Portfolio: Reflective Letter

Angela Kim

Writing 101

December 11, 2007

Reflective Letter

LOOKING BACK

For the past several weeks in my writing 101 class, I have focused on developing and improving my writing skills. The class was assigned many different writing blogs for practice for improvement in writing, as well as expanding one’s knowledge in writing. Although writing is an important part of one’s education, it takes much practice, drafting, and editing in order to perfect one’s writing, and I believe that one must also enjoy writing in order to become a better writer.

I believe that during this quarter, I have improved in my writing abilities. Towards the beginning of the quarter, I learned to use templates for certain types of essays that followed the “They Say, I Say” format. From my previous high school, Seattle Prep, I was mainly taught to follow certain structures for writing. What I learned here at PSEC, differed because I learned to step out of the structural essays I was use to writing, and to follow a more opinionated outline of how I wanted the structure to be like. I believe that throughout this quarter, I have gained much more than I started out with.

The first piece of work placed in my portfolio is my first essay assignment about Bacon’s Rebellion. I did not do as well as I liked, even though I used my time during class well. I became lazy and got into a bad habit where I did not try to achieve beyond the minimum requirements. If only I could go back in time and change this regretful decision I had made. For this essay, I do did not spend much time planning as much as I should have. I grew accustomed to the way high school was, with very specific and detailed outlines where basically the preparation was already done for me. I was not as prepared as I wanted to be for college writing assignments, where I must put in my own details and specifics as well as make my own guidelines to follow in order to do well. My instructor, Craig, had given me advice on how do grab the reader’s attention with the starting sentence. His exact words were, “DO SOMETHING with a quote or an example…don’t throw it in as a check on a list of things to do – USE it.” After reading his comment to me, I made sure to include a quote as the first sentence or create some sort of a hook to grab the reader’s attention. I also learned not to put two quotes together without an explanation. To quote Craig, “You run two quotes together with no explanation. Do not run lists of quotes together.” Given that it is very unprofessional and unorganized, causing confusion when writing essays, I know, now, not to do it again. When I look back on how I used to write, I realize that I have learned so much from this writing 101 class and I truly believe that I have improved my writing skills.

For the second piece of work, I chose to put in my second essay assignment about patriots and loyalists. I believe that I was more prepared and approached the essay much differently than the first essay. During the time that was given in class, I spent most of my time talking with my teacher, Craig, asking him for advice and tips as well as discussing the assignment with my partner, Ramila. At home, my partner and I both worked on the essay separately and would put our ideas together during class the next day. I spent a lot more time going over the story and re-reading it to make sure to include every necessary detail. After discussing the essay with Craig, the way it was structured and the format of it was fine, but it just needed a bit more historical context added in. Despite of not having enough historical content put in, I believe this essay was a success in comparison to the first because I made sure to use my time wisely in school and outside of school. Surprisingly, I ENJOYED writing this second essay because it was fun creating something I have never actually done before.

The final piece of work that I put into the portfolio is my final exam. I believe that I was prepared for this exam because I had gone over reading the passage that was given to us ahead of time. I knew that I would have to summarize what the author meant by the quote, therefore I did a bit of research just to get a general background of Michael Foucault, the types of writings he had done, and what his intent was when he written the quote, “Why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that […] a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means […] the history of the present” (Discipline and Punish, Michael Foucault). In comparison to my first essay, I was sure to give a clear thesis and to stay on topic in my body paragraphs. I really liked the fact that the class was given two hours to complete this final because it allowed me to focus more on the essay itself than worrying about not having enough time to finish.

I have learned that compared to high school, college is very different. Although I may be surrounded by the same people, the educational process, assignments assigned, and grading are all very different. In college, a lot more freedom is given to students, in hope that the students will use the time given effectively, going at one’s own comfortable pace. Throughout the quarter, I strongly believe that I expanded my understanding of the writing process and developed newer, useful writing techniques as well. I also believe that the writing 101 course was very effective and helpful because I know that I have gained so much from all the practice.

Portfolio: History Essay #1

Angela Kim

December 11, 2007

Writing 101

History Essay Final Draft

Bacon’s Rebellion - Class

“Let him who expects one class of society to prosper in the highest degree, while the other is in distress, try whether one side; of the face can smile while the other is pinched” (Thomas Fuller, British clergyman and author). In history, class distinctions had been a key source of determining who did what, meaning, the status that a person obtained decided where and how that person would live and work. For example, during the time of Bacon’s Rebellion, one’s class distinctions were vital. Bacon's Rebellion “was brought on by a growing shortage of available land and the colony's complicated relations with both friendly and hostile tribes of Native Americans” (http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/sim/15005.html). The colonists wanted to expand their land, but in order to do so; they needed to intrude into the Indian Territory. Governor Berkeley did not want this to happen to maintain peace between the Indian tribes. According to Monica R. Gisolfi, historian of Columbia American History, "the rebellion was one that pitted the colony's wealthy planters against its growing numbers of poor, landless men who had served out their term as indentured servants and were eager to begin their independent lives. There was simply nowhere for landless men to establish residency except farther west, in territory inhabited by Indians” (http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/sim/15005.html). Although class may not seem as important in this era, back in the time of Bacon's Rebellion, it was THE key to life because it determined one's identity and future.

Class distinctions influenced the base support for Bacon and colonial authorities because the status and position for a certain person during the time of Bacon’s Rebellion, was determined by that person’s race, class, education, wealth, family, etc. Two major characters of Bacon's Rebellion were Governor Sir William Berkeley and Nathaniel Bacon. Governor Sir William Berkeley was a veteran of the English Civil Wars, a frontier Indian fighter, a King’s favorite in his first term as Governor in the 1640s, a playwright, and a scholar. Concluding from this brief description of Governor Berkeley, one would obviously see that he was a member of the "elite" group. Nathanial Bacon was troublemaker and schemer, but he was also quite intelligent and eloquent, which by the way he was also Berkeley’s cousin by marriage. Although Bacon is not part of such a high stature as Berkeley may be, Bacon was still living a “better” life than most during this time. A mishmash of the different classes caused an uprising that was meant to “correct” the colonists’ injustices, which has shown the struggles people dealt with due to their race and class. What I wondered most about this was, what makes the “elite” think that the colonists had done wrong, where they feel the need to “correct” them? Not only that, but how did they determine whether or not the colonists did do wrong or right? In my opinion, I believe that once power was given to those of the higher class, they took advantage of that power and bossed the colonists around because they were “inferior” to them.

The elite became instigators because they believed that they had the right to “pick on” those who were beneath them, which caused a feud to arise. They may be of a higher social class than other people, but there was no need for them to flaunt and boast about it. These difficulties encouraged the colonists to find a scapegoat to put all their frustrations on and place the blame for their misfortunes. First came the elite, then the colonists, and then the Indians. Unfortunately, colonists found their scapegoat in the form of the local Indians. Since the colonists were treated badly by the higher class, they began to treat the Indians the exact same way. I believe that the way people are treated, shapes and forms the way they treat others. For example, the way an individual thinks, talks, walks, and basically does, was all influenced by the surroundings they had been exposed to in life. Those that are favored are spared. Bacon believed that Governor Berkeley had played favorites, so he reported the Governor publicly. Berkeley had “denied him a commission as a leader in the local militia” (http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html). Nathan was pretty angered because he had denied him. Eventually, they went off to their separate ways and Bacon became “elected General of a group of local volunteer Indian fighters because he promised to bear the cost of the campaigns” (http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html).

The people needed a leader to let their voices be heard, and so Bacon was a man "for" the people, while Berkeley was a man "for" the government. Although “Berkeley’s policy was to preserve the friendship and loyalty of the subject Indians while assuring the settlers that they were not hostile” (http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/BacRebel.html), things just did not turn out the way he wanted it to be. In order to resolve the issue, Berkeley called for an assembly known as the “Long Assembly”, in March 1676. Unfortunately, they were accused of corruption because of its ruling regarding trade with the Indians. Berkeley was not necessarily a bad person; he was just a man of power and many ideas, who did not really know how to use them in a way that would satisfy everyone.

The intentions of both Bacon and Berkeley may have been good at the beginning, but this rebellion nearly caused the destruction of the Chesapeake society. “What began as an external conflict with the American Indians, rapidly developed into a domestic insurrection among predominantly western settlers who rejected the accommodationist policies of the eastern establishment” (Washburn, Wilcomb E. The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. 1957). Many of the colonial authorities favored slavery because they thought it ensured a more stable and free society. But of course, for the slaves, they would disagree because they are the ones doing all the hard work. Not only that, but slaves also were not given many rights or freedom. So then why would the authorities believe that slavery made a more free society?

As I have mentioned before, in Modern life today, class still plays a major role because the class distinctions label who a person may be on the “outside”. It is said that “one’s class is determined largely by: occupation, education and qualifications, income, personal, household and per capita, wealth or net worth, including ownership of land, property, means of production, etc” (William Lloyd Warner Social Class in America, 1949). For example, if there was a job opening at Boeing for one position, and there were two applicants that qualified; one from white center who graduated from public schools, and one from Medina who graduated from Lakeside, who would they give the job to? The obvious choice to go with would be the one living in Medina because he/she has a higher status, good family background, and a better education. To others, the “better” one would be classified as the upper middle class or upper class, while the other person would be the lower middle class or working class. According to my research, the different stages/types of classes that made sense to me were: upper class, upper middle class, lower middle class, working class, and lower class. The upper class is for those big hot shots; some of the elite groups during the 17^th century would belong to this class, and if not, then to the upper middle class. The lower middle class and working class would be the colonists. Lastly, the lower class would be the Indians.

For those that belonged to the lower end of the bar, they had to endure through many hardships; not by choice. If one was born from a slave, their whole life will be tough because of their family background and status. If one was born from one of those who belonged to the elite, their whole life will have many easy-way-outs. The life that one lived during Bacon’s Rebellion was wholly determined by one’s class at the instant of when you were born. And even someone with great power can not change the way things were by themselves. Even now, the decided class that a person is placed in can say a lot about that one person.

Portfolio: History Essay #2

Angela Kim & Ramila Gulieva

December 11, 2007

Writing 101

History Essay #2 – Mini play

Final Draft

SECRET’S OUT

CAST OF CHARACTERS:

Elizabeth Ann James: The protagonist of Secret’s Out. Elizabeth is a twenty-seven year old loyalist, who married a patriot man. Though she is a strong, courageous woman, she fears greatly of being exposed of who she truly is. She spends her days at home working in the garden, cleaning, cooking, and other house wife duties. Elizabeth hides her secret in New York with her husband, hoping that no one will find out that she is a loyalist. Her true identity is that not only is she a loyalist, but she is also related to the King. She hopes to live peacefully and happily with her husband with no interruptions of anyone finding out.

Andrew Owen James: A loyal husband to Elizabeth Ann James. He supports Elizabeth and himself as a New England merchant at age thirty-one. He is a hard-working patriot who despises loyalists.

Lady: A middle-aged woman who happens to be a loyalist and gets taken away by the authorities.

Child: The son of the middle-aged woman who also happens to be a loyalist and also gets captured by the authorities.

Police: A spectator of the town who is a patriot that happens to carry a conversation with two colonists passing by.

Colonist #1: A young lady who is also a patriot that loathes loyalists is surprised to know that there are loyalists existing in the town.
Colonist #2: A friend of the young lady [Colonist #1] who is also a patriot that hopes to exterminate all loyalists in the town.

Police Officer #1: A curious man of authority that is a patriot who wants to know where Elizabeth lives.

Police Officer #2: Another curious man of authority that is also a patriot, partner of Police Officer #1, who also wants to know where Elizabeth lives.

Ruth Bensen: A middle-aged woman who is a friend of Elizabeth’s, but is a patriot. Once she found out who Elizabeth really was, she wants nothing to do with her.

[Summary: Little before the American Revolution, in the southern side of New York, was a cozy, small, wooden house full of love and life. Next to the house was a cute little garden with beautiful flowers. Inside this house lived a middle class newly wed, trying to start a family. The wife was named Elizabeth Ann James, a housewife at age twenty-seven. Her husband, Andrew Owen James, was a New England Merchant, living at age thirty-one. They have been married for about two years, hoping to live happily ever after. But little did they know that their quest of living “happily ever after” would have many hardships as well as difficulties.]

ACT I: SCENE I

Enter Elizabeth.

[One beautiful morning, Elizabeth went outside to work in the garden. She wanted to prune the plants in the garden so that they would grow beautifully.]

Elizabeth: Oh my! How beautiful these roses have grown!

[While working in the garden, Elizabeth hears shouting across the neighborhood.]

Lady: No! Let go of me!

Child: Momma! I’m scared! Are they going to kill us?

Lady: What are you doing with my child?!

Exit Lady, Child, and Police.

[Elizabeth turns her head towards the noise and sees a woman and her child being taken away by the authoritative figures who were patriots. So she pondered to herself.]

Elizabeth: What’s going on? Why are they being taken away?

Enter Police, Colonist #1, and Colonist #2.

[After the woman and child had been captured, she hears another conversation going on between a police and two colonists.]

Police: Those damn loyalists. Even after establishing the Treason treaty, loyalists are still not fearful.

Colonist #1: I’m surprised they were even here this long.

Colonist #2: How can they be for the King?! That’s just preposterous!

Police: Well good riddance.

[Immediately Elizabeth runs inside her house to speak with her husband.]

Exit all.

ACT I: SCENE II

Enter Elizabeth and Andrew.

[Panting, trying to catch her breath, Elizabeth shouts Andrew’s name.]

Elizabeth: Andrew! Andrew!

Andrew: What’s wrong Elizabeth?!

Elizabeth: A horrible thing has happened!

Andrew: What is it?!

Elizabeth: Just outside, while I was gardening, the authorities captured this woman and her child!

Andrew: Why?! How could they?

Elizabeth: Well, I over heard a couple of people talking with the police, something about a Treason treaty that punishes all loyalists by even tarring and feathering and it seemed to me that the woman and her child were loyalists.

Andrew: What were those despicable creatures doing here?!

Elizabeth: Oh…I’m not quite sure, but they’re gone now.

Andrew: You don’t feel bad for them, do you?

Elizabeth: Oh of course not! I hate those filthy vermin.

Exit all.

ACT II: SCENE I

Enter Elizabeth.

[It is evening and while Elizabeth was reading her favorite book, she recalled the incident of when the loyalists had been taken away. As the thoughts all came back to her head, she started to worry. She walks over toward her nightstand table and opens a book. Inside the book was a gemmed box holding within it, a valuable family heirloom that had been past down for generations. This heirloom happened to be a golden ring with “God save the Queen” engraved on the inner part of the ring.]

Elizabeth: What do I do?

[Elizabeth hears a knock on the door]

Andrew: Elizabeth?

Elizabeth: Just a second!

[Quickly, Elizabeth tries to put everything away.]

Enter Andrew.

Andrew: Elizabeth? Is everything ready for supp..what was that?

Elizabeth: What was what?

Andrew: That. You just had it in your hand a few moments ago.

Elizabeth: Oh it’s nothing really. But yes supper is ready so shall we go and eat?

Andrew: …Alright.

Exit Elizabeth and Andrew.

ACT II: SCENE II

Enter Elizabeth and Andrew.

[Ever since the incident that had happened before supper, Andrew could not stop thinking about what she had been hiding from him. He was so curious that he wanted to check it out for himself when Elizabeth wasn’t around. One morning, while Elizabeth was sleeping, he started to rummage through her belongings. After a few moments of searching, he finally had found the book, but before he could open it, Elizabeth had woken up.]

Elizabeth: Darling, what are you doing?

Andrew: Oh, just looking for my socks, that’s all.

Elizabeth: It is in the second drawer next to the chair.

Andrew: Thank you dear. Well I’m off to work.

Exit Andrew.

ACT II: SCENE III

Enter Andrew.

[When Andrew came home from work, once again, Andrew attempted to find out what was hidden inside the book. While Elizabeth was out back in the garden working, he went through the drawer again.]

Andrew: Let’s see here. I think it was in this drawer.

[Andrew takes the book out and opens the book.]

Andrew: There’s a box here.

[He was so anxious to see what was inside the box that he immediately went in to open the box with no hesitation.]

Andrew: A ring?! What is this?!

[Andrew was very shocked to see this majestic ring. While he was observing the ring, he came across some engravings on the inner part of the ring.]

Andrew: “God save the Queen”? Could it be?! My wife a loyalist?!

[Andrew was so traumatized by this that he stormed out of the room with the ring and went out to the garden to confront Elizabeth.]

Exit Andrew.

ACT III: SCENE I

Enter Elizabeth (She is gardening).

[Elizabeth is pruning the garden, trimming the plants, and pulling weeds, happily.]

Andrew storms in.

[Andrew shouts Elizabeth’s name]

Andrew: ELIZABETH!

[She is startled by her husband’s voice, and wonders what is wrong.]

Elizabeth: What is wrong dear?

[Andrew holds out the ring.]

Andrew: What is the meaning of this?!

[Worried that the neighbors would hear, she asks him to go inside.]

Elizabeth: Andrew please! Let’s take it inside.

[Both Elizabeth and Andrew walk toward the house and goes inside.]

Exit Andrew and Elizabeth.

ACT III: SCENE II

[Confused Andrew and fearful Elizabeth came inside the house.]

Enter Andrew and Elizabeth.

Andrew: I don’t understand!?... Explain Elizabeth!

Elizabeth: I wanted to tell you about this, but could not.

Andrew: How could you?

Elizabeth: I saw how you reacted to the other loyalists and that made me fearful. But Please! Don’t be angry with me.

Andrew: I am not angry but I’m puzzled. What good did you find in the English king?!

Andrew: He established so many acts that take away our liberty, rights and now we have to let in those despicable British soldiers to our house.

Elizabeth: I realize that but he established this law to pay the depth after the last war and taxes in America is less than England. We must be grateful that our King is so kind that he protects us.

Act III: Scene II

[Confused Andrew and fearful Elizabeth came inside the house]

Andrew: I don’t understand!? … Explain Elizabeth!?

Elizabeth: I wanted to tell you about this, but couldn’t.

Andrew: How could you?

Elizabeth: I saw how you reacted to the other loyalists and that made me fearful. (Elizabeth begs) Please! Do not be angry with me.

Andrew: I am not angry. I’m just very frustrated. (Andrew pauses) What good did you find in English king!? He established so many acts that take away our liberty, rights and now we have to let in those despicable British solders to our house. Think about it. Acts after acts, taxes after taxes; they’re complete robbers I tell you! There was that Sugar Act, and then came the Quartering Act, the Stamp Act following after that, and those Coercive acts! (http://0-find.galegroup.com.catalog.kcls.org:80/gvrl/infomark.do?&contentSet=EBKS&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=GVRL.americanhistory&docId=CX3425000037&source=gale&userGroupName=kcls_web&version=1.0, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/timeline.html).

Elizabeth: I realize that but he established this law to pay the dept after last war that we fought against French. (http://0-find.galegroup.com.catalog.kcls.org:80/gvrl/infomark.do?&contentSet=EBKS&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=GVRL.americanhistory&docId=CX3411900124&source=gale&userGroupName=kcls_web&version=1.0)

Andrew: It is not fair; we are English too but cannot enjoy the same rights as the English in Britain without having representatives in Parliament. (http://0-find.galegroup.com.catalog.kcls.org:80/gvrl/infomark.do?&contentSet=EBKS&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=GVRL.americanhistory&docId=CX3425000037&source=gale&userGroupName=kcls_web&version=1.0)

Elizabeth: I doubted that it was possible for people who lived so far from the parent country could enjoy the same liberties as people in the parent country. We should be grateful to the King of England because we pay fewer taxes here than people in Great Britain. (http://0-find.galegroup.com.catalog.kcls.org:80/gvrl/infomark.do?&contentSet=EBKS&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=GVRL.americanhistory&docId=CX3411900124&source=gale&userGroupName=kcls_web&version=1.0)

Andrew: Elizabeth. Answer me. Why did the King make us care for and allow English soldiers live in our houses?

Elizabeth: Because he sent these soldiers to protect us.

Andrew: I believe that America should become an independent country without any tyrant.

Elizabeth: I do not agree with you because if America will separate from Britain it will not have any protection from the enemies. (http://0-find.galegroup.com.catalog.kcls.org:80/gvrl/infomark.do?&contentSet=EBKS&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=GVRL.americanhistory&docId=CX3411900124&source=gale&userGroupName=kcls_web&version=1.0)

Andrew: This is why I hate loyalists; they think so different from patriots.

Andrew: Elizabeth you should have told me a long time ago that you were one of those loyalists. We married by love and promised each other that we will be together no matter what until death, but now look what happened.

Elizabeth and Andrew exit the stage.

Act III: Scene III

Elizabeth on stage.

[Everyday in the morning, Elizabeth went to a small market to buy groceries. However, this morning the weather was cloudy hence Elizabeth put on a long raincoat. While she was coming home, Elizabeth overheard a conversation between two police officers and woman named Ruth Bensen. This woman, though, is actually a friend of Elizabeth.]

Police Officer #1: Do you know where Elizabeth Ann James lives?

Ruth Bensen: Oh, what seems to be the problem officers?

Police Officer #2: We found out that she is a loyalist.

Ruth Bensen: Is that so?! Who would’ve known! That devious child! I’m sorry but I do not know who this Elizabeth Ann James is anymore, nor do I wish to know her. Good day to you sirs.

Police Officers: Very well then, carry on.

Exit Ruth and Police Officers.

ACT III: SCENE IV

Enter Elizabeth.

[At home, the terrified Elizabeth sits and worries. She had hoped that no one would ever find out, but turned out to be the total opposite of her expectations. She sits in the living room crunched up, thinking about what will happen to her.]

Elizabeth: Oh, my goodness! Everyone is after me!

[With fear in her eyes, Elizabeth stood up and started pacing.]

Elizabeth: Andrew! Andrew! Where are you?!

Enter Andrew.

Andrew: What’s the matter?

Elizabeth: They’re after me!

Andrew: Who is after you?

Elizabeth: The police! They found out somehow because I over heard that two men dressed in uniform asked for my location.

Andrew: Really? Then Elizabeth, shall we leave this town together and move to another town where no one will be able to find us?

Elizabeth: You would do that for me?

Andrew: I told you. I made a promise. I am willing to go anywhere with you.

Elizabeth: (relieved) Thank you dear.

Andrew: Let us go pack our stuff then.

Exit Elizabeth and Andrew.

[The next day, Andrew and Elizabeth part from the town without a say to anyone, hoping to truly live happily ever after.]

THE END

Portfolio: Final Exam

Angela Kim

Writing 101

December 10, 2007

Portfolio: Final Exam

History of the Past vs. History of the Present

A famous writer, Michael Foucault, once wrote, “Why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that […] a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means […] the history of the present.” He had written this in his famous novel, Discipline and Punish. At first, I was a bit confused, but I kept reading this passage over and over again to find the meaning of it. Although I did not quite understand this excerpt at first, I have come to understand and agree, but at the same time disagree with what Michael Foucault had to say about history.

Michael’s theory of history is that he took something of the present such as a feeling, concept, or symbol, and related it back to an equivalent meaning from the past. By the quote written in Discipline and Punish, the writer did not try to get a whole idea of the past and he did not try to study the laws of history, or anything like that. The writer was simply attempting to find a comparable meaning in the past, to a present symbol, concept, and/or feeling. After doing a bit of research on the passage and author, I learned that this was also known as “presentism in historical analysis” (Michael Foucault beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics Second Edition with an Afterword by and an Interview with Michael Foucault, Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rainbow). I believe that Michael Foucault was trying to emphasize that the dates and where things took place and what not did not really matter. What really does matter, though, is the actual comparison of the meaning in the past, to something of the present.

This theory of Foucault compares to my own experiences and observations in class. During the quarter in the History 121 class, I studied the happenings during American History. I believe that the reason to learning about the history of America was to not only get the required credits, but to also understand how the Americans back then had dealt with certain issues, how they lived, and how the structure of the American culture was like. After learning about certain concepts and issues and understanding how a certain person might have felt as opposed to another person’s perspective, I have come to realize that history is there for understanding the past and to affect our opinions and choices in the present.

Currently, in the present, by looking back at our past mistakes, we are able to learn from them and to approach certain situations differently. A couple examples of this would be the wars/battles occurring at this very moment, and elections. When everyone participates in the voting for elections, most people would think carefully about who they want to choose, for it would affect their society as well as themselves in the near future. During the years after someone had been chosen, people are able to see whether or not that person was a right choice. Once elections come again, the people would know whether or not to re-elect that person. A smaller example is, when a child gets burned by an iron. The child feels the pain and heat after touching the iron and therefore will not touch it again because the child has learned its lesson. I believe that our own intuition on something is affected by what we have learned in the past.

To restate what I had said about Foucault’s theory, he did not try to get a whole idea of the past and he did not try to study the laws of history, but was simply attempting to find a similar meaning in the past, to the present. I, however, have mixed feelings about it. Perhaps I just misunderstood what the writer is truly arguing, but one the one hand, I agree that history is not just about events that occurred in the past such as government related issues, wars, taxes, etc. On the other hand, I believe that the decisions and choices someone makes in life is affected by what was done in the past and the lessons we are taught.

1st Quarter: AOD Blog #9

AOD Blog #9: Celebration and appreciation - expressing joy and appreciation for what we learn as well as what we achieve

Celebration and appreciation is when you celebrate in order to show that you appreciate (:. For example, there is a potluck coming up on the last day of school before winter break for Craig and Ben. This potluck is a celebration to express all the student's appreciation for Craig and Ben. Craig and Ben, our writing and history instructors, have been with us this whole quarter, from the lectures in class to replying e-mails late at night. These teachers have done a lot with us this quarter and I appreciate all that they have done for us, especially for me, taking the time to help me through this quarter and answering my questions.

Reflective Letter

Angela Kim

Writing 101

December 6, 2007

Reflective Letter

LOOKING BACK

Writing…a composition of the expressions of ideas put on paper. If only it were that easy. For the past several weeks in my writing 101 class, I have focused on developing and improving my writing skills. The class was assigned many different writing blogs for practice for improvement in writing, as well as expanding one’s knowledge in writing. Although writing is an important part of one’s education, it takes much practice, drafting, and editing in order to perfect one’s writing, and I believe that one must also enjoy writing in order to become a better writer.

I believe that during this quarter, I have improved in my writing abilities. Towards the beginning of the quarter, I learned to use templates for certain types of essays that followed the “They Say, I Say” format. From my pervious high school, Seattle Prep, I was mainly taught on structures to follow for writing. What I learned here at PSEC, differed because I learned to step out of the structural essays I was use to writing, and to follow a more opinionated outline of how I wanted the structure to be like. I believe that throughout this quarter, I have gained much more than I started out with.

The first piece of work placed in my portfolio is my first essay assignment about Bacon’s Rebellion. I did not do as well as I liked, even though I had used my time during class well. I got lazy and got into a bad habit where I did not try to achieve beyond the minimum requirements. If only I could go back in time and change this since I regretted the decision I had made. For this essay, I do not think I spent much time planning as much as I should have. Because I grew accustom to the way high school was, with very specific and detailed outlines where basically the preparation was already done for me, I was not as prepared as I wanted to be for college writing assignments, where I must put in my own details and specifics as well as make my own guidelines to follow in order to do well. Now that I look back on how I used to write, I realize that I have learned so much from this writing 101 class and I truly believe that I have improved my writing skills.

For the second piece of work, I chose to put in my second essay assignment about patriots and loyalists. I believe that I was more prepared and approached the essay much differently than what I had done for the first essay. During the time that was given in class, I spent most of my time talking with my teacher, Craig, asking him for advice and tips as well as discussing the assignment with my partner, Ramila. At home, my partner and I both worked on the essay separately and would put our ideas together during class the next day. I spent a lot more time going over the story and re-reading it to make sure to include every necessary detail. Therefore I believe this essay was a success in comparison to the first because I made sure to use my time wisely in school and outside of school. I would also like to point out that I actually ENJOYED writing this second essay because it fun creating and working with something I have never done before.

The final piece of work that I put into the portfolio is my final exam.

I have learned that compared to high school, college is very different. Although I may be surrounded by the same people, the educational process, assignments assigned, and grading are all very different. In college, a lot more freedom is given to students, in hope that the students will use the time given effectively, going at one’s own comfortable pace. Throughout the quarter, I strongly believe that I expanded my understanding of the writing process and developed newer, useful writing techniques as well. I also believe that the writing 101 course was very effective and helpful because I know that I have gained so much from all the practice.

History Essay #3 Blog Reflection

1) Group Interaction
2) Use of Contract
3) Use of Wiki
4) Individual Progress....?

Throughout the time that was given to write the essay, there was group interaction, but not enough. Usually, every time we interacted, we would get off topic and some of us would try and focus, but the other(s) would become a distraction. I believe that within the time given, the group could have met more frequently and during the meetings, spend the time more conservatively. Over Thanksgiving break, Carolyn had e-mailed us and tried getting us together, but things just didn't work out; not to mention Britta was in Minnesota. So during the break, everyone just went off on their own researching and finding useful sources for the essay. When the essay had been first proposed by Craig and Ben, I got a start on it right away. I found literally about nine different sites, and narrowed it down to 3-4 sources. While I had been doing this, I saw the rest of my group, kind of just sitting around and multi-tasking. As they were researching information, they were carrying on conversations about random things and what not. I remember Craig had to come by and tell my group to quiet down a couple of times. Later I had shown what I have researched, to the rest of my group, and it became quite useful.

Although the group had many crazy things going on, I believe that we still somewhat maintained to follow the contract, even if it wasn't completely followed. Carolyn and Britta were the final editors for this paper, but later on it became Carolyn and Ben. Everyone did collect information, though the information I had found was mainly used. We divided the work evenly and I'm not really quiet so sure as to whether or not EVERYONE contributed their work on time. I'm sure everything was, but I made sure that for my part, I distributed to the rest of the group members right away, two days prior to the due date. In our group's contract, all members agreed to contribute equally, be punctual with work, and the quality of the work must be at least good.

I'm not so sure as to whether or not the use of wiki was constant. When I researched information, I added the sites to the wiki. Carolyn had also done this. Though, Ben and Britta had not. We referred back to our wiki to get the sites, but that was about it. For me, I didn't really need the wiki, meaning that I didn't need to constantly go back on forth just to check the information and what not because I had printed all the documents ahead of time, so I just used the printed copies.

INDIVIDUAL PROGRESS:

As for my individual progress, I believe that from the recent essay, the 2nd one, compared to this one, my individual work and what not decreased. For the 2nd history essay, I believe that I had done a lot more work and spent more time on the 2nd essay than what I had done for the 3rd one. From my point of view, I also believe that I put more effort into the 2nd one than I had for the 3rd essay. I'm not exactly sure of why this happened, but I'm sure laziness has something to do with it. I believe that I took advantage of the break that was given for Thanksgiving, in a not-so-productive kind of way. For this, I regret. Therefore this is why I believe that my individual progress had not progressed in the way I wanted it to.

History Essay Final Draft #3

Carolyn Shaw, Ben Zuidema, Britta Wischer, Angela Kim

New Jersey as a whole was a state that was rich with culture and forward thinking individuals. As they watched history progress, the people of New Jersey started to realize that there were many problems with the way that their government was beginning to be run. The New Jersey people began to come to the realization that if all of the states did not join together and form a government that would support all states that the end result might turn out to be chaos and mayhem, not to mention that America had just won its way out from under Britain's wing, and they did not want to be reabsorbed! The people of New Jersey decided to start this process of positive change by being one of the first states to ratify of the constitution. They knew that this move was somewhat of a risky one, but the majority also believed that such a calculated risk was worth the possibility of failure. In short, they were saying that though they understood where the Anti-Federalists stood, they could not doubt the need of the people for a strong centralized government.

During 1787 and 1788 the main topic was that of the possible ratification of the Constitution. Many of the states had mixed reactions which slowed down the process even more, but New Jersey was one of the states whose people almost completely supported it. The main reason for their support, as stated above, was their pure belief in the need of the people for a strong government. They knew that if they did not have a strong national government, anarchy or political disorder would triumph. These people were pretty certain that only a strong national government could ever truly protect the new nation. They believed that it would solve not only internal problems but also would keep the nation safe from their enemies, protecting their land from intruders with a clear set of rules that all were expected to follow.

When the whole issue of ratifying the constitution came up there were many different beliefs that both sides of the table held, and many of those same beliefs were dear to the other side of the argument as well. Federalists themselves thought that this was the only way that they would ever truly prosper as a country. It was there belief that the only way they could ever start a nation that was truly wonderful and better in every way then Britain was to make a new government. But for this new nation to succeed they needed to start a new form of government that while it still had many of the British government stuff in it, it as itself was different enough that it would cause true order to start. It was their belief that if they simply changed the way power was distributed that it would cause order in every shape and form. They thought that they would be able to have a better society by having people decide more what is best for them then having one figure head in charge trying to do what only he himself thought was best. This quote best shows what the federalists were thinking. “Enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations…” (James Madison, The Federalist, No. 10.) James Madison here is just saying exactly what most New Jersey Federalists were thinking. That a body of citizens in almost all causes will be able to make better decisions then a king could. The Anti-Federalists however believed this as well but they were more afraid that they would just make the mistakes of the British government system all over again. The Anti-Federalist’s were more thinking along the path that power corrupts. A famous quote by William Pitt the Younger says it best. "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" (http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page161.asp). This quote is one that the Anti-Federalists probably thought about a lot. It simply shows how they thought that any form of central government always results in some one getting corrupt or greedy and then goes and starts to do what is best for him instead of what is best for the general public. This was one of the most important beliefs Anti-Federalists had that made them think the way they did. They were in no way wanting to start a new government that would in the end give the citizens themselves no power. So with these ideas in their heads they would do what ever they could to try and keep away from a central government and try to only care about their own individual sates. Many Anti-Federalists’ feared that “A consolidation of this extensive continent under on government [under the Constitution of 1787] cannot succeed, without a sacrifice of your liberties.” – Brutus. Brutus was a pseudonym for a man or group of men who put out the Anti-Federalist version of the The Federalist Papers, expounding upon the reasoning behind their beliefs. Many an Anti-Federalist deeply agreed with what Brutus said, using quotes from his literature in their arguments against the Federalists.

Many Anti-Federalists in America thought that the ratification of the constitution was a great nuisance. After years of having to deal with the British Government, the colonist’s minds were uneasy with the thought of a centralized power, one that could possibly bring the reign of the Britons back to America. And although they knew that they needed a strong form of government, the idea of people holding too much power disturbed them deeply. Early federalist such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay spent much of their time trying to convince that if there was not a strong national government, than only anarchy or political disorder would be possible. The main problem that Anti-Federalists have is that they fear that with a central government in place it will only lead to a new kind of Britain that is full of tyranny and people not having their voice heard. These beliefs however do not warrant enough of a reason to not ratify the constitution. This is because America as it was during this time had no government at all to truly keep order. They needed some kind of document to do this for the people. This was the constitution, it would allow the American people to finally start off as being an independent country that can truly fend for it’s self. So the reason why Anti-Federalists were viewed as wrong was pretty much because America needed to start off with some kind of Structure, this was the constitution, and while it probably would have many problems with it at first over time as a country there would always be the ability to change it as long as it would cause the county as a whole to benefit. The Constitution was finally finished on September 12, 1787 and made public. An issue brought up by the Anti-Federalists was that of the economics of the South based mostly off of slave labor. This problem came to be the fact that the Southern states thought that when they did ratify the constitution that the Northern states would start to try and stop using as much slave labor. The south thought that this would only cause their economy to fall and was a huge reason why they decided to be more Anti-Federalists. This however was not really a problem for the federalists. They still would not do anything to make their economy suffer. So of course slave labor would be there because no one wanted to see their country start to fail. So this is just another fear that Anti-Federalists had with ratifying the constitution. Pretty much Anti-Federalists believe the way they do off of fears that in reality never would really come true.

When it comes down to it the issue of anti-federalist verses federalists was an issue that lasted a while. New Jersey was one of those states however that very quickly decided to be federalists and in the end their decision was one that only made their state better. They went into ratifying the constitution without truly knowing what the end result would entail. They just said we want change with the way we are currently being run so they decided the constitution would only help them in the long run. This decision did however very soon start to pay off and it caused the federalists of New Jersey to finally see a more successful way of living within their new nation.

Personal responses:

Ben: In my own opinion I think that being federalists was the only real thing that would make the American public ever truly prosper. It was the only possible option that would ever cause the chaos to stop and bring order to the people. The truth is that men in their natural state are complete animals. If they are left to do what they please then they will simply do what is best for them without thinking about what might happen to the rest of the world. This is why I believe that they need some form of government and laws to keep them in check. And that is all that the Constitution was doing. It was making it so that states no longer just did what was best for themselves, but to instead help create a country that makes sure every citizen is in some way contributing to form a more peaceful and happy society for all to live in. To put it simply this type of central government was exactly what the people of America needed to finally start and try to create a stable and self functioning country. So federalists were doing what they could to change the country for the better and the Anti-Federalists were afraid of this change and not ready to truly see the big picture.

Carolyn: In our society there is no real "Federalist" or "Anti-Federalist", at least not at the level of the distinction that there was in the late 1700's. In spite of this lack of real-world application, I think I would have been an Anti-Federalist. In my reality, the Constitution is a mark of pride, something that has kept our country going for over 200 years. But, were I a person of that time, I'm sure I would have reacted differently. I am a great advocate of free will and every person's right to choose as I have always been, and to me that is what the Anti-Federalists signified. At the beginning I took my typical Protagonist vs. Antagonist stance, choosing the Federalists as my Protagonist characters and the Anti-Federalists as my Antagonists, but over time and with much research my views began to change. The Federalists were a group that actively yearned for structure, for someone to tell them what to do and when to do it, while the Anti-Federalists wanted to be able to control themselves and their lands.

Angi: Overall I would side with the Federalists, but there is just one thing that I have to agree with the Anti-federalist's. I believe that a Bill of Rights is needed with the Constitution because although eight states already had such bills in their state constitutions, what about the other states? Though, I agree and fully support the Constitution. Each and every state are individually different, but that does not mean that each state is capable of growing and prospering on their own, to the way they want, without any means of help. In order for the states to grow, I believe that the states require help and support from the other fellow states. The Constitution binds all these states, and the majority have agreed and signed to it. "The Federalists believed in a strong and effective government that would ensure commercial growth and international prestige; the Anti-federalist's saw such goals threatening liberty and preferred local control." (Source of Quote) Although I see both arguments from both groups, I still agree with the federalists because leaving all the "dirty work" with one strong government, would be more reasonable to me, than having smaller groups trying to solve certain issues with their disagreements. I believe that with smaller governing groups, comes more responsibility, more time is needed for meeting with other groups, and it would be more complicating to come to an official agreement.

Britta: In my experience with writing this essay I think I would have sided more with the Federalists. I think this because while writing this essay I learned a lot about how much trouble existed within the colonies. By having all states being part of one central government it would only promote a better environment for the American people. Having the constitution in place only makes life better for the Americans. It made it so people could live their lives as they please within reason. And in the end as we can clearly see today, it did work and our country is better because of it.