1) Group Interaction:
My group actually worked out well. My group members knew that I have problems with reading or writing in English, so they were willing to help and answered all my questions I had. We treated each other very nicely. I am so glad to be in this group.
2) Use of Contract:
I don't think we use the contract a lot in this group. Everyone did what they support to do and helped each other. Sometimes some of our group might be obsent cause of sickness or something, but they still finish their work on time. So I do think that we can still do the works without a contract since everyone is taking the responsibility in my group.
3) Use of WIKI:
It was kind of useful for me. I can always go back to check the sources I found and checked what my group memebers found too. It was more likely sharing those good sources with each other to understand more on a event and was easier for me to know what websites were useful to use on my essay.
4) Individual Progress:
I believe it was great to work with my group because they gave good ideas on the essay, which taught me a lesson of how to write a good hook. In my first essay, I didn't have a good hook because I didn't really have any experiences so I didn't get how to write a good one at that time.
And now, I think I got a sense of it since my group showed me a super good hook in this essay. I believe that I can write a good hook on next essay.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Final Draft for Essay #3
North Carolina: The Anti-Federalist State
One day a guy who had a deck of cards decided to make a card tower. He began rushing while building the card tower, then realized that if he wasn’t careful; his whole project would come crashing down and he’d end up with a big mess to clean [and then he would have to start all over!]. Knowing this, he slowed down and took his time, and the card tower turned out fine. Taking things slow and steady was the mentality of the North Carolinians. They felt it was risky to rush in the ratification of the Constitution before it was PERFECT [meaning its terms worked for EVERYONE, not just SOME states]. The deck of cards was like the Constitution because they both served as bases that needed to be put together carefully. Any hastiness would not fulfill all necessary supporting features and would build a weak base, therefore risking the whole entire structure. They needed careful planning, thus making a strong base to be a foundation for their new nation. The hasty ratification of the Constitution threatened the longevity of the United States, and thereof North Carolina (and her people). It would have affects on three different levels: national government rights, state rights, and individual rights.
The anti-federalists feared that in ratifying the Constitution, the centralized government would eventually lose their sense of Democracy and turn into a monarchy. This would contradict the initial reason why they succeeded from the British during the Revolution. According to the Constitution, Congress had the power to lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce with other countries, provide punishments and coin money. The anti-federalists were apprehensive of the government and were scared that they could cut off trade with any country at any time and mess up the economy (without any voice of the Americans in that decision). The government rights would then be on the rise while state and citizen rights would slowly be deprived.
The Constitution without a bill of rights would put the states at risk of submission under the new national government. Individualism was a key attribute to have within the states. They didn’t like the idea of having one centralized form of government. They wanted to make sure they would be heard and would have some sort of rights for themselves such as individual states’ rights and laws. Furthermore, they also wanted to make sure their personal and property rights would be protected and guaranteed. Mutually they wanted a bill of rights to protect them, but at the time there wasn’t one. The Americans feared that without a bill of rights to protect them and their rights, they would be at the mercy of the national government and possibly more powerful states. States feared losing their voice in taxation and decisions regarding trade; therefore they shunned themselves away form accepting the constitution.
There was a great chance of limitation to the rights of citizens if the Constitution was ratified. This revolved around distrust between classes. “The Constitution was seen as a plot by the upper class to steal power back from common folk…” [The American Pageant (1)] stated Stanford history professor David M. Kennedy. The majority of people saw the Constitution this way because it gave so much power to the government; which of course, was comprised of people from wealthier classes. Because North Carolina’s population was made up of primarily farmers and people of a more humble class, they were more inclined to fight back. One key concern that these people had was the loss of their rights. Taxation was a subject that was uneasily discussed—according to the Constitution, government would have the right to tax all the states whatever amount they wanted (depending on need and self purposes). To them, this would eventually lead to government tyranny. Many feared that this amount of power would allow the government to tax them heavier (whenever they wanted to): first, to pay off any personal debts, and second, to pay off the war debt. Evidently, if the government were run by wealthier people, they could agree on higher taxation (because they could pay it) but that would mean endless suffering for the farmers and other lower classes. Loss of land would be the conclusion to scenarios such as this (they would have to sell or it would be taken away by force). “… this new document had no guarantees of personal and property rights—for example, a jury trial in federal courts was not guaranteed…” [North Carolina: Through Four Centuries (2)] explained the renowned William S. Powell; leading authority in North Carolina history. The farmers of N.C. saw this as prime time for the Federalists to take away power and rights from others in lower classes (therefore limitation of rights would be a possible rising issue).
Despite obvious cons in the ratification that applied to the North Carolinians, there were certainly pros. The Federalists declared that a strong centralized government was necessary for ascendance to power for the growing nation. It is true that a strong centralized government would generate fear, especially to lower class citizens like many of the North Carolinians. However, having no form government can be as dangerous as a tyrannical one; and possibly causing economic crippling to the farming population of North Carolina. A state such as North Carolina can’t survive in a loose anarchy. It had dependence on internal governmental security as well as dependence on other states (trade). Without a strong centralized government, such security cannot not be assured, which would instantly jeopardize North Carolina’s ability to sell their cash crops, and produce.
This was not a compelling enough argument for the Anti-Federalists in North Carolina, and to them, individual freedoms took presidency over a new government. Perhaps it was too early for the Anti-Federalists, who had just put forth all effort to disown the British government. Of course not all paranoia on the matter could be blamed on fear of a repeated monarchy. What can be said for the North Carolinians is a centralized government could hurt them easier than it could help them, which would deem it an unnecessary risk. The Federalism versus Anti-federalism debate concerned each class of people in a different light. For the majority of North Carolinians, anti-federalism was the most beneficial choice.
[Nash] What am I? Neither a federalist nor an anti-federalist. In this age I think the question is irrelevant. I’m sure that America would be almost exactly the same as it is now had the anti-federalist cause won over that of the federalists, thus I see no reason to favor one or the other. Instead, I ask myself what I would have been if I lived back when I feel it was relevant. The obstacle facing this mindset is a lifetime of inculcation that makes me automatically think “of course federalism was the right way to go.” Surely I can’t base my decision on what I’ve been told, so I have to reconsider anti-federalism. From what I gather about anti-federalism, their reasoning for not wanting to ratify didn’t have relations with not wanting to be a new country; but rather a cautionary step against making a weak infrastructure for their new nation. Because of this reason, I probably would choose Anti-Federalism, had I lived back then. Although, If my decision is based on what I know now, I would lean more to the Federalist side, because I think the Constitution is swell and serves well as our country’s infrastructure.
[Vicky] For my position, I am not belonging to Federalism or Anti-Federalism. I can understand the government was trying to make the constitution perfect for the country but it just didn't work out for everyone. In the Constitution of United States, there were so many sections in the articles that gave a lot of rights to the government, and this was what Anti-Federalists were afraid of. For example, the Article 1 Section8 in Constitution of United States, " The Congress shall have power: To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United State. To declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." [The U.S. Constitution (3)] Also Anti-Federalists were afraid that once the government gains a lot of rights and power, they might try to take control and make decisions without asking the citizens. In the Article 1 Section 5 of the constitution, “Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-third, expel a member.¨ [The U.S. Constitution (3)] At this time, the people that won the election were those powerful and rich people. I don't have an answer to say which side is right or wrong and I won't try to convince people to believe in one side or the other. But what I believe in is that if the government was not going to make decision by itself or the citizens trusted the government, then I guess the constitution would just work out fine.
[Kyle] Federalist or Anti-federalist does not mean much to me. I find strong points to both sides, but cannot subjectively say I am for one side or the other. I am clearly able to see the anti-federalist’s points; they mutually did not want to have a recap of the revolution they had just finished. They believed that the centralized government would have too much power over the other states and that the smaller states would not be heard. I wholly agree with this statement and if I was living back then it would be prominent to me that my voice be heard and if I was living in a small state that might not have happened. On the other hand I can see where the federalists are coming from. After going through the whole revolution they wanted to make sure it was worth while by ratifying the constitution. They were ready to form their own government, a democracy, and start what is now America. I see eye to eye with this because I would want to finalize the revolution and start to unite America, the thirteen colonies, as soon as possible. From my understanding I am unable to side with either the federalists or anti-federalists. The two sides have valid reasons for what they were trying to do. Furthermore, not living back in that time makes it difficult to fully understand just exactly what the people back then were going through. That leaves me at a neutral state, not sure and not leaning towards one side or the other.
[Tiffany] After a bit of surface researching, I put almost no effort in deciding that “I would be a federalist of course, the Constitution was a step in building our nation, why not?” At the time, I regarded the Anti-Federalists as a group that was just stubborn and didn’t want to change. After digging deeper into North Carolina’s history and looking at the Anti-Federalist causes more thoroughly, my vision of my position was altered. Realizing that the reasons of the Anti-Federalists were just as legitimate as the Federalists’, my position is in a foggy area. The Federalists wanted to start tackling the messy project of building a new nation. In a way, a centralized government would act like the binding behind the states to create a sense of unity between states. This would make things more efficient and organized. The Anti-Federalists were worried that the centralized government might obsess over their power and soon turn into a monarchy—what they had been fighting to separate from in the first place. Looking back, I honestly can’t point my finger and choose what side to take… Both sides were reasonable, and there would be no point in arguing who was entirely right and who was entirely wrong.
Quote Sources:
1. Kennedy, David M. The American Pageant. Comp. Lizabeth Cohen. Ed. Thomas A. Bailey. AP ed. Vol. 13. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. (accessed: November 19, 2006)
2. Powell, William S. North Carolina: Through Four Centuries. Chapel Hill, London: The University of North Carolina P, 1989. 225-227 (accessed: November 15, 2006)
3. The U.S. Constitution: URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm (accessed November 2007)
One day a guy who had a deck of cards decided to make a card tower. He began rushing while building the card tower, then realized that if he wasn’t careful; his whole project would come crashing down and he’d end up with a big mess to clean [and then he would have to start all over!]. Knowing this, he slowed down and took his time, and the card tower turned out fine. Taking things slow and steady was the mentality of the North Carolinians. They felt it was risky to rush in the ratification of the Constitution before it was PERFECT [meaning its terms worked for EVERYONE, not just SOME states]. The deck of cards was like the Constitution because they both served as bases that needed to be put together carefully. Any hastiness would not fulfill all necessary supporting features and would build a weak base, therefore risking the whole entire structure. They needed careful planning, thus making a strong base to be a foundation for their new nation. The hasty ratification of the Constitution threatened the longevity of the United States, and thereof North Carolina (and her people). It would have affects on three different levels: national government rights, state rights, and individual rights.
The anti-federalists feared that in ratifying the Constitution, the centralized government would eventually lose their sense of Democracy and turn into a monarchy. This would contradict the initial reason why they succeeded from the British during the Revolution. According to the Constitution, Congress had the power to lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce with other countries, provide punishments and coin money. The anti-federalists were apprehensive of the government and were scared that they could cut off trade with any country at any time and mess up the economy (without any voice of the Americans in that decision). The government rights would then be on the rise while state and citizen rights would slowly be deprived.
The Constitution without a bill of rights would put the states at risk of submission under the new national government. Individualism was a key attribute to have within the states. They didn’t like the idea of having one centralized form of government. They wanted to make sure they would be heard and would have some sort of rights for themselves such as individual states’ rights and laws. Furthermore, they also wanted to make sure their personal and property rights would be protected and guaranteed. Mutually they wanted a bill of rights to protect them, but at the time there wasn’t one. The Americans feared that without a bill of rights to protect them and their rights, they would be at the mercy of the national government and possibly more powerful states. States feared losing their voice in taxation and decisions regarding trade; therefore they shunned themselves away form accepting the constitution.
There was a great chance of limitation to the rights of citizens if the Constitution was ratified. This revolved around distrust between classes. “The Constitution was seen as a plot by the upper class to steal power back from common folk…” [The American Pageant (1)] stated Stanford history professor David M. Kennedy. The majority of people saw the Constitution this way because it gave so much power to the government; which of course, was comprised of people from wealthier classes. Because North Carolina’s population was made up of primarily farmers and people of a more humble class, they were more inclined to fight back. One key concern that these people had was the loss of their rights. Taxation was a subject that was uneasily discussed—according to the Constitution, government would have the right to tax all the states whatever amount they wanted (depending on need and self purposes). To them, this would eventually lead to government tyranny. Many feared that this amount of power would allow the government to tax them heavier (whenever they wanted to): first, to pay off any personal debts, and second, to pay off the war debt. Evidently, if the government were run by wealthier people, they could agree on higher taxation (because they could pay it) but that would mean endless suffering for the farmers and other lower classes. Loss of land would be the conclusion to scenarios such as this (they would have to sell or it would be taken away by force). “… this new document had no guarantees of personal and property rights—for example, a jury trial in federal courts was not guaranteed…” [North Carolina: Through Four Centuries (2)] explained the renowned William S. Powell; leading authority in North Carolina history. The farmers of N.C. saw this as prime time for the Federalists to take away power and rights from others in lower classes (therefore limitation of rights would be a possible rising issue).
Despite obvious cons in the ratification that applied to the North Carolinians, there were certainly pros. The Federalists declared that a strong centralized government was necessary for ascendance to power for the growing nation. It is true that a strong centralized government would generate fear, especially to lower class citizens like many of the North Carolinians. However, having no form government can be as dangerous as a tyrannical one; and possibly causing economic crippling to the farming population of North Carolina. A state such as North Carolina can’t survive in a loose anarchy. It had dependence on internal governmental security as well as dependence on other states (trade). Without a strong centralized government, such security cannot not be assured, which would instantly jeopardize North Carolina’s ability to sell their cash crops, and produce.
This was not a compelling enough argument for the Anti-Federalists in North Carolina, and to them, individual freedoms took presidency over a new government. Perhaps it was too early for the Anti-Federalists, who had just put forth all effort to disown the British government. Of course not all paranoia on the matter could be blamed on fear of a repeated monarchy. What can be said for the North Carolinians is a centralized government could hurt them easier than it could help them, which would deem it an unnecessary risk. The Federalism versus Anti-federalism debate concerned each class of people in a different light. For the majority of North Carolinians, anti-federalism was the most beneficial choice.
[Nash] What am I? Neither a federalist nor an anti-federalist. In this age I think the question is irrelevant. I’m sure that America would be almost exactly the same as it is now had the anti-federalist cause won over that of the federalists, thus I see no reason to favor one or the other. Instead, I ask myself what I would have been if I lived back when I feel it was relevant. The obstacle facing this mindset is a lifetime of inculcation that makes me automatically think “of course federalism was the right way to go.” Surely I can’t base my decision on what I’ve been told, so I have to reconsider anti-federalism. From what I gather about anti-federalism, their reasoning for not wanting to ratify didn’t have relations with not wanting to be a new country; but rather a cautionary step against making a weak infrastructure for their new nation. Because of this reason, I probably would choose Anti-Federalism, had I lived back then. Although, If my decision is based on what I know now, I would lean more to the Federalist side, because I think the Constitution is swell and serves well as our country’s infrastructure.
[Vicky] For my position, I am not belonging to Federalism or Anti-Federalism. I can understand the government was trying to make the constitution perfect for the country but it just didn't work out for everyone. In the Constitution of United States, there were so many sections in the articles that gave a lot of rights to the government, and this was what Anti-Federalists were afraid of. For example, the Article 1 Section8 in Constitution of United States, " The Congress shall have power: To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United State. To declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." [The U.S. Constitution (3)] Also Anti-Federalists were afraid that once the government gains a lot of rights and power, they might try to take control and make decisions without asking the citizens. In the Article 1 Section 5 of the constitution, “Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-third, expel a member.¨ [The U.S. Constitution (3)] At this time, the people that won the election were those powerful and rich people. I don't have an answer to say which side is right or wrong and I won't try to convince people to believe in one side or the other. But what I believe in is that if the government was not going to make decision by itself or the citizens trusted the government, then I guess the constitution would just work out fine.
[Kyle] Federalist or Anti-federalist does not mean much to me. I find strong points to both sides, but cannot subjectively say I am for one side or the other. I am clearly able to see the anti-federalist’s points; they mutually did not want to have a recap of the revolution they had just finished. They believed that the centralized government would have too much power over the other states and that the smaller states would not be heard. I wholly agree with this statement and if I was living back then it would be prominent to me that my voice be heard and if I was living in a small state that might not have happened. On the other hand I can see where the federalists are coming from. After going through the whole revolution they wanted to make sure it was worth while by ratifying the constitution. They were ready to form their own government, a democracy, and start what is now America. I see eye to eye with this because I would want to finalize the revolution and start to unite America, the thirteen colonies, as soon as possible. From my understanding I am unable to side with either the federalists or anti-federalists. The two sides have valid reasons for what they were trying to do. Furthermore, not living back in that time makes it difficult to fully understand just exactly what the people back then were going through. That leaves me at a neutral state, not sure and not leaning towards one side or the other.
[Tiffany] After a bit of surface researching, I put almost no effort in deciding that “I would be a federalist of course, the Constitution was a step in building our nation, why not?” At the time, I regarded the Anti-Federalists as a group that was just stubborn and didn’t want to change. After digging deeper into North Carolina’s history and looking at the Anti-Federalist causes more thoroughly, my vision of my position was altered. Realizing that the reasons of the Anti-Federalists were just as legitimate as the Federalists’, my position is in a foggy area. The Federalists wanted to start tackling the messy project of building a new nation. In a way, a centralized government would act like the binding behind the states to create a sense of unity between states. This would make things more efficient and organized. The Anti-Federalists were worried that the centralized government might obsess over their power and soon turn into a monarchy—what they had been fighting to separate from in the first place. Looking back, I honestly can’t point my finger and choose what side to take… Both sides were reasonable, and there would be no point in arguing who was entirely right and who was entirely wrong.
Quote Sources:
1. Kennedy, David M. The American Pageant. Comp. Lizabeth Cohen. Ed. Thomas A. Bailey. AP ed. Vol. 13. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. (accessed: November 19, 2006)
2. Powell, William S. North Carolina: Through Four Centuries. Chapel Hill, London: The University of North Carolina P, 1989. 225-227 (accessed: November 15, 2006)
3. The U.S. Constitution: URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm (accessed November 2007)
Draft for Essay # 3
North Carolina:
The Anti-Federalist state
So there was this guy, who had a deck of cards, and he was making a card tower. He began rushing while building the card tower, then realized that if he wasn’t careful the whole thing would come crashing down and he’d end up with a big mess to clean [and then he would have to start all over!]. Knowing this, he slowed down and took his time, and so the card tower turned out fine. Taking things slow and steady was the mentality of the North Carolinians. They felt it was risky to rush in the ratification of the Constitution before it was PERFECT [meaning its terms worked for EVERYONE, not just SOME states]. The deck of cards was like the Constitution because they both served as bases that needed to be put together carefully. Any hastiness would not fulfill all necessary supporting features and would build a weak base, therefore risking the whole entire structure. They needed careful planning, thus making a strong base to be a foundation for their new nation. The hasty ratification of the Constitution threatened the longevity of the United States, and thereof North Carolina (and her people). It would have affects on three different levels: national government rights, state rights, and individual rights.
The anti-federalists feared that in ratifying the Constitution, the centralized government would eventually lose their sense of Democracy and turn into a monarchy. This would contradict the initial reason why they succeeded from the British during the Revolution. According to the Constitution, Congress had the power to lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce with other countries, provide punishments and coin money. The anti-federalists were apprehensive of the government and were scared that they could cut off trade with any country at any time and mess up the economy (without any voice of the Americans in that decision). The voice of the lower classmen (which was the majority of the anti-federalist group as well as N.C.) would be lost because of the fact that all the men in Congress would be men from higher classes.
The Constitution without a bill of rights would put the states at risk of submission under the new national government. Individualism was a key attribute to have within the states. They didn’t like the idea of having one centralized form of government. They wanted to make sure they would be heard and would have some sort of rights for themselves such as individual states’ rights and laws. Furthermore, they also wanted to make sure their personal and property rights would be protected and guaranteed. Mutually they wanted a bill of rights to protect them, but at the time there wasn’t one. The Americans feared that without a bill of rights to protect them and their rights, they would be at the mercy of the national government and possibly more powerful states. Colonists afraid of losing their voice in taxation and decisions regarding trade shunned them away form accepting the constitution.
There was a great chance that there were going to be limitations to the rights of citizens if the Constitution was ratified. “The Constitution was seen as a plot by the upper class to steal power back from common folk…” [The American Pageant] The majority of people saw the Constitution this way because it gave so much power to the government; which of course, would be composed of people from the wealthier classes. Because North Carolina’s population was made up of primarily farmers and people of a more humble class, they were more inclined to fight back. One of the key concerns that these people had was the loss of their rights. Taxation was a subject that was uneasily discussed—according to the Constitution, government would have the right to tax all the states whatever amount they wanted (depending on need and other purposes). To them, this was similar to the British King taxing his own people without them giving their consent first. Many feared that this amount of power could allow the government to take away land or tax them heavier: to first, pay off any personal debts, and second, to pay off the war debt. Obviously if the government were run by wealthier people, they could agree on higher taxation (because they could pay it) but that would mean endless suffering for the farmers and other lower classes. This would then tie into the reason why the lower class is suspecting that the Constitution is a trap by the higher class. The farmers of N.C. saw this as prime time for the Federalists to take away power and rights from others in lower classes (therefore limitation of rights would be a possible rising issue).
Despite the obvious cons ratifying would imply for the north Carolinians, there were certainly pros. The federalists said a strong centralized government was necessary for ascendance to power for their growing nation. It is true that a strong centralized government would merit fear, especially to lower class citizens like many of the north Carolinians. However, having no certain government at all can be as dangerous as a tyrannical one; and possibly economically crippling to the massively farming population of North Carolina. A state such as North Carolina could not survive well in a loose anarchy. It depended on internal governmental security just as much as it depended on that of other states (to whom they traded with). Without a strong centralized government such security could not be assured, which would instantly jeopardize North Carolinas ability to sell their cash crops, and produce.
[Nash] What am I? Neither a federalist nor an anti-federalist. In this age I think the question is irrelevant. I’m sure that America would be almost exactly the same as it is now had the anti-federalist cause won over that of the federalists, thus I see no reason to favor one or the other. Instead, I ask myself what I would have been if I lived back when I feel it was relevant. The obstacle facing this mindset is a lifetime of inculcation that make me automatically think “of course federalism was the right way to go.” Surely I can’t make my decision based only on what I’ve been told, so I have to reconsider anti-federalism. From what I gather about anti-federalism, is that their reasoning’s for not wanting to ratify didn’t have to do with not wanting to be their own country; but rather it was a cautionary step against making a weak infrastructure for their new nation. Because of this reason, I probably would have been anti-federalist, had I lived back then. Although, If my decision is supposed to be based on what I know now, I would say I lean more on the federalist side, because I think the constitution is swell and serves well as our countries infrastructure.
[Vicky] For my position, I am not belonging to the Federalists¡¦ side nor the Anti-Federalists¡¦ side. I can understand the government was trying to make the constitution perfect for the country but it just didn't work out for everyone. In the Constitution of United States, there were so many sections in the articles that gave a lot of rights to the government, and this was what Anti-Federalists were afraid of. For example, the Article 1 Section8 in Constitution of United States, " The Congress shall have power: To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United State. To declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." Also Anti-Federalism were afraid that once the government gains a lot of rights and power, they might try to take control and make decisions without asking the citizens. In the Article 1 Section 5 of the constitution, ¡§ Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-third, expel a member.¨ At this time, who won the election were those powerful and rich people. I don't have the answer to say which side is right or wrong and I won't try to convince people to believe in which side. But what I believe in is that if the government was not going to make decision by itself or the citizens trusted the government, then I guess the constitution would just work out fine.
([Kyle] Federalist or Anti-federalist does not mean much to me. I find strong points to both sides, but cannot subjectively say I am for one side or the other. I am clearly able to see the anti-federalist’s points; they mutually did not want to have a recap of the revolution they had just finished. They believed that the centralized government would have too much power over the other states and that the smaller states would not be heard. I totally agree with this statement and if I was living back then it would be prominent to me that my voice be heard and if I was living in a small state that might not of happened. On the other hand I can see where the federalists are coming from. After going through the whole revolution they wanted to make sure it was worth while by ratifying the constitution. They were ready to form their own government, a democracy, and start what is now America. I see eye to eye with this because I would want to finalize the revolution and start to unite America, the thirteen colonies, as soon as possible. From my understanding I am unable to side with either the federalists or anti-federalists. The two sides have valid reasons for what they were trying to do. Furthermore, not living back in that time makes it difficult to fully understand just exactly what the people back then were going through. That leaves me at a neutral state, not sure and not leaning towards one side or the other.
[Tiffany] After a bit of surface researching, I put almost no effort in deciding that “I would be a federalist of course, I mean the Constitution was a step in building our nation, why not?” At the time, I regarded the Anti-Federalists as a group that was just stubborn and didn’t want to change. After digging deeper into North Carolina’s history and looking at the Anti-Federalist causes more thoroughly, my vision of my position was altered. Realizing that the reasons of the Anti-Federalists were just as legitimate as the Federalists’, my position is in a foggy area. The Federalists wanted to start tackling the messy project of building a new nation. In a way, a centralized government would act like the binding behind the states to create a sense of unity between states. This would make things more efficient and organized. The Anti-Federalists were worried that the centralized government might obsess over their power and soon turn into a monarchy—what they had been fighting to separate from in the first place. Looking back, I honestly can’t point my finger and choose what side to take… Both sides were reasonable, and there would be no point in arguing who was entirely right and who was entirely wrong.
The Anti-Federalist state
So there was this guy, who had a deck of cards, and he was making a card tower. He began rushing while building the card tower, then realized that if he wasn’t careful the whole thing would come crashing down and he’d end up with a big mess to clean [and then he would have to start all over!]. Knowing this, he slowed down and took his time, and so the card tower turned out fine. Taking things slow and steady was the mentality of the North Carolinians. They felt it was risky to rush in the ratification of the Constitution before it was PERFECT [meaning its terms worked for EVERYONE, not just SOME states]. The deck of cards was like the Constitution because they both served as bases that needed to be put together carefully. Any hastiness would not fulfill all necessary supporting features and would build a weak base, therefore risking the whole entire structure. They needed careful planning, thus making a strong base to be a foundation for their new nation. The hasty ratification of the Constitution threatened the longevity of the United States, and thereof North Carolina (and her people). It would have affects on three different levels: national government rights, state rights, and individual rights.
The anti-federalists feared that in ratifying the Constitution, the centralized government would eventually lose their sense of Democracy and turn into a monarchy. This would contradict the initial reason why they succeeded from the British during the Revolution. According to the Constitution, Congress had the power to lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce with other countries, provide punishments and coin money. The anti-federalists were apprehensive of the government and were scared that they could cut off trade with any country at any time and mess up the economy (without any voice of the Americans in that decision). The voice of the lower classmen (which was the majority of the anti-federalist group as well as N.C.) would be lost because of the fact that all the men in Congress would be men from higher classes.
The Constitution without a bill of rights would put the states at risk of submission under the new national government. Individualism was a key attribute to have within the states. They didn’t like the idea of having one centralized form of government. They wanted to make sure they would be heard and would have some sort of rights for themselves such as individual states’ rights and laws. Furthermore, they also wanted to make sure their personal and property rights would be protected and guaranteed. Mutually they wanted a bill of rights to protect them, but at the time there wasn’t one. The Americans feared that without a bill of rights to protect them and their rights, they would be at the mercy of the national government and possibly more powerful states. Colonists afraid of losing their voice in taxation and decisions regarding trade shunned them away form accepting the constitution.
There was a great chance that there were going to be limitations to the rights of citizens if the Constitution was ratified. “The Constitution was seen as a plot by the upper class to steal power back from common folk…” [The American Pageant] The majority of people saw the Constitution this way because it gave so much power to the government; which of course, would be composed of people from the wealthier classes. Because North Carolina’s population was made up of primarily farmers and people of a more humble class, they were more inclined to fight back. One of the key concerns that these people had was the loss of their rights. Taxation was a subject that was uneasily discussed—according to the Constitution, government would have the right to tax all the states whatever amount they wanted (depending on need and other purposes). To them, this was similar to the British King taxing his own people without them giving their consent first. Many feared that this amount of power could allow the government to take away land or tax them heavier: to first, pay off any personal debts, and second, to pay off the war debt. Obviously if the government were run by wealthier people, they could agree on higher taxation (because they could pay it) but that would mean endless suffering for the farmers and other lower classes. This would then tie into the reason why the lower class is suspecting that the Constitution is a trap by the higher class. The farmers of N.C. saw this as prime time for the Federalists to take away power and rights from others in lower classes (therefore limitation of rights would be a possible rising issue).
Despite the obvious cons ratifying would imply for the north Carolinians, there were certainly pros. The federalists said a strong centralized government was necessary for ascendance to power for their growing nation. It is true that a strong centralized government would merit fear, especially to lower class citizens like many of the north Carolinians. However, having no certain government at all can be as dangerous as a tyrannical one; and possibly economically crippling to the massively farming population of North Carolina. A state such as North Carolina could not survive well in a loose anarchy. It depended on internal governmental security just as much as it depended on that of other states (to whom they traded with). Without a strong centralized government such security could not be assured, which would instantly jeopardize North Carolinas ability to sell their cash crops, and produce.
[Nash] What am I? Neither a federalist nor an anti-federalist. In this age I think the question is irrelevant. I’m sure that America would be almost exactly the same as it is now had the anti-federalist cause won over that of the federalists, thus I see no reason to favor one or the other. Instead, I ask myself what I would have been if I lived back when I feel it was relevant. The obstacle facing this mindset is a lifetime of inculcation that make me automatically think “of course federalism was the right way to go.” Surely I can’t make my decision based only on what I’ve been told, so I have to reconsider anti-federalism. From what I gather about anti-federalism, is that their reasoning’s for not wanting to ratify didn’t have to do with not wanting to be their own country; but rather it was a cautionary step against making a weak infrastructure for their new nation. Because of this reason, I probably would have been anti-federalist, had I lived back then. Although, If my decision is supposed to be based on what I know now, I would say I lean more on the federalist side, because I think the constitution is swell and serves well as our countries infrastructure.
[Vicky] For my position, I am not belonging to the Federalists¡¦ side nor the Anti-Federalists¡¦ side. I can understand the government was trying to make the constitution perfect for the country but it just didn't work out for everyone. In the Constitution of United States, there were so many sections in the articles that gave a lot of rights to the government, and this was what Anti-Federalists were afraid of. For example, the Article 1 Section8 in Constitution of United States, " The Congress shall have power: To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United State. To declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." Also Anti-Federalism were afraid that once the government gains a lot of rights and power, they might try to take control and make decisions without asking the citizens. In the Article 1 Section 5 of the constitution, ¡§ Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-third, expel a member.¨ At this time, who won the election were those powerful and rich people. I don't have the answer to say which side is right or wrong and I won't try to convince people to believe in which side. But what I believe in is that if the government was not going to make decision by itself or the citizens trusted the government, then I guess the constitution would just work out fine.
([Kyle] Federalist or Anti-federalist does not mean much to me. I find strong points to both sides, but cannot subjectively say I am for one side or the other. I am clearly able to see the anti-federalist’s points; they mutually did not want to have a recap of the revolution they had just finished. They believed that the centralized government would have too much power over the other states and that the smaller states would not be heard. I totally agree with this statement and if I was living back then it would be prominent to me that my voice be heard and if I was living in a small state that might not of happened. On the other hand I can see where the federalists are coming from. After going through the whole revolution they wanted to make sure it was worth while by ratifying the constitution. They were ready to form their own government, a democracy, and start what is now America. I see eye to eye with this because I would want to finalize the revolution and start to unite America, the thirteen colonies, as soon as possible. From my understanding I am unable to side with either the federalists or anti-federalists. The two sides have valid reasons for what they were trying to do. Furthermore, not living back in that time makes it difficult to fully understand just exactly what the people back then were going through. That leaves me at a neutral state, not sure and not leaning towards one side or the other.
[Tiffany] After a bit of surface researching, I put almost no effort in deciding that “I would be a federalist of course, I mean the Constitution was a step in building our nation, why not?” At the time, I regarded the Anti-Federalists as a group that was just stubborn and didn’t want to change. After digging deeper into North Carolina’s history and looking at the Anti-Federalist causes more thoroughly, my vision of my position was altered. Realizing that the reasons of the Anti-Federalists were just as legitimate as the Federalists’, my position is in a foggy area. The Federalists wanted to start tackling the messy project of building a new nation. In a way, a centralized government would act like the binding behind the states to create a sense of unity between states. This would make things more efficient and organized. The Anti-Federalists were worried that the centralized government might obsess over their power and soon turn into a monarchy—what they had been fighting to separate from in the first place. Looking back, I honestly can’t point my finger and choose what side to take… Both sides were reasonable, and there would be no point in arguing who was entirely right and who was entirely wrong.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
AOD # 8 - Journal
Creative Conflict - confronting others in ways that produce growth
It took place in my dance class the week before Thanksgiving. My friend J(trying not to mention the name) was very upset. She said that she had been trying out for 3 years for the dance team, but they never pick her and this year they started a team that eveyone can join without try out. This team is going to learn two dances, and one of the dance that girls get to lift up by the boys and another dance does not. My friend is so mad and sad including other girls who are not picked to do the dance with lifting.
J kept saying that, " it must be my wieght, and see those girls who get picked are skinny and pretty." And other girl who ( little and skinny) were not picked were starting to say IT IS NOT FAIR. So I told them that, " Why? Come on. Don't be so emotional. See, I have a smile on my face, and I am glad that I am not doing that dance. Give me a smile." I was trying them convince them that doing those moves in that dance are a little dangerous. You could hurt your arms, legs or your back if you don't do it right. And of course like me, I know it would be hard for guys to lift me up, so I am glad that I am not in it and don't have to worry about it too. So I was trying to make them feel better and learn how to ecpect the result because this is a all year long class, you can bring a sad face to class every time. A few days later, I aked my friend how she feels about it now, and she told that she is ok with it now. And I was glad to hear that.
It took place in my dance class the week before Thanksgiving. My friend J(trying not to mention the name) was very upset. She said that she had been trying out for 3 years for the dance team, but they never pick her and this year they started a team that eveyone can join without try out. This team is going to learn two dances, and one of the dance that girls get to lift up by the boys and another dance does not. My friend is so mad and sad including other girls who are not picked to do the dance with lifting.
J kept saying that, " it must be my wieght, and see those girls who get picked are skinny and pretty." And other girl who ( little and skinny) were not picked were starting to say IT IS NOT FAIR. So I told them that, " Why? Come on. Don't be so emotional. See, I have a smile on my face, and I am glad that I am not doing that dance. Give me a smile." I was trying them convince them that doing those moves in that dance are a little dangerous. You could hurt your arms, legs or your back if you don't do it right. And of course like me, I know it would be hard for guys to lift me up, so I am glad that I am not in it and don't have to worry about it too. So I was trying to make them feel better and learn how to ecpect the result because this is a all year long class, you can bring a sad face to class every time. A few days later, I aked my friend how she feels about it now, and she told that she is ok with it now. And I was glad to hear that.
Friday, November 16, 2007
AOD # 7
Negotiation - problem solving that meets some key interests of all involved
Yesterday (11/15/07) in the class of Arts of Democracy, we had a activity that four people in a group and pretended to be a Muslim family. The daugter of the family is trying to convince her parents aobut adopting the American culture, but her parents want her to keep the tranditional way no matter what. As we go alone with the conversation, more and more problems and arugement came up, so we kinda have a little hard time to slove each problems that we had to deal with. But at end of the negotiation, we came up with solutions that worked for everyone.
I believe the point of this activity is let us to understand how can u solve the problem when it comes up to you, so it was more like a practice for us to get prepare in the future. I didn't speak a lot in my group, but as I listened to my group members' conversation I learned more and understood the situation of each side. It was a good lesson for me and my life too.
Yesterday (11/15/07) in the class of Arts of Democracy, we had a activity that four people in a group and pretended to be a Muslim family. The daugter of the family is trying to convince her parents aobut adopting the American culture, but her parents want her to keep the tranditional way no matter what. As we go alone with the conversation, more and more problems and arugement came up, so we kinda have a little hard time to slove each problems that we had to deal with. But at end of the negotiation, we came up with solutions that worked for everyone.
I believe the point of this activity is let us to understand how can u solve the problem when it comes up to you, so it was more like a practice for us to get prepare in the future. I didn't speak a lot in my group, but as I listened to my group members' conversation I learned more and understood the situation of each side. It was a good lesson for me and my life too.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Sourses for Essay # 3
Willie Jones, leading Anti-Federalist in North Carolina
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/48/entry
the opposition to the Constitution was strong, and in two states — North Carolina and Rhode Island
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism
Popular Sovereignty and Constitutional Amendment (Constitution)
http://ni4d.us/library/amarpaper.pdf
THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PEOPLE ( a lot examples & quotes)
Size, Representation, and the Constitutional Role of Political Parties
http://www2.law.columbia.edu/instructionalservices/political_parties/kramer.pdf
FEDERALISM, ANTI-FEDERALISM AND THE ROLE OF THE NINTH AMENDMENT IN
CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOURSES ( about the rights)
http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgi?acc_num=miami1115304485
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/48/entry
the opposition to the Constitution was strong, and in two states — North Carolina and Rhode Island
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism
Popular Sovereignty and Constitutional Amendment (Constitution)
http://ni4d.us/library/amarpaper.pdf
THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PEOPLE ( a lot examples & quotes)
Size, Representation, and the Constitutional Role of Political Parties
http://www2.law.columbia.edu/instructionalservices/political_parties/kramer.pdf
FEDERALISM, ANTI-FEDERALISM AND THE ROLE OF THE NINTH AMENDMENT IN
CONSTITUTIONAL DISCOURSES ( about the rights)
http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgi?acc_num=miami1115304485
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Reflecttion on Second Essay
1) Progress
In this essay I think i didn't make it informational like what I did on first essay. And I asked specific questions and used quote to answer the pariot's question. So I do think I will get a better grade on this essay than the first one.
2) How did your process mesh with your partners?
My partner(David) gave me some good ideas of how to ask good question and corrected my gammar/spelling mistakes. And he was willing to help, so it actually made the whole process flow smoothly. We mostly agreed on each other's ideas and and tried them on the essay and selected the ones that worked out well.
3) How did you handle creative conflict? If you didn't, what made your collaboration work?
There was no creative conflict in my group. We had similar ideas and thoughts of what we want to out in this essay. And we always ask each other's opinions before we put it on, also the questions we asked brought a good connection between both side to explain the problems we have of what we believe in.
In this essay I think i didn't make it informational like what I did on first essay. And I asked specific questions and used quote to answer the pariot's question. So I do think I will get a better grade on this essay than the first one.
2) How did your process mesh with your partners?
My partner(David) gave me some good ideas of how to ask good question and corrected my gammar/spelling mistakes. And he was willing to help, so it actually made the whole process flow smoothly. We mostly agreed on each other's ideas and and tried them on the essay and selected the ones that worked out well.
3) How did you handle creative conflict? If you didn't, what made your collaboration work?
There was no creative conflict in my group. We had similar ideas and thoughts of what we want to out in this essay. And we always ask each other's opinions before we put it on, also the questions we asked brought a good connection between both side to explain the problems we have of what we believe in.
Monday, November 12, 2007
AN INTERVIEW WITH A PATRIOT (ESSAY #2)
David Cahoon & Vicky Lay
Combined Essay #1
Combined Essay #1
Introduction to Interview
Two decades defined the American Revolution, 1760’s and the 1770’s. During this time when colonies were blossoming, many immigrants from England chose to move to the New World. Along with this move, families would be torn apart between two critical choices. If families chose to stay loyal to England and the King, colonists would be known as Loyalists; if they chose to break free of the supreme empire then the colonists would be known as Patriots. This would pit neighbor against neighbor and even within the same family. Many of the early problems for the colonists arose when England abused the colonists by taking away many of their newly gained American rights. England “expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various presences but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, and establishing a board of commissioners with unconstitutional powers.”[1] While England continued to impose laws and taxes on the colonists, without their approval, many voted for splitting off from the supreme empire, resulting in some being labeled Patriots. On the other side a document was discovered of an interview between a Loyalist and a Patriot. This piece is about a New England merchant named Patrick, who is in favor of patriotism and has agreed to embark his thoughts and reason with a royal governor who continues to stay loyal to England. The royal governor, Bob, was appointed to the colony to directly report back to the King, for purposes of keeping tabs on the acts of the Patriots. The interview between the Loyalist and Patriot is a debate to discover the motives and actions behind the Patriots.
Governor Bob: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me and to share your opinions. To start off, as a merchant of New England, could you explain to me why you would want to break away from the protection and security of England?
Merchant Patrick: Personally, I find the protection and security of England irrelevant to the problem. We applaud England for the help in the defeat of the French but it was not solely because of their efforts. We as Americans did our part of ridding the land of the French. The main issue is the improper imposition of taxes on the colonies. Britain should not be allowed to tax the American colonies to gain back money and power without our consent. Tell me governor, why do you think we should pay tax to the British?
Governor Bob: The protection we provided to the colonists in America caused Britain a substantial amount of money. If it were not for our help the French would have crushed the colonists. Since the New England Colonies are still apart of Britain, Britain can tax you for the expenses of your protection. The colonists had a Tea Party that dumped tea from England into the sea in 1773; does this mean you are opposed paying the taxes? Would you tell me the reasons why you disagree and what can we change or do to make it better?
Merchant Patrick: The Tea Party was a representation of our feelings towards the taxes; of course we are opposed to paying unreasonable taxes without representation in Britain for our economic needs. Why should Britain be able to setup the Tea Act where Britain does not have to pay taxes, but we get taxed on the imports of goods? I say “No taxation without representation.”[2]Then in turn, Britain's unreasonable tax on importing and exporting goods is pushing more and more merchants like me to become extremely aggravated. These taxes are dampening our profits as a whole and simply, we are not getting anything out of our taxed wages. Our rights are wrongfully being trampled on, and since our ancestors settled in this land we should be given the same rights as they once had. This whole situation between Patriots and the King is not strictly about the imposing of taxes, but also the loss of liberty and justice. As “the parliament have taken upon them, from the representations of our governor and other persons inimical to and deeply prejudiced against the inhabitants, to try, condemn, and by an act to punish them, unheard; which would have been in violation of natural justice even if they had an acknowledged jurisdiction. This attack, though made immediately upon us, is doubtless designed for very other colony who will not surrender their sacred rights and liberties into the hands of an infamous ministry. Now therefore is the time when all should be united in opposition to this violation of liberties of all. Their grand object is to divide the colonies.”[3] So Bob, should we as colonists sit back and watch Britain try and take advantage of us? Tell me why we shouldn't be rebelling against the King and the parliament when our liberties are being broken and taken right from our families?
Governor Bob: If I was one of the Patriots, I believe I would not keep quiet and let it happen, but in the other hand, we as immigrants from England to America, I know somewhere in our minds we still have a voice saying that we are still part of the British Empire. “A reverence for our Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of the end.”[4] I can tell that all of you still have the respect for Great Britain. I believe the acts of what the British Empire did were driven by a desire to keep the bonds between colonists in America and the people that remain in England strong. I have to admit that the King and loyal governors are trying too hard to over-protect the colonists. The key issue that turned the colonists and British Empire against each other is the fact that the colonists were not able to consent to the taxation against them. Now that I understand the issues, I will report to the King and the Governors in England. Thank you for spending your time to sharing a piece of your mind. I hope we can fix the issue of the lack of understanding of the colonists’ concerns and have a good relationship with each other again.
[1]Referring back to the Declaration and resolves of the First Continental Congress of October, 1774 the congress wrote this article to try and state the freedoms of the colonists because these freedoms were wrongfully being abused by the British.
[2]“No taxation without representation" was a slogan period 1763-1775 that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen colonies.
[3]Quote taken from Circular letter of the Boston Committee of Correspondence; May 13, 1774. The article was written as a distress letter to seek help from neighboring colonies. The article states how Britain is trying to divide the colonies to make them weaker, taking away the natural rights and liberties of the Colonists.
[4] The quote is written in A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms. This article is about how colonists respect the British Empire but are not happy with the unfairness of the laws that British have made for them.
[2]“No taxation without representation" was a slogan period 1763-1775 that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen colonies.
[3]Quote taken from Circular letter of the Boston Committee of Correspondence; May 13, 1774. The article was written as a distress letter to seek help from neighboring colonies. The article states how Britain is trying to divide the colonies to make them weaker, taking away the natural rights and liberties of the Colonists.
[4] The quote is written in A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms. This article is about how colonists respect the British Empire but are not happy with the unfairness of the laws that British have made for them.
Friday, November 9, 2007
AOD #6
Negotiation-problem solving that meets some key interests of all involved
I think everyone should learn how to negotiate with others when problem comes. A good negotiation can find a good way to slove the problem that both sides agree with. In the video I watched for the class Art of Democracy, we can see when two parties are aruging for something and the result will be different depends on the way you negotiate with each other. When you listen to each other's opinions and be consdierable, everything will turn out to be fine at most of the time.
For example, I had a little arugement with my parents after I came back from the college fair. They told me that I should take coputer as major since computer is the most popular tool in the modern world. And I told them that i am not intersting at computer, I want to learn something esle. And when they ask me what else can you do in the future with comouter, i couldn't answer the question because I wasn't prepared. So next time when they ask me this question again, I will be sure that I am prepared and ready to tell and convince them what I am really interested at.
I think everyone should learn how to negotiate with others when problem comes. A good negotiation can find a good way to slove the problem that both sides agree with. In the video I watched for the class Art of Democracy, we can see when two parties are aruging for something and the result will be different depends on the way you negotiate with each other. When you listen to each other's opinions and be consdierable, everything will turn out to be fine at most of the time.
For example, I had a little arugement with my parents after I came back from the college fair. They told me that I should take coputer as major since computer is the most popular tool in the modern world. And I told them that i am not intersting at computer, I want to learn something esle. And when they ask me what else can you do in the future with comouter, i couldn't answer the question because I wasn't prepared. So next time when they ask me this question again, I will be sure that I am prepared and ready to tell and convince them what I am really interested at.
Friday, November 2, 2007
AOD #5
Creative Conflict-confronting others in ways that produce growth
This week in AOD class, we disscuss the meanings of Creative Conflict. Creative conflict means listen to other, negotiate with anger and more... . We saw some photo of a community called Tree House, was built for most of people who had adpoted more than 3 or 4 children and have better environment for them to live. From the photo I can tell that the children live in that community are comforted and have good relationship with each other. Sometimes there are volunteers to play or read stories with children, most of them are seniors.
It was really nice to know there is a nice place call Tree House in ths world. If there are more of this kind of community, a lot of relatiobship problems between the family and adopted children will be easily solved. And it was so great to know the meanings of Creative Conflict, it is useful to use when you get problems with other, especail with your family. It will be a good idea to apply them in your family, but my relationship with my family is fine, so i guess I will try to tell more people about it when they have problems with their relationship with others.
This week in AOD class, we disscuss the meanings of Creative Conflict. Creative conflict means listen to other, negotiate with anger and more... . We saw some photo of a community called Tree House, was built for most of people who had adpoted more than 3 or 4 children and have better environment for them to live. From the photo I can tell that the children live in that community are comforted and have good relationship with each other. Sometimes there are volunteers to play or read stories with children, most of them are seniors.
It was really nice to know there is a nice place call Tree House in ths world. If there are more of this kind of community, a lot of relatiobship problems between the family and adopted children will be easily solved. And it was so great to know the meanings of Creative Conflict, it is useful to use when you get problems with other, especail with your family. It will be a good idea to apply them in your family, but my relationship with my family is fine, so i guess I will try to tell more people about it when they have problems with their relationship with others.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Source for Second Essay
http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=a9h&AN=24626866&site=ehost-live&scope=site
(First source for second essay)-David Cahoon
http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=a9h&AN=19628612&site=ehost-live&scope=site
(Second source for second essay)-David Cahoon
(First source for second essay)-David Cahoon
http://moe.ic.highline.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=a9h&AN=19628612&site=ehost-live&scope=site
(Second source for second essay)-David Cahoon
Annotation on Resourses for Essay # 2
*Format: Interview
*Finding resourses and have them annotate in our Wiki
Annotation
Vicky:
Loyal to a Fault
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=2&did=1300269381&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1193945744&clientId=1894 This article was published in "New York Times Magazine"in 2007 by Jasanoff Maya, an Assistant Professor of History. This article tells that loyalists are the American Revoltion's guility secret: rarely spoken of, hauntingly present. At least one in five Americans is believed to have remained loyal to Britain during the war. This article had useful information about how loyalists were like during the war and how they ended up after the war.
'Catch Him and Smash Him!'
http://blackboard.highline.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_5_1
This site is about the loyalist's fight. A force of the U.S. militia, dragoons and regulars met Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton and his veteran regulars and Loyalists in battle in the northwestern South Carolina at Cowpens and achieved one of the most remarkable victories for the U.S. during the Revolution in January 1781. And I believe it is useful beacuse it gives some details and events during the American Revolution.
A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Armshttp://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/arms.htmThis primary document is about how colonists feel about the King of Great Britain. The colonist still respect the British Empire as their Creator, but they are unhappy that British took away the true laws from them. Also it talked about that British said that they are trying to protect the colonist, but the truth was trying to take control the land.The colonists are asking for freedom.
The American Promise p.195~201These pages give the background of the tea from England to America, and the acts colonists did to show British Empire that they are unhappy with the taxes and other true laws during 1770~1774.
*Finding resourses and have them annotate in our Wiki
Annotation
Vicky:
Loyal to a Fault
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=2&did=1300269381&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1193945744&clientId=1894 This article was published in "New York Times Magazine"in 2007 by Jasanoff Maya, an Assistant Professor of History. This article tells that loyalists are the American Revoltion's guility secret: rarely spoken of, hauntingly present. At least one in five Americans is believed to have remained loyal to Britain during the war. This article had useful information about how loyalists were like during the war and how they ended up after the war.
'Catch Him and Smash Him!'
http://blackboard.highline.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_5_1
This site is about the loyalist's fight. A force of the U.S. militia, dragoons and regulars met Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton and his veteran regulars and Loyalists in battle in the northwestern South Carolina at Cowpens and achieved one of the most remarkable victories for the U.S. during the Revolution in January 1781. And I believe it is useful beacuse it gives some details and events during the American Revolution.
A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Armshttp://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/arms.htmThis primary document is about how colonists feel about the King of Great Britain. The colonist still respect the British Empire as their Creator, but they are unhappy that British took away the true laws from them. Also it talked about that British said that they are trying to protect the colonist, but the truth was trying to take control the land.The colonists are asking for freedom.
The American Promise p.195~201These pages give the background of the tea from England to America, and the acts colonists did to show British Empire that they are unhappy with the taxes and other true laws during 1770~1774.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)