual in their life could or
could not have a significant impact in their life, a mother’s love could have an impact
on a child’s upbringing. There may have been an aloof sense of continuing their
existence with chores and day to day activities, but without affection, they may have
just “maintained” their existence. There is no true way of knowing the significance of
whether a family member’s or members’ departure may have impacted Ruthie or
Lucille, but it has to be taken into account when contemplating their state of
mind. There is no comparison as to whether the Ruthie or Lucille would have chosen
a different path given a different option in life, but the family chain could not be
avoided. In this instance, Ruthie and Lucille became dependent on each other versus
the family members that “abandoned” them.

ReplyReply to Comment
•
Collapse SubdiscussionJason McCarley

Jason McCarley
Nov 1, 2018Nov 1 at 6:47pm

Manage Discussion Entry

“Sylvie stood in the door, looking over the lake. ‘It’s pretty today,’ she said. Portly white
clouds, bellied like cherubs, sailed across the sky, and the sky and the like were and
elegant azure. One can imagine that, at the apex of the Flood, when the globe was a
ball of water, come the day of divine relenting, when Noah’s wife must have opened
the shutters upon a morning designed to reflect an enormous good nature. We can
imagine that the Deluge rippled and glistened, and that the clouds, under the altered
dispensation, were purely ornamental. True, the waters were full of people-we knew
the story from out childhood. The lady at her window might have wished to be with the
mothers and uncles, among the dance of bones, since this is hardly a human world,
here in the fatuous light, admiring the plump clouds. Looking out at the lake one could
believe that the Flood had never ended. If one is lost on the water, and hill is Ararat.

And below is always the accumulated past, which vanishes but does not vanish, which
perishes and remains”(172)

This passage is significant because it exemplifies Robinson’s point that memory
shapes the way her characters feel about public and private spaces, namely
Fingerbone and the lake. She illustrates this theme by showing how Ruthie and other
characters feel about Fingerbone throughout the novel because of it’s history. In this
example Robinson compares the feeling that Ruthie has when viewing the lake to that
of Noahs wife as she viewed the flood from the Ark. Even though the lake was beautiful
the memory of the railroad accident there had tainted it, in the same way that Noahs
wife may have been relieved to know that the rains were over with, the waters were
full of the people who had died during the flood. She even goes on to say that looking
out over the lake she could just imagine that the flood never ended and that the
catastrophe that happened there was simply part of that biblical event.

“We had both become conscious of Fingerbone all around us, if not watching, then
certainly aware of everything we did. Left to myself I would have shrunk under all this
attention. I would have stayed in the house and read with a flashlight under the covers
and have ventured out only for Wonder bread and batteries. But Sylvie reacted to her
audience with a stage voice and large gestures. She kept saying, ’I don’t know why
we didn’t do this months ago,’ loudly, as if she thought there were listeners beyond
the firelight, among the apple trees” (200)

This passage is an excellent example of Robinson’s attempt at blurring the lines
between public and private spaces. Her comment being that private spaces are never
truly private in that they are only deemed private by the constructs of the public world.
In this passage Robinson illustrates this theme by showing how the public eye of
Fingerbone had permeated the lives of her characters. The people of Fingerbone
scrutinized the way Sylvie lived and that affected both Sylvie and Ruthie in different
ways. Ruthie remembers that Sylvie often spoke in a way that seemed as if the town’s
people were listening in on her. For Ruthie this feeling of public scrutiny caused her
to want to retreat further into the solitude of her own mind. In a broader way Robinson
is commenting on the erosion of privacy in an increasingly public world.
ReplyReply to Comment

•

Collapse SubdiscussionKristen Jackson

Kristen Jackson
Nov 3, 2018Nov 3 at 10:55am

Manage Discussion Entry

Hi Jason and Andrew–You may be the only ones participating in this group, so please
just do the best you can with the different aspects of this assignment. You won’t have
to vote on the best question, since there are only two of you.
Reply

Pelayo1

Andrew Pelayo

ENGL 1310.101

Professor Kristen Jackson

November 14, 2018

Argument Analysis of “Cesar E. Chavez National Monument,

California, and the Future” in The Hour of Land

In July of 2015, my family and I took a vacation to Seattle, Washington to visit a family

friend. While in Seattle, we took a quick trip to Mount Rainier National Park and rode the Mount

Rainier Gondola. As the gondola traveled to the next destination, I observed the breathtaking

skyline and was in complete admiration of nature’s architecture. In The Hour of Land , published

May 31, 2016, author Terry Tempest Williams (“Williams”), begins with a personal story of she and

a friend visiting the Cesar Chavez National Monument, which leads to her bringing forth her

arguments as to why it is important for people to participate in conservation and why others may

choose not to participate in conservation efforts. Williams focuses on the negative effects when

conservation is ignored in support of capital gain. Williams also implores the importance of human

beings collaborating as a whole to better society, and overlooking cultural differences, can achieve

equality and conserve the earth. The main argument and ethical issues I plan to address are: 1)

Who actually decides what is ethical in pursuit of conservation efforts?; and 2) Who do we entrust

to appoint people who will follow protocol with what is considered ethical? While the author

provides a personal account and history of the detriment that people and industrialization have

affected earth, the author fails to provide any probable solutions or suggestions for the readers to

follow. I plan to provide potential solutions in an effort to obtain a sustainable conservation goal.

Pelayo 2

We have an environment where monetary and environmental objects do not always meet

in the middle. Value(s) would need to be internalized and assessed by all, but this more than likely

will be on a personal basis. “Our institutions and agencies are no longer working for us. It is time

to reimagine the wilderness movement as a movement of direct action, time to reimagine our public

lands as sanctuaries, refuges, and sacred lands. Time to rethink what is acceptable and what is not.”

I would explain that they want people to change their ways of viewing nature/national monuments

(that is, they don’t give a call to action which is easy to fulfill, rather, they seem to try to open our

eyes and wake us up to something. Before you get into why this is not a good way to go about the

argument, or lacking somehow, you have to first establish what the argument is and how they go

about doing this. That is what this paragraph should be focusing on, as opposed to a whole other

source

The real issue at hand is how do we decide whom decides what is ethical and who

determines what is beneficial for the future when it comes to preserving national parks and

monuments. Several personal suggestions would be: 1) confirm how much expansion and

industrialization of earth’s resources is actually required and safe for the environment; 2) How

much does one person really need?; and 3) Is the overconsumption of resources really a need or

just greed? Environmental surveys could be assessed in order to determine yearly consumption

and place a cap on the percentage required to sustain recommended consumption. After these

surveys, a panel of global environmentalists could assist with advising corporations and

communities on energy conversation and proper disposal of waste.

Humans tend to be reactive and not proactive for the most part and do not foresee any

issues until it is necessary. There was a recent report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change that states the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2018/10/08/climate-change-ipcc-report-changes-needed-cabrera-live-vpx.cnn

Pelayo 3

degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of

extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people (Miller

& Croft, 2018). While this statement would be sufficient to motivate some individuals in

conservation, this may not be enough to motivate others. I believe some people simply will not

participate in conservation due to their disbelief in conservation efforts, or they do not have the

time to participate.

Ultimately, my plan is to address what is necessary versus industrialization for political

and economic gain. In a true conservation effort, information could be gathered to reflect the

impact of over-consumption and diminishing resources. In a grassroots fashion, flyers or emails

could be sent requesting that the community donate a minimal amount or petition their

congressman in an effort to secure and financially support national parks. While I believe opening

up a reader to all that the author has expressed in her article, I believe that action is necessary.

Small campaigns concerning conservation can be started, small community meetings on how to

conserve at home and in the community, and monthly neighborhood litter collection. My youngest

sister’s school has a community garden that encourages the students and parents to grow their own

vegetables and fruit in an effort to inspire them to eat a healthy diet and to respect their

surroundings. My parents’ neighborhood has a yearly community outreach wherein volunteers

gather and plant trees in parts of the neighborhood. I do believe starting the conservation effort(s)

while children are young has a tremendous impact on their perception of what their surroundings

should be and how much they actually need. When time and effort is put into a particular project,

I do believe it leaves a lasting impact.

After remembering how I felt when I looked out over the gondola and observed Mount

Rainier’s skyline, I could not help but wonder, how much longer will we have such landscapes if

Pelayo 4

people refuse to support conservation. What will happen if people turn a blind eye and do nothing

to push forward with legislation to fund the protection of national parks? If all national parks were

to slowly disappear, future generations would have to read about prior landscapes and could only

admire these landscapes in photographs. Neither of my suggestions force people to participate,

they only spread information and provide a type action for those that do want to participate. Small

efforts can be made be a portion of the population and this could make an impact, but this is truly

a deep ethical question that individuals will have to make. Unfortunately, the downfall for the

human race and past behavior is an overwhelming need to expand, dominate, and increase

resources. Those that would benefit from conservation would be the entire planet. Opinions on

conservation, values, and ethics will always vary, but the final goal should be to reach common

ground. What can be a downfall is assuming a good majority of people will be sympathetic to the

author’s personal account versus the earth’s current condition. The consequence(s) for not

conserving could be damaging for all, but only time will tell.

Pelayo 5

Works Cited

Miller, Brandon and Jay Croft. “Climate Change. New IPCC Report.” October 8, 2018.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html.

Access October 16, 2018.

Tempest, Terry Williams. “”Cesar E. Chavez National Monument, California, and the Future”

The Hour of Land. Sarah Crichton, 2016.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html. Access October 16, 2018.

ArgumentAnalysis Revision Memo

Instructor Comments/Questions

My word count fell short of the required minimum 1,200 – 1,500.

My overall similarity score on the final draft was 33%, which indicates too much quotation.

For the rewrite in final portfolio, try to develop some of these ideas more. What else seems
problematic about the author’s argument? (you can bring in more quotations or specifics
as well)

My revision plan is to paraphrase and possibly limit the amount of quotations used in
future drafts. I can be a bit more precise when utilizing quotations so that my essay is
effective and flows. In this instance, I may have felt the author expressed the segment
of the story much better than I could have, but I do believe I can paraphrase so that my
similarity score is diminished. I also plan to develop ideas and word count, where
possible, and diving into issues associated with the author’s argument.

The areas I believe I need assistance with are: 1) How do I effectively project an argument
without personally involving myself in the story?; 2) How and when should I use quotations
to effectively project what the author’s point of view or my point of view is?; and 3) How
do I provide detail within the essay without making it sound repetitive?

Argument Analysis Revision Memo

Pelayo1

Andrew Pelayo

ENGL 1310.101

Professor Kristen Jackson

September 30, 2018

Argument Description of “Cesar E. Chavez National Monument,

California, and the Future” in The Hour of Land

Published in _____, the article “Cesar E. Chavez National Monument, California, and the

Future” in The Hour of Land was written by Terry Tempest Williams Williams (“Williams”).

Williams uses historical and current events in an effort to validate why an individual would feel a

connection to “utopian based” group and celebrate their successes. She focuses and argues the

effects of political motivation based on conservation and the reasons why conversation is over-

looked when industrial and monetary values take precedence. She also makes reference to the

importance of human beings collaborating as a whole to better society, and overlooking cultural

differences, can achieve equality and conserve the earth.

Summary and Organization

Williams begins with a personal story of her and a friend visiting the Cesar Chavez

National monument, which leads to her bringing forth her argument(s) as to why it is important

for people to participate movements, conversation, and why others may choose not to participate.

Williams highlights Cesar Chavez’s achievements and quotes, “Together with Dolores Huerta, he

founded the National Farm Workers Association” (351). This ultimately developed the United

Farm Workers Association (UFW). Williams seems to be directing her comments toward possible

Pelayo 2

students, individuals who care about equality, also individuals who are active in politics and could

possibly be conservationists or naturalists. Williams is ultimately appealing to anyone that is open

to the preservation of the earth and has a passion for preserving equality.

Williams entices readers starting with, “What if our national parks and monuments

became places of conscience instead of places of consumption? How many more T-shirts can we

buy, let alone wear, that advertise where we’ve been? How many different forms of recreation

must we create to assuage our adrenaline addictions, from wing suits to pack rafts to rollerblades?

Is it not enough to return home with a fresh idea gleaned while walking in new territory? As I

have been visiting our national parks, I keep asking myself: Who are we becoming?” (Williams

384). She guides the reader with a brief history of Cesar Chavez’s movement and then follows

with an ideal mentality on perseveration. While she is not necessarily making an argument, she

is appealing to a reader’s human side by making reference to the idea that humans are focused on

their own wealth that they have a tendency to be destructive when it pertains to the environment.

“If our national parks are to remain viable in the future, they must become sites of transformation

where the paradigm of domination and manipulation ends, and a vision of unison begins”

(Williams 355). Williams worries about the high rate of consumption of the earth’s resources and

humans’ needs to seek more resources in order to feel satisfied. As evidence, Williams touches

on the fact that numerous Native American tribes view the planet as a revered resource and are

tied to the land by their ancestors. Oil production has encroached on these tribes’ land and has

threatened their way of life. “Robert Thompson, an Inupiat guide and hunter in the village of

Kak-tovik, Alaska, on the border of the Arctic Refuge testified before the United States Senate on

March 4, 2005:

Pelayo 3

I am honored to be part of this movement to save our land, our ocean and our

culture . . . We are attempting to use the democratic process to save our culture.

Before this it could be said and often was, that we wanted all that oil money.

You are now facing a group of people who are saying that no amount of money

is worth exchanging our culture for oil. However this goes, future generations

of Inupiat can look back and say, those people who signed this petition to

protect our lands tried to do the right thing. Somehow, I feel that it will be

important to them to know that someone cared” (Williams 355).

Williams is appealing to readers citing to the fact that certain tribes have hunted particular

types of animals for survival and unfortunately, with the need for more oil production, more land

consumption is required in order to keep up with the demand of the population. The consumption

of land is driving away animals and/or destroying their environment, which can eventually cause

the species to become extinct. This is why the author emphasizes how important it is for us to be

involved in these humanitarian and environmental groups.

Argument and Description

Williams’ argument(s) throughout the article are personal, emotional, and passionate.

Williams cites to other scholars, activists, and industrialists whom have knowledge or experience

in advocating for conservation or give a bleak description of human consumption. When a prior

generation advocated opening up sections of land in an effort to expand on an industrial scale, they

more than likely could not fathom how heavy the consumption would be. Richard White, a history

professor, stated, “John Muir’s view that you can protect the mountains while everything else is

opened up to development . . . global warming has finished that . . . It’s all one world.” White goes

Pelayo 4

on to say, “It’s not that I’m against wilderness areas, it’s not that I’m against national parks, but

essentially, we’ve now instituted a system of change that is going to take over— the entire planet”

(Williams 358). Williams was stressing to readers that when a population is open to the idea of

opening up resources for consumption, it is difficult to decipher who will decide what lands,

monuments, or national parks are still sacred. “The preeminent biologist E. O. Wilson is saying that

if we are to survive as a species, half the Earth must be set aside as wilderness.” “Something is

happening,” “A real movement is occurring. Conservation is the global response to the environmental

degradation we are witnessing. If we are to find ourselves on the other side of this bottleneck we are

in, it must be. The health of the land is the health of the people” (Williams 358). What makes

Williams’ argument a bit perplexing is that the idea/mentality of conservation is open to interpretation

across the globe. Who will determine what the standard for conversation should be? Williams cites

to the breakneck speed in which the population is moving toward modernizing all aspects of life,

including, eliminating customary verbiage from the Oxford Junior Dictionary.

“The following terms have been removed from the new version Oxford

Junior Dictionary: acorn, adder, almond, apricot, ash, ass, bacon, beaver,

beech, beetroot, blackberry, blacksmith, bloom, bluebell, boar, bramble, bran,

bray, bridle, brook, budgerigar, bullock, buttercup, canary, canter, carnation,

catkin, cauliflower, chestnut, clover, conker, county, cowslip, crocus, cheetah, colt,

corgi, cygnet, dandelion, diesel, doe, drake, fern, ferret, fungus, gerbil, goldfi sh,

gooseberry, gorse, guinea pig, hamster, hazel, hazelnut, heather, heron, herring,

holly, horse chestnut, ivy, kingfisher, lark, lavender, leek, leopard, liquorice,

lobster, magpie, manger, marzipan, melon, minnow, mint, mistletoe, monarch,

mussel, nectar, nectarine, newt, oats, otter, ox, oyster, pansy, panther, parsnip,

Pelayo 5

pasture, pelican, piglet, plaice, poodle, poppy, porcupine, porpoise, porridge,

poultry, primrose, prune, radish, raven, rhubarb, sheaf, spaniel, spinach,

starling, stoat, stork, sycamore, terrapin, thrush, tulip, turnip, vine, violet,

walnut, weasel, willow, wren” (Williams 360).

Words that are eradicated from our past are robbing a future generation from researching

and understanding prior generations. You cannot know where you are going unless you know

where you have been.

After, assisting the poor and cultivating the (UFW) The Farm Workers Association, Cesar

Chavez said, “That the two greatest aspirations of humankind are equality and participation”

(Williams 363). She appeals to the fact that when one person, with so much gratitude and concern

for the earth and society can achieve. Williams provides a very compelling and intimate account

of how she and other scholars and activists have advocated for preservation and equality for the

earth and individuals. Williams is genuinely concerned about humanitarian and environmental

issues. This article appears to be a good reference for general readers, students, and those

interested in conversation and humanitarian efforts.

Pelayo 6

Works Cited

Williams, Terry Tempest, “Cesar E. Chavez National Monument, California, and the Future” in The

Hour of Land, pp.351-367

1.Which rubric element is giving you the most trouble?. Why?

The rubric element that I seemed to be giving me the difficult is/was identifying the claims in the article that I chose. The reason I could be having trouble with identifying the claims could be due to the article that I selected. The article I originally selected was an article about Cesar Chavez and as I attempted to identify claims, I found it difficult to confirm what was would be debatable. Also, I am having trouble converting these claims into an actual argumentative essay in order to form the purpose of the essay. I am sure three to four claims can be identified in every article, but any possible guidance in how to identify these for a historical figure would be beneficial for future development.

2. Which rubric element do you feel you are managing the most successfully? Why?

I believe that I have constructed a solid thesis that is somewhat vague, possibly due to the individual I selected, yet at the same time is also very descriptive for an introduction to what my essay entails. I give the reader a brief understand of what is to come in the remainder of my essay. I think I can essentially identify and guide the reader of what is to be expected in my essay. Any possible pointers on how I could expand on my these would be greatly appreciated. If there are several sources that can be recommended or essays that I could analyze, this could help formulate ideas.

3. Which of the fundamental elements of the argument—claims, evidence, implications, assumptions—is most difficult for you to identify at this moment? Why?

Identifying factual debatable claims seems to be a major issue for me and seems to be my weakness. Or, at least, this is my main issue(s) for the article that I have chosen, which is an article based on Cesar Chavez. There are some statements in this article that do not appear to be debatable. I also realize that opinions can vary dependent upon the reader’s perception of facts. When an article is based on a historical figure’s life, how can an argument be developed without downplaying the figure’s achievements?

4. Which of the fundamental elements of the argument has been easiest for you to identify? Where/what is this in your argument?

I have a decent outline for my argumentative essay, although, I am missing the claims. I believe the easiest thing for me is to gather evidence from the article and use it in my essay. I can easily identify a fact in an article and address it. In my first paragraph, I identify the fact that the author assists with understanding why individuals developed a union, movements and the importance of participating in a cause. How many facts should be identified in order to effectively persuade an audience?