The 1960s was marked by fervent  movements promoting civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. Martin Luther King was a prominent leader of the civil rights movement who purported nonviolence. Rosa parks was another figure who preached and also practiced nonviolent civil disobedience. Ghandi too, promoted civil disobedience through peaceful methods. These leaders of nonviolent protest permanently changed the way the world viewed protest and effectively spread the ideals of fighting inequality with nonviolence. 

                    Martin Luther King, Ghandi, and Rosa Parks all promoted nonviolent civil disobedience against social inequalities. Though in different settings, these figures led very similar movements. Ghandi, in India, led a battle against the British government that was at the time imposing unequal and irreverent regulations. Likewise, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks in the United States fought against unequal treatment and segregation of African Americans that were imposed by another ethnic group. In both places, each figure was able to attract national support and raise globsl attention to his/her causes, Ghandi gained thousands of followers who joined his fight agsint the British. Many accompanied him during his public fasts, speeches, and marches. Similarly, Marin Luther King and Rosa Parks received immense amounts of support from Americans, including both African Americans and whites. They even established organizations such as NAACP and civil disobedience groups to effectively communicate and publicize their goals. 

                   The ideals purported by M.L.K., Parks, and Ghandi permanently changed the global perspective of protest and organized efforts against inequalities. Their methods of civil disobedience have paved the way for further improvements with the aide of modern technology, such as the television, internet, and cellular devices. Accompanied by these tools, civil disobedience became much more effective as publication, communication, and organization became fast and far-reaching. Thus is why we see the practice of nonviolent civil disobedience so commonly today. The world has realized, from figures such as M.L.K., Ghandi, and Parks, that nonviolence can make a significant difference in a cause. Today we have countless numbers of organizations and laws that protect the practice of organized civil disobedience. This can be seen in many instances, such as the protest in Hong Long against a nondemocratic government.

                                                                             Question 1

            Since the advent of the industrial revolution during the late 19th century Earth has been becoming ill; that is, its environmental equilibrium has been disrupted for more than a century. This balance includes climate, ocean temperature, species diversity, and most importantly, our finite natural resources. In recent decades, the world has become more cognizant of the environmental changes brought by our constant and increasing use of natural resources and waste. The need to reduce the depletion of our natural resources and pollution has become a serious issue for many countries, including the United States. It is imperative that the government takes full responsibility of the issue of conservation and green-living for it can enforce laws and policies that promote conservation, fund research and production for reducing environmental pollution, and provide economic support for green living to not only its own citizens, but also to other countries.

            One of the most effective methods the government enforces a cause is laws and policies. The government can promote wise spending of natural resources and cut down wastes by simply creating laws that promote exactly those. For instance, the Singaporean government has a policy that "awards… tax rebate of 40% of the price of a vehicle to Singaporeans who opt for hybrids."(Source B) This single policy encourages many people to choose the hybrid, a vehicle that has a significantly lower CO2 emission. Furthermore, in the United states, high energy costs are "partly offset by government rebates". This encourages many to be more aware of their use of natural resources. Thus, the government can create a significant impetus for its people to conserve energy and reduce waste just by simple enforcement of polices that provide compensation. A system that wields such influence and power can easily create a greener society.

            Another reason that the government is responsible for promoting green-living is its ability to allocate funds to researches and innovative technology that promote energy conservation and reduced pollution. As a system responsible for the distribution of monetary support, it is the government's duty to allocate funds to researches and scientists who need government funds to conduct research. The U.S government is responsible for creating tools, technology, systems, and ethics that "will allow the planet to grow in a cleaner, more sustainable ways" (Source C). For this to happen, the U.S government needs to provide funds to those who create innovative technology and conservative systems., Organizations and research groups with sufficient funding will be able to create not only technology and tangible differences, but also a change in ethics that promote green living among regular citizens. The UI..S Department of Energy, for example, has a booklet that instructs home owners how to conserve energy (Source E). It provides a guide on how to wisely use electricity, water, gas, and home appliances, minimizing waste. Such methods increases the general awareness of energy conservation and encourages many to practice green-living.

            Lastly, the government provides economic support and a platform that supports its people and other nations. Countries like the United States, which is "powerful and most influential" in regards to innovation and inspiration (Source C), must take the global lead in creating a greener world. As seen in Source E, the U.S. is, apart from Japan, a leading nation in conserving energy, having systems that protect the environment, and avoiding pollution. This strengthens the notion that as a country with stable economic background to support research, provide jobs related to energy, and promote green-living, the U.S. should be fully responsible for encouraging other countries promote energy-conservative lifestyles.

            The issue of green-living has been a topic of high interest in recent years. Many are trying to maintain the environmental balance of natural resources, climate, and species diversity for future generations. As a policy and law maker, patron of innovation, and leader of global causes, the U.S. government should be fully responsible for greener living and the promotion of energy conservation.

Comparing Historical Accounts

            The 1960s was marked by fervent movements promoting civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. Martin Luther King was a prominent leader of the civil rights movement who purported nonviolence. Rosa Parks was another figure who preached and also practiced nonviolent protest against inequality. Gandhi, too, promoted civil disobedience through peaceful methods. These leaders of nonviolent protest permanently changed the world viewed organized resistance and effectively spread the ideals of fighting inequality.

            Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks all promoted the same ideals, that of nonviolent civil disobedience against social inequalities. Though in different settings, these figures led very similar movements. Gandhi, in India, led a nonviolent battle against the British government, which at the time imposed unequal and irreverent regulations. Likewise, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks in the United States fought against unequal treatment and segregation of African Americans that were imposed by the whites. In both places, each figure was able to attract national support and raise global attention to his/her causes. Gandhi gained thousands of followers who joined hi fight against the British government. Many joined his fasts, speeches, and marches. Similarly, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks received immense amounts of support from African Americans and whites. They even established organizations such as NAACP and civil disobedience groups to effectively communicate and publicize their goals. Furthermore, all three figures faced opposition and hatred from many people, and experience difficulty in trying to effectively spread their causes. Martin Luther King was berated by the media and censured by many, for his goals to end segregation and racism angered many Whites. His public appearances were always met by fierce opposition, from law enforcement, civilians, and the press. King was arrested multiple times, which clearly indicated the common sentiment of resistance against his promotion of racial equality and the intermixing of whites and blacks. Rosa Parks also faced considerable amount of opposition, as she was arrested and censured for her refusal to sit in the "blacks only" area in the bus. Gandhi too, had to overcome suppression and opposition from the British government. He, despite violent retaliations from the British, constantly promoted peaceful methods and persistently encouraged his methods. The amount of resistance these figures can be evidenced by the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Gandhi, countless acts of violence from law enforcement, and many other brutal crimes against those who supported the three figures. In spite of such difficulty and conflict, King, Parks, and Gandhi constantly advocated peaceful retaliation and perseverance.

            As similar as they can be, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi are different in multiple ways. Gandhi led a fight against British oppression in India. At the time, India, as a colony of Britain, was under heavy British control. Indian culture, including religion and livelihood, were ignored by the British and Indians virtually had no control of their own country. Constant oppression, accompanied by brutal abuse, manipulation of the Indian government, and neglect of Indian culture inflamed many Indians and spread a sentiment of opposition. Many times people attempted to lead rebellions against the British, only to end up dead, imprisoned, or tortured. Gandhi, contrary to previous methods, used nonviolent protest to fight the British. He led marches, fasts, and speeches that were accompanied by thousands of followers. Unlike Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks fought for civil rights and social justice. They aimed to dissolve the deeply entrenched sentiment of racism and segregation against African Americans in the United States and bring about an equal and peaceful society in which all people, regardless of skin color, can live together harmoniously. Further contrast can be seen in the way Gandhi and King viewed nonviolence. Gandhi believed that nonviolence achieves its goals through patience and non-cooperation. He practiced such belief by persistently enduring suppression from the British government, including imprisonment and torture. He also peacefully detached himself from the British rule, refusing to follow laws and regulations opposed by the British government. Martin Luther King believed that it takes creative tension and confrontation to accomplish change. King didn't believe completely in the detached, prolonged ways of promoting nonviolence. He led public marches, speeches, and confrontations with the law, media, and the whites who opposed him. King also did not take part in physical suffering to promote his causes, whereas Gandhi went on hunger strikes to draw global attention. These subtle dissimilarities in no way differentiate the extent to which these leaders impacted the world. Their persistence and patience have permanently changed the global perspective of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience.

            The ideals purported by Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi permanently changed the way the world viewed protest and organized efforts. Their methods of civil disobedience have paved the way for further improvements with the aid of modern technology such as the television, internet, and cellular devices. Accompanied by these tools, civil disobedience became much more effective as publication, communication, and organization became fast and far-reaching. Thus is why we see the practice of nonviolent civil disobedience so commonly today. The world has realized, from figures such as Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks, that nonviolence can make a significant difference in a cause. Today we have countless numbers of organizations and laws that protect the practice of organized, nonviolent civil disobedience. This can be seen in many instances, such as the protest in Hong Kong against a nondemocratic government, protest against police brutality across the United States, and protest against laws proscribing same-sex marriage. Thus, people today are more cognizant of the power and capabilities of nonviolent civil disobedience. Leaders such as Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi truly engraved the ideals of peaceful protest and inspired many to lead their own fights.

           

Comparing Historical Accounts

            The 1960s was marked by fervent movements promoting civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. Martin Luther King was a prominent leader of the civil rights movement who purported nonviolence. Rosa Parks was another figure who preached and also practiced nonviolent protest against inequality. Gandhi, too, promoted civil disobedience through peaceful methods. These leaders of nonviolent protest permanently changed the world viewed organized resistance and effectively spread the ideals of fighting inequality.

            Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks all promoted the same ideals, that of nonviolent civil disobedience against social inequalities. Though in different settings, these figures led very similar movements. Gandhi, in India, led a nonviolent battle against the British government, which at the time imposed unequal and irreverent regulations. Likewise, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks in the United States fought against unequal treatment and segregation of African Americans that were imposed by the whites. In both places, each figure was able to attract national support and raise global attention to his/her causes. Gandhi gained thousands of followers who joined hi fight against the British government. Many joined his fasts, speeches, and marches. Similarly, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks received immense amounts of support from African Americans and whites. They even established organizations such as NAACP and civil disobedience groups to effectively communicate and publicize their goals. Furthermore, all three figures faced opposition and hatred from many people, and experience difficulty in trying to effectively spread their causes. Martin Luther King was berated by the media and censured by many, for his goals to end segregation and racism angered many Whites. His public appearances were always met by fierce opposition, from law enforcement, civilians, and the press. King was arrested multiple times, which clearly indicated the common sentiment of resistance against his promotion of racial equality and the intermixing of whites and blacks. Rosa Parks also faced considerable amount of opposition, as she was arrested and censured for her refusal to sit in the "blacks only" area in the bus. Gandhi too, had to overcome suppression and opposition from the British government. He, despite violent retaliations from the British, constantly promoted peaceful methods and persistently encouraged his methods. The amount of resistance these figures can be evidenced by the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Gandhi, countless acts of violence from law enforcement, and many other brutal crimes against those who supported the three figures. In spite of such difficulty and conflict, King, Parks, and Gandhi constantly advocated peaceful retaliation and perseverance.

            As similar as they can be, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi are different in multiple ways. Gandhi led a fight against British oppression in India. At the time, India, as a colony of Britain, was under heavy British control. Indian culture, including religion and livelihood, were ignored by the British and Indians virtually had no control of their own country. Constant oppression, accompanied by brutal abuse, manipulation of the Indian government, and neglect of Indian culture inflamed many Indians and spread a sentiment of opposition. Many times people attempted to lead rebellions against the British, only to end up dead, imprisoned, or tortured. Gandhi, contrary to previous methods, used nonviolent protest to fight the British. He led marches, fasts, and speeches that were accompanied by thousands of followers. Unlike Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks fought for civil rights and social justice. They aimed to dissolve the deeply entrenched sentiment of racism and segregation against African Americans in the United States and bring about an equal and peaceful society in which all people, regardless of skin color, can live together harmoniously. Further contrast can be seen in the way Gandhi and King viewed nonviolence. Gandhi believed that nonviolence achieves its goals through patience and non-cooperation. He practiced such belief by persistently enduring suppression from the British government, including imprisonment and torture. He also peacefully detached himself from the British rule, refusing to follow laws and regulations opposed by the British government. Martin Luther King believed that it takes creative tension and confrontation to accomplish change. King didn't believe completely in the detached, prolonged ways of promoting nonviolence. He led public marches, speeches, and confrontations with the law, media, and the whites who opposed him. King also did not take part in physical suffering to promote his causes, whereas Gandhi went on hunger strikes to draw global attention. These subtle dissimilarities in no way differentiate the extent to which these leaders impacted the world. Their persistence and patience have permanently changed the global perspective of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience.

            The ideals purported by Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi permanently changed the way the world viewed protest and organized efforts. Their methods of civil disobedience have paved the way for further improvements with the aid of modern technology such as the television, internet, and cellular devices. Accompanied by these tools, civil disobedience became much more effective as publication, communication, and organization became fast and far-reaching. Thus is why we see the practice of nonviolent civil disobedience so commonly today. The world has realized, from figures such as Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks, that nonviolence can make a significant difference in a cause. Today we have countless numbers of organizations and laws that protect the practice of organized, nonviolent civil disobedience. This can be seen in many instances, such as the protest in Hong Kong against a nondemocratic government, protest against police brutality across the United States, and protest against laws proscribing same-sex marriage. Thus, people today are more cognizant of the power and capabilities of nonviolent civil disobedience. Leaders such as Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi truly engraved the ideals of peaceful protest and inspired many to lead their own fights.

           

Winter Break Activity Essay

           

            During this winter break my main focus was working out and maintaining a strict diet. A week prior to the break I signed up to Wilfit, a gym I had gone to during summer break. I established a workout routine, a diet regimen, and a strong morale to maintain my strict schedule. My primary focuses were my upper body: to gain muscle on my biceps, triceps, deltoids, chest, back and abdomen. My diet consisted mostly of low fat and low-carbohydrate foods, such as chicken breast, lean beef, Greek yogurt, and a lot of bananas.

            ON the first week of break I had long sessions of weight lifting. I was very eager and excited to work out and see some results by the end of break. After  the first few days, I began to feel sore, fatigued, and tired. I also started to crave the foods I tried to stay away from. To keep myself disciplined to the regimen, I watched inspirational videos that featured successful bodybuilders who had impressive bodies. Also, at times when I craved restricted foods I ate fruits and protein bars to reduce the desires, and satisfy by sweet tooth. After a short period of difficulty in adjusting, my body began to adapt to the new habits I developed. I no longer felt tired, fatigued, or lazy. My regimen also helped me to complete my school assignments and other studies quickly and efficiently. My determined mindset I had toward exercising and restricting myself applied to my studies as well. I was able to stay focused and keep myself from becoming distracted, and also endure the hours at the desk both physically and mentally. Thus, my routine not only helped me physically, but also mentally, allowing me to establish a strong mindset that would benefit me significantly for the upcoming semester.

            Toward the end of the break I noticed changes on my physique and my strength. I was able to lift heavier weights and my body fat had reduced, enough for me to notice visually. For each muscle area, I was able to lift around 5 to 10 pounds more. This was a significant improvement and I felt proud of my achievements. These results encouraged me to stick to my regimen even after break was over. I purchased dumbbells, a workout mat, an abdomen wheel, and a stretch band to continue working out at home. I also established a workout routine and a diet that I would adhere to after school started. I wanted to continue having the same mindset I had during break in order to readjust myself back into the school schedule. I wanted to finish my assignments, homework, and studies quickly and efficiently for the new semester.            

            My commitment to the gym and my regimen have turned out to be a success. I benefited significantly from my persistence to stick to my diet schedule and workout routine, in that I was able to apply the same type of perseverance to my homework and studies. The determinism and tenacity I maintained during the break resulted in physical results, including bicep, triceps, deltoids, chest, back, and abdomen muscle gains. I plan to do the same for the upcoming breaks, and maintain my workout routine and diet regimen throughout the school year. By adhering to strict schedules, it would make studying and finishing homework much more efficient and productive. During the three weeks I learned that physical exercise enhances not only our physical health, but our mental health as well. For the first time I was able to feel the importance of exercise and its significant in everyday life, including school.

Question 2

       During the 1960s, when the United States was recuperating from an economic downfall,. steel companies raised steel prices despite the economic pressure. In response to the rise in steel prices, president John F. Kennedy gives a speech in which he effectively rebukes the price increase. Kennedy employs the appeal to pathos by inducing the reader to sympathize the citizens suffering from high prices, logs by explaining the counterproductive effects of the price rise, and reveals the immoral and selfish intentions of the steel companies.

        In berating the steel price increase Kennedy appeals to pathos. He introduces the issue by addressing the hardships of the citizens. The concept of giving economic burdens to families and servicemen who "risk their lives": appeals to the reader's sympathy as he/she learns that the companies' commercial interests have burdened "185 million Americans". Kennedy explains that the rise ni the cost of steel would "increase the cost of... most other items for every American family" By specifically mentioning the American perspective of the issue, Kennedy evokes not only compassion, but also patriotic concern and empathy. As the president of the united States, Kennedy proposes genuine concern for his people, and thus persuades the audience that Americans are truly suffering as a result of the price increase. 

         Kennedy goes on to explain the counter productive effects of the price hike. He asserts that the price increase "would seriously handicap our efforts to prevent an inflationary spiral from eating up... pensions.. of older citizens and gains in ... power." Knowing that America has recently emerged from a recession, Kennedy proposes possible damages to the already feeble economic condition of America. By doing so he induces that reader to understand the illogical aspects of the price increase. Adding on, Kennedy mentions that the price rise will "handicap our efforts to induce industries and unions to adopt responsible price and wage policies." By addressing the detrimental economic effects, Kennedy effectively proposes a logical fallacy in the price increase, for it will be detrimental to American economy. 

Metacognitive Reflection

Rhetorical Analysis of

How to Tame a Wild Tongue by Gloria Anzaldua

            Gloria Anzaldua comes from a very distinct background; her parents are immigrants, she was born in south Texas, and she speaks multiple dialects of Spanish and English. The purpose of her writing is to redefine minority identities[S1] . Anzaldua expresses how diversity affects[S2]  the shaping of one's personal identity and the importance of language with multilingual diction, personal anecdotes, and motif.    [S3] [S4] 

            Throughout her essay, Anzaldua incorporates a plenitude of non-English words to convey   the cultural differences that she faced as an immigrant[S5] . In her opening, Anzaldua includes Spanish sentences and translates them into English to explain their meanings. By deciphering her language, Anzaldua introduces her cultural identity and establishes her linguistic origins. She also incorporates Chicano words that she does not fully clarify. Though this may confuse the reader, Anzaldua is able to introduce her Chicano heritage and draw a distinction between the Chicano language and other Spanish dialects. Anzaldua then goes on to explain the history of some of the Chicano words that have developed as a result of cultural blending. She writes, "With Mexicans I'll try to speak either Standard Mexican Spanish… With Chicanas from Nuevo Mexico or Arizona I will speak Chicano Spanish". Thus, she manifests her background as an immigrant who has experienced cultural and linguistic fusions that have changed her "home" tongue into one that speaks different types of Spanish.[S6] [S7] 

            In describing her cultural and linguistic transformation, Anzaldua uses multiple personal anecdotes that show how she was influenced to change.[S8]  Anzaldua[S9]  introduces her linguistic heritage by informing the reader about her " 'home' tongues" , which she shares with her family members. She then goes on to explain how she has learned different Spanish and English dialects throughout school and her career. To her, each language and each dialect represents different types of people, location, and culture, as she says describes the specific type of language she would speak with certain people.[S10]  This background shows the reader how she learned different languages, and what they mean to her. Anzaldua also includes an account of her discovery of a Chicano novel, and how it encouraged her to teach Chicano literature despite the possibility of losing her job. Her personal gratitude for Chicano literature conveys her attachment and zeal for her Chicano heritage, even as someone who has assimilated into American culture. This shows that to Anzaldua, language is an identifying element that she feels compelled to teach and share. Despite cultural and geographical changes, her language still defines her as a true Chicano who will never lose that cultural identity[S11] . Anzaldua's personal anecdotes clearly show how she cherishes her linguistic character over other elements.

                        Anzaldua's native tongue and her accent have significantly influenced her development of personal identity[S12] . Anzaldua's frustration with her accent and the conflict it causes in her assimilation to American culture recur throughout her essay. The excerpt opens with Anzaldua in the dentist office, frustrated because the dentists is complaining that her tongue is "strong and stubborn". She thinks to herself, "How do you tame a wild tongue, train it to be quiet…" Although the dentists was not referring to Anzaldua's accent, her reaction is representative of how the problems she has had with her accent causes her to be conscious of how others view her. She believes her accent is something that defines her[S13] . She explains "Chicano Spanish is a border tongue which developed naturally". Because of this she isn't accepted as a native speaker by those who speak Spanish or those who speak English. As a child Anzaldua had many obstacles and stereotypes to overcome because of her Chicano tongue. Her language was a source of conflict that caused her anger and frustration, as well as problems concerning her self-esteem.

            The problems Anzaldua had identifying with her environment because of her language and heritage could have negatively affected her personal identity and linguistic character. However, she eventually recognizes she cannot be content with herself until she accepts the incompetence of her tongue[S14] . Gloria Anzaldua is an archetypal example of how a person is capable of being self-approved despite hostile reactions to uniqueness. Language is an integral part of a person's identity, and it is up that individual to value it. [S15] 

---

 [S1]Be more specific; her Chicano identity. "Minority identities" is too broad.

 [S2]Fix to "impact of diversity" to make the sentence clearer.

 [S3]Add more to the introduction. Expand more. Elaborate.

 [S4]Clear thesis. Main idea is concisely stated.

 [S5]Opening sentence refers to the thesis and introduces the paragraph well.

 [S6]Direct quotation from the text is used. Quotes are analyzed and used to support the argument. Explanation clearly states why the quote relates to the thesis.

 [S7]Provides a transitioning sentences that introduces the following paragraph.

 [S8]Opening sentence clearly introduces the main idea of the paragraph and refers back to the thesis.

 [S9]"Anzaldua" is repeated many times throughout the essay. "She" or "the author" can be used to add diversity to the writing.

 [S10]Analyzing sentence follows a statement and draws a connection to the thesis. Other paragraphs follow this structure.

 [S11]Analysis of an example provides explanation as to how it connects to the thesis.

 [S12]Opening sentence clearly introduces the main idea of the paragraph and refers back to the thesis.

 [S13]Analysis provides insight to the understanding of the quote and strengthens the argument.   Such accompanying analyses complement quotations and supports the main idea.

 [S14]The thesis is restated in the concluding paragraph.

 [S15]Ending sentence provides a leading thought.