Songs: Nicole Hanninen, Austin Godfrey, Lauren Halbert, Michael Gloss
from Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, p. 366 (Molly Heintz, Yaheng Chen)
In class:
Journaling exercise:
What reading have you enjoyed the most? Why?
Rachel Carson:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2714989n
Imagine you are reading this in 1962. John Glenn has recently become the first American to orbit Earth. The U.S is in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis. John Paul XXIII has just opened the Second Vatican Council. What about Carson's writing might resonate? How do you imagine American's responding to her work in the midst of this period of scientific, theological, and political expansion? Pick out a passage that you found significant to the time period and explain why you see it as contextually relevant.
(Discuss in groups, have one person post a response to the blog with everyone's name on it.)
For your next large assignment (the rhetorical analysis), I want you to research one aspect of a reading we've done in class--for example the social and historical context, or the political or religious background of the author. Provide whatever background you find in the introduction of your paper and try to examine the text critically through that lens. (I'll provide you with an assignment sheet on Thursday.)
http://siouxhometownaustin.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteMy journaling on my favorite reading 3/2/10
-Austin Godfrey
Molly Heintz
ReplyDeleteEmma Broadnax
Michael Gloss
If we lived in the time period it was published, we would be mad and disagree with the content. More people farmed at that time so it would have affected more peoples' lives. At that time people did not know about the effects of their actions. The reactions would probably be similar to our generations reactio nto Al Gore's 'The Inconveient Truth.'
Sarah Craig
ReplyDeleteCarrie Fick
Thomas Yung
In 1962 they probably would've seen her writing as negative towards the progress that society was going through. People weren't ready to accept the idea that we would have consequences for the things we do to the Earth. They were naive to future changes and they were more concerned about the present rather than the future. They werent looking at long term affects of their actions.
The people in that time were reluctant to what she had to say, because they were used to the pesticides working. There was outlash because they were changing things and anytime you try to change something, there will be people that oppose it.
ReplyDeleteJordan T Euson
Austin J Godfrey
Alex Bales
Erik Gerver
We find it interesting that we had the advanced technoligical knowledge to put a man on the mooon and yet back on earth there were children playing in the mist behind the DDT trucks. We were looking to expand our horizons instead of focusing on improving our own environment. The American government was funding the space race and putting missles in Turkey instead of focusing on our quality of life in America. We were more concerned with how we were portrayed in the International scene instead of worrying about our future wellbeing.
ReplyDelete-Sara Hill, Sara Adelman, Shawn Seaton
Back in 1964 they didn't have the research that we have now to determine if these pesticides were dangerous or not. Today we are more focused on going green then they were back then. Also life was simpler and no one cared about if their food was organic or not, they just wanted the cheapest products they could get. Now if someone tried to do something like that, someone would be sued and the corporations would not allow it because they want to make money.
ReplyDeleteLiza Jaszczak, Nicole Hanninen, Ted Mathews
Alex Frisvold
ReplyDeleteYaheng Chea
Chris Cozzi
We believe that if we were in 1962 and were reading this book that our responses would be very different then those of today. First of all, this was also around the time of McCarthyism. We would have very quickly written her off as a communist. As a communist her goal would be to slow the technological advancement of the US. Also we would assume as Americans who care more about the industrial advancement of our country, that we would not understand what she is saying. How could all these GREAT advancements be a bad thing? Overall we do not think that we would respond positively to this sort of book.
Alison Metzger, Dani DeBruin, Matt Johnson
ReplyDeleteDuring the 60's, there was probably great resistance to Carson's writing. Her ideas go directly against scientific progress during a time in which Americans were proud of the country and the scientific expansion that was being made. She brought up a controversial issue during a time when the nation was trying to find resolution among political turmoil. toward the end of the reading, she directly questions the decisions made by scientists and higher officials to poison the nature. She says "Who has made the decision that sets in motion these chains of poisonings, this ever-widening wave of death that spreads out, like ripples when a pebble is dropped in a still pond?"(376). This is an attack on the nation and the people who have too much authority to wash out the beauty of nature.
Back then, the majority of people had little concern for how things negatively affected wildlife, and she brings up controversial ideas that people didn't want to worry about.
Lauren Halbert & Emily Swaim
ReplyDeleteI think in 1962, the reason lots of people were supset is because we were in an exciting time in history. We had a man out in space, the second vatican reopening, and we were developing lots of new technology. It probably felt like what is this woman doing rocking the boat? Why is she bringing all this up when we are advancing so well? This is probably what made people made, not to mention she wasn't sublte about how she made her points. The passage where she talks about all the different kinds of animals dying of is really signigifcant to the period. It was significant because it was kind of a big thing at that moment, while nowadays there are a lot of endangered species and it doesn't seem like that big of deal any more. An example of this is when she says "Between November 1959 and April 1960 at least 1300 foxes died...The actions of the moribund foxes were those of animals poisoned by chlorinated hydrocarbond insecticides." This is one of the first times someone is complaining about, and making the connection between what we do, and how it affects animals.