Columbus/Cabeza de Vaca Lit. Response

Between the times of 1492 and 1504, Christopher Columbus made four voyages to find a convenient Atlantic route to Asia. During his voyages, he had a lot of hardships and many disasters occurred. Columbus writes a letter to Luis de Santangel to inform him on his first voyage. In the letter, he tells Santangel his journey and what he has been through. Columbus establishes logos in his letter. His reason for going on the voyage was to discover quicker ways to get to Asia and he tells Santangel where he has been, what he’s seen, and how close he’s getting to learning a route. Therefore, his reason for writing was recognized. Ethos was established because Columbus told him how he felt about some situations, also relating to pathos.
In the letter Columbus wrote to Ferdinand and Isabella during his first voyage, he touched all of the elements in the rhetorical triangle: pathos, ethos, and logos. I felt that was a more personal letter. Columbus uses “Your Highnesses” and refers to God often, making this letter contain more emotion. He tells exactly what he’s going through and how he feels. He says things like he is about to die and how he has nothing but gray hair on his body. Pathos is definitely established in this letter. Ethos is established because he writes this letter like it’s his personal journal creating credibility. His story is believable and sincere. Columbus gives us specific details on what he doing and what he’s going through thus establishing logos. He wanted to inform them on his voyage to Asia, which he did.
During the year of 1540, a man named Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca finished his first narrative on the Narvaez expedition back to the New World (South America). In this Narrative, Cabeza de Vaca also establishes all the elements of the rhetorical triangle. This narrative contained ethos because he shows a lot of character by expressing his feelings throughout the passage. He also explains a lot of events that happened or that he observed while he was there making his story believable. This also leads to logos. He had a purpose for writing this and it was to inform the reader on the experiences he had been through and the people and cultures that he had studied. He gives out specific details and examples for his audience in picture in their minds. The letter contained pathos because the author uses first person though he is informative. Cabeza de Vaca refers to God making the piece more personal.

Stories of the Beginning World

People have their own stories on how the world was created. The Native American culture has many creation stories though they were never written down. The Europeans gathered information about the Iroquois and Pima tribes. So we know very little about them. Though in the late nineteenth century, the Europeans were able to translate and understand the creation stories told by the Native Americans. Both tribes had a different version of how the world was created. They were both interesting and different from the biblical version.
Both the Iroquois and Pima creation stories were myths. Though they claimed it to be history, the way it was told was like a myth. They were said to cosmogonic myths which are narratives of the establishment of the world. I expected these creation stories to be ironic, spiritual stories and they were. I really enjoyed the stories because they were different from what I was used to. Almost everyone knows the biblical version of the way the world was created and these stories were something new and contained more irony.
The writer of the Iroquois established all of the rhetorical devices: ethos, logos, and pathos. He establishes ethos because he gained creditability. David Cusick, the writer of the Iroquois creation story, was educated and was an important leader among of Tuscaroras. The audience is more likely to believe in his myth and agree with what he says. He establishes logos because he had a reason for writing the myth. He tells people how he thinks and believes the earth was created. Though there were not any statistics or figures to support his myth, but he did provide specific details. The myth was clear and that’s why I think he established logos. Also, Cusick established pathos because the myth showed emotion. I think the myth engages emotion in the audience.
The writer of the Pima creation story established ethos, logos, and pathos in the myth. Thin Leather establishes ethos because he was J.W. Wood’s grand-uncle and he knew many ancient stories of the Pimas. The audience would give him credibility because usually when people are older, they consider them as wise. Therefore, the audience might believe his myth and not think he made it up. The writer also established logos. Just like in the Iroquois creation story, there were not any statistics or figures, but there were specific details given in the story. Emotion was also shown in the creation story therefore appealing to pathos. The story was basically about not giving up because Juhwertamahkai had to keep rebuilding the earth because it was not working out. The people he created were killing each other and he didn’t like it. Something went wrong every time he built the world over again. Though, he kept trying and it finally came together. I think this part of the creation story brought out the emotion in the myth.
Some myths are made up and have no reason or logic, but these creation stories were different. They both contained ethos, logos, and pathos making them great pieces to read. Also both of the stories were different from the story from the bible, making me think more logically about what might have really happened. I enjoyed both the creation stories and I hope to read many more.

Is Google Making Us Stupid.?

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

            Nowadays, there are shortcuts to everything. Everyone tries to find a quick, efficient way to do something. This is now what’s programmed in our brains to do, including while we’re reading. Majority of the time, I find myself spacing out while reading a book or article. The Net is said to be “chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation”. I feel this is true. When I’m researching a topic on Google, I try to find an article that is straight-to-the-point and will give me my answer quickly. If there’s a huge article on the topic, I find another hyperlink to choose where I don’t have to read as much. Even if I find a large article to read, I always find myself skimming through it after a couple paragraphs. Google is filled with a lot of information and is not directly making us stupid. I feel the way we are using it and taking advantage of it is causing us to lose focus.

            The author, Nicholas Carr, claims research that once required the library and checking out several books now takes only minutes. When you research information by reading from a book, I feel you learn way more than Google provides for you. Deep reading is now a struggle for everyone. I always find myself drifting off while reading or trying to find out something else to do. We depend on Google and search engines so much; we forget we have access to the library and so many other options. So I feel this is a good point he made. Carr did have evidence, such as history on the subject to support his claim.

            The rhetorical strategies that the author used were ethos and logos. The author establishes ethos because he relates to his audience as if he’s one of them, suffering with the same problem of not being able to focus or concentrate when he’s reading a book or an article. Also, he establishes logos as well. His reason for writing this was to show people how Google or other search engines are affect they are were thinking. Carr also included some facts and statistics, only with a bit history to support his claims. In addition, the author addresses the audience appropriately. He knows who he’s talking to and is aware of how he is saying it. I believe his audience is people who use Google often or has used it before and can relate to what the author is saying. His audience is people who also are interested in the information he is providing. Carr got his purpose across for his audience to understand. The question was “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” and I think Carr answered the question and also gave evidence to support his answer.

            Carr’s word choices were important in this passage. Carr made the text more personal by using “me” or “my”, relating the text to him. I think this goes right back to ethos and shows character. This gives the author more credibility. Also, there is very little figurative language. Carr uses the metaphor “…we have come to think of them [brains] as operating like computers”. That piece of figurative language is very much related to the purpose. People are starting to think less and have the computer do it for them. Our brains are picking up habits just like the computers.

            There is always any easy way out of everything. Google is one of them. It’s a machine used by people who want to research something in a matter of time. The answers are quick and short. Old fashion trips to the library are now starting to be uncommon. I feel that Google is making us stupid. Though Google is not hurting us directly, it has it affects on our brains. We should be grabbing a couple of books rather than grabbing the mouse to our computer going to Google. 

Diction

A willow like a blanketed elephant.