4/28 HW

  1. Learning Outcome 4: Peer Review
    1. I feel as though my peer review style has remained the same throughout the semester. I go into it to just read and react to the paper, so my peer review mainly consists of what I am thinking as I am reading. A lot of the time I usually ask “how are these ideas related,” “I feel like this segment of text could be moved somewhere else,” or “This part isn’t really clear to me so make sure to explain fully.” Those are a generalization of what I usually try to write when peer reviewing. 

Task 2: Annotation and Reading Response Work (for learning outcome 3)

  1. 3/26 HW – Mackenzi’s Site (uneportfolio.org) This homework was about identifying where Coates mentions HR40 and why the idea of studying reparations has been debated. We had to go through the article to find where each section on HR40 was and describe what Coates was trying to imply about why HR40 hasnt been passed.This homework forced us to do a lot of interpretation of the text, thats why I included it to be a useful part of the annotation section.
  2. 3/24 HW – Mackenzi’s Site (uneportfolio.org) This homework was when we read the second half of the article and had to explain the annotations we put on it. This and 3/22 HW – Mackenzi’s Site (uneportfolio.org) both use annotations we put on the article. The annotations I put are mostly targeted around relations, questions, and sometimes challenges. Race is a heavy hitting topic so I was trying to really put into perspective how different my life is from what Coates is describing.
  3. 3/29 HW – Mackenzi’s Site (uneportfolio.org) This homework was about trying to connect the ideas we already formed with the other articles we read throughout the year to what Coates was writing about. I think this homework was challenging because we had to take our annotations/ideas we already formed about past articles and try to rethink those ideas in a way that they could connect to Coates’ article. I specifically chose Dweck and L/H for the connections, and it was really hard because they both already talk about extremely different situations and now I had to try and connect them to how racism was affecting HR40 being passed. It was hard for me to go from “L/H have a fixed mindset because…” to “L/H can be connected to the U.S. government because…” 

4/26 HW

  1. Read and copy the Learning Outcomes for ENG 110 (right on the syllabus page of the course site!) Open the “Framing ENG 110 Development” Google Doc to help you see the goal. 10 minutes
    1. Demonstrate the ability to approach writing as a recursive process that requires substantial revision of drafts for content, organization, and clarity (global revision), as well as editing and proofreading (local revision).
    2. Be able to integrate their ideas with those of others using summary, paraphrase, quotation, analysis, and synthesis of relevant sources.
    3. Employ techniques of active reading, critical reading, and informal reading response for inquiry, learning, and thinking.
    4. Be able to critique their own and others’ work by emphasizing global revision early in the writing process and local revision later in the process.
    5. Document their work using appropriate conventions (MLA).
    6. Control sentence-level error (grammar, punctuation, spelling).
  2. Choose which of your 3 major papers best demonstrates your ability on Integrating Ideas, Recursive Process, and MLA. You NEED the first draft of that paper (with peer comments) and the final draft of the paper for our work. (Most students select paper 2 or 3, as they can see their growth over the term in those projects.) 20 minutes
    1. Paper 3, The Study of Reparations, the Debate of Almost 3 Decades
    2. First Draft: Kimball, Paper 3, First Draft – Google Docs
    3. Final Draft: Kimball, Paper 3 Final Draft – Google Docs
  3. Revisit your peer review feedback on students’ papers. Take 4-6 screenshots of what you think are really good comments that help a peer make a claim, choose good evidence, explain evidence, and/or reorganize. 20 minutes
    1.  Found at the top of the post^
  4. Write THREE FRAMING STATEMENTS – Outcome I (recursive process), II (revision), and V (MLA). You can put them in a blog post for now. 30-60 minutes.
    1. Learning Outcome 1: Recursive Process
      1. The most change I see between the first and final draft of paper 3 is focusing in on the ideas I present in each paragraph. By this I mean that I revised to try and give the best explanations of evidence that I could and tried my best to connect the evidence in a way that made sense.
    2. Learning Outcome 2: Integrating Ideas
      1. I feel I have done a good job of integrating my ideas/views from the start of the semester since the Lukianoff and Haidt article really pushed me to say what I thought. So, since we started off with such a strongly worded article I feel like that made me more comfortable with inserting myself into the whole paper instead of just a vague idea of what I think.
    3. Learning Outcome 5: MLA
      1. In the beginning of the semester, I had no idea what a signal phrase was. My go-to for “introducing” a quote was to just try and make the non-quote part of the sentence flow with the quote so it would be a functional sentence. I had been doing that for so many years and then signal phrases are that same concept but you can add in different complexities! I really tried my best with signal phrases but I’m not sure I completely get them so I will definitely need more practice.

4/14 HW, Naysayer Paragraph

The part in my paper I’ll be focusing on is: “The possibility of learning about how reparations would be paid has been presented to the government for over 25 years. Yet they refuse to see why and how black people should be repaid.”

I’m trying to portray this idea but I am having a really hard time drafting the paragraph. So here is what I am trying to get at: 

Talking about how white people blindly follow the history being presented to us in an already white-washed, white targeted system. Of course nobody wants to be uncomfortable, but the history of the U.S. is extremely uncomfortable and must be taught to get the real feeling of fear into these peoples minds. Making white people try to grasp the severity of the misinformation being taught to us and how it is creating this blind racism where we think America is the greatest country yet it is so flawed in all of the underlying systems. The “naysayer” point of view here would be saying things like “not all white people think this way” or “we weren’t even alive when racism was a thing and I thought that that issue was in the past so get over yourself.” Of course, not all white people think they’re racist, yet we all have racist tendencies/stereotypes/biases because of the systems we were brought up on.

Intro: The modern or present day U.S. we see is rooted in racism which is severely under-taught and or mistaught to spare white people the guilt of the past.

Claim: If white people were able to grasp the severity of the issue of racism in our country alone, then the idea of studying reparations may not be seen as such a big ask. 

Intro to Quote: For an example of how this could be accomplished, L/H introduce a specific way of teaching that is thought highly of in the educational community called the Socratic method. 

Quote: “the Socratic method is a way of teaching that fosters critical thinking, in part by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them. Such questioning sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding.” (L/H, para. 7).

Exp: This way of learning could significantly improve our understanding of our own country and how it is run if the historical facts are not white-washed to please or spare white people’s feelings.

Transition: But of course, there are people (white people) out there that will argue that “not all white people are racist” or “racism was a past problem, we have overcome it.” But is these statements are true, why has there been very little progress for the black community (and other minorities). Coates gives us an example of how racism is still in effect in the U.S.

Quote: “The income gap between black and white households is roughly the same today as it was in 1970.” (Coates, part 2, para. 4).

Connection: Something as necessary as income should not have had a gap between races in the first place. Yet, even in 2014 when Coates wrote his article, the income gap between black and white people has stayed the same over almost 5 decades or 50 years. This is not an issue of “black people just need to work harder” because they are at a disadvantage from the second they are born. Racism that has lasted over hundreds of years is still present today and yet some people believe it no longer exists. The Civil Rights Movement did not end racism in just a snap of a finger. White people have to dig deep into the systems we have been benefiting from since we were born. We have to dive into why these corrupt systems were created and how we can repair them to include the same benefits for any person of any color.

4/12 HW Revising 2 paragraphs

Revising 2 Paragraphs:

Original:

L/H’s article is a great example for why the U.S. is having such a hard time coming to terms with its past. L/H present the term “vindictive protectiveness” in relation to the sudden “sensitivity” of students on college campuses. “turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse” (L&H, para. 5). This idea of vindictive protectiveness can be related to the U.S. specifically towards the creation of a culture where everyone must think twice before they speak. The U.S. simply does not speak at all in this situation. They refuse to speak since there is no way to defend the blatant racism in this country due to the lack of education on the subject. The lack of education on the subject of racism can be seen in the not-so-recent movement of Black Lives Matter and the request for HR 40 to pass. This lack of understanding has caused HR 40 to be misunderstood and has caused much trouble/hesitation in getting the bill passed. “HR 40 has never—under either Democrats or Republicans—made it to the House floor suggests our concerns are rooted not in the impracticality of reparations but in something more existential” (Coates, part 3 para. 14). The majority of the U.S. in my opinion, is of the mindset “don’t ask don’t tell” and “every man for himself” so the thought of paying reparations is a jab at these ideals. Lukianoff and Haidt point out the idea of vindictive protectiveness with respect to speaking on issues that may be uncomfortable for some individuals to hear. The U.S. is trying to protect itself from having to confront and pay reparations for all the hurtful history that it’s tried to cover up for hundreds of years. 

Revision:

L/H’s article is a great example for why the U.S. is having such a hard time coming to terms with its past. L/H present the term “vindictive protectiveness” in relation to the sudden “sensitivity” of students on college campuses. They explain that the practice of vindictive protectiveness is “turn[ing] campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse” (L&H, para. 5). This idea of vindictive protectiveness can be related to the U.S. specifically towards the creation of a culture where everyone must think twice before they speak. The U.S. simply does not speak at all in this situation since the aggressor is playing the victim. The U.S. government refuses to speak since there is no way to defend the blatant racism in this country. Due to the lack of education on the subject, many white people feel as though they are being “attacked” by the black community to pay these reparations for something that these white people perceive as untrue or too far in the past to be “their problem.” The lack of education on the subject of racism can be tied to the on-going Black Lives Matter movement and the request for HR 40 to pass. This lack of understanding has caused HR 40 to be misunderstood  and has caused much trouble and or hesitation in getting the bill passed. Coates explains that“HR 40 has never—under either Democrats or Republicans—made it to the House floor suggests our concerns are rooted not in the impracticality of reparations but in something more existential” (part 3 para. 14). HR 40 is proposing the study of reparations not demanding reparations immediately which is the big misunderstanding here. The majority of the U.S. in my opinion, is of the mindset “don’t ask don’t tell” and “every man for himself” so the thought of paying reparations is a jab at these ideals. Lukianoff and Haidt point out the idea of vindictive protectiveness with respect to speaking on issues that may be uncomfortable for some individuals to hear. The U.S. is trying to protect itself from having to confront and pay reparations for all the hurtful history that it’s tried to cover up for hundreds of years. 

Exp: I mainly tried to explain my quotes better towards what I am trying to claim for the whole paragraph. Better explaining the quotes makes the paragraph sound more coherent and argumentative. I also added introductions to the quotes so they are no longer free standing.

Original:

The U.S. chooses to stay in it’s white fragility bubble by refusing to even consider reparations. “A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in Conyers’s bill… We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions. But we are not interested” (Coates part 3, para. 12). The possibility of learning about how reparations would be paid has been presented to the government for over 25 years. Yet they refuse to see why and how black people should be repaid. Simply refusing to go out of your comfort zone is childish, and refusing to try to learn and understand why reparations should be paid is just wrong.  The U.S. has a fixed mindset when the topic of our own history is brought up. “From their more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed” (Dweck, 00:41). The reparations that were requested through the HR 40 bill are seen as threatening the comfort zone that the U.S. created for itself. There is no clear cut way to pay reparations after years of generational trauma, so the U.S. is faced with either not acknowledging the past, or not providing a sufficient way of paying those reparations. The U.S. does not want to fail, but it already has by ignoring this call of reparations for so long. OR The U.S. has called itself so powerful for so long that we believe it to be true. But you cannot be a powerful and prosperous country if you deny the true history of the country and deny that you have made any mistakes.

Revision:

The U.S. chooses to stay in it’s white fragility bubble by refusing to even consider reparations. Coates provides an example of white supremacy/white fragility in the following quote, “A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in Conyers’s bill… We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions. But we are not interested” (part 3, para. 12). The government presents as “not interested” when discussing the bill, which exemplifies the idea of white supremacy by the majority white government choosing not to even consider something that could benefit minorities and maybe even the whole country. The possibility of learning about how reparations would be paid has been presented to the government for over 25 years, yet they refuse to see why and how black people should be repaid. Simply refusing to go out of your comfort zone is childish, and refusing to try to learn and understand why reparations should be paid is just wrong. The U.S. has a fixed mindset when the topic of our own history is brought up. Dweck’s idea of fixed mindset can be attributed to the government’s way of thinking about HR 40. Dweck describes that “[f]rom their [the students studied] more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed” (Dweck, 00:41). The reparations that were requested through the HR 40 bill are seen as threatening the intelligence and the comfort zone that the U.S. has created for itself. There is no clear cut way to pay reparations after years of generational trauma, so the U.S. is faced with either not acknowledging the past, or not providing a sufficient way of paying those reparations. The U.S. has called itself so powerful for so long that we believe it to be true. But you cannot be a powerful and prosperous country if you deny the true history of the country and deny that you have made any mistakes. The U.S. does not want to fail, but it already has by ignoring this call of reparations for so long. 

Exp: In this paragraph I also tried to explain my quotes better. To do this I added in the idea of white supremacy/white fragility to make my explanations better since they were extremely vague and or suggestive without these terms included. I also added in intros to the quotes and brackets when needed.

4/2 HW, Paper 3 First Draft

Mackenzi Kimball, No intro or conclusion yet. All quotes are free standing right now.

HR 40 is a bill that has been proposed for over 25 years calling for the study of reparations. Yet it has not been passed. One clear reason HR 40 has not been passed is due to the governments unwillingness to be upfront about the country’s past mistakes. Reparations are first seen as a payment option, but Coates provides an alternate reason for them in the form of justice. “Broach the topic of reparations today and a barrage of questions inevitably follows: Who will be paid? How much will they be paid? Who will pay? But if the practicalities, not the justice, of reparations are the true sticking point, there has for some time been the beginnings of a solution” (part 3, para. 11). Reparations in the case of justice require the U.S. government to acknowledge all previous and current wrongdoings towards black people. This is obviously an unthinkable amount which makes our government uncomfortable. Thinking of reparations as something deeper than a check is intimidating to the government. Reparations are much deeper and more complex than we can imagine. “The idea of reparations is frightening not simply because we might lack the ability to pay. The idea of reparations threatens something much deeper—America’s heritage, history, and standing in the world” (part 9, para. 7). The government has denied the idea of paying reparations many times, as seen with the denial of the HR 40 bill. All this bill calls for is the study of reparations and slavery so that maybe there might be a solution in the future. HR 40 is just a starting point yet the government refuses to initiate this change. The government is uncomfortable since they built the facade of America through “patriotism.” The sheer existence of America now is about patriotism and that is being “threatened” by the notion of reparations. “An America that looks away is ignoring not just the sins of the past but the sins of the present and the certain sins of the future. More important than any single check cut to any African American, the payment of reparations would represent America’s maturation out of the childhood myth of its innocence into a wisdom worthy of its founders” (part 10, para. 16). The governments’ overall discomfort towards the topic of racism and slavery is keeping the country from growing out of the childhood myth that Coates describes. Talking about the truth of American history ,both past and present, can bring so many people out of their blind patriotism. This could kickstart a whole new America where it learns from its mistakes and tries to actually fix the deep cracks in its structure. 

L/H’s article is a great example for why the U.S. is having such a hard time coming to terms with its past. L/H present the term “vindictive protectiveness” in relation to the sudden “sensitivity” of students on college campuses. “turn campuses into “safe spaces” where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse” (L&H, para. 5). This idea of vindictive protectiveness can be related to the U.S. specifically towards the creation of a culture where everyone must think twice before they speak. The U.S. simply does not speak at all in this situation. They refuse to speak since there is no way to defend the blatant racism in this country due to the lack of education on the subject. The lack of education on the subject of racism can be seen in the not-so-recent movement of Black Lives Matter and the request for HR 40 to pass. This lack of understanding has caused HR 40 to be misunderstood and has caused much trouble/hesitation in getting the bill passed. “HR 40 has never—under either Democrats or Republicans—made it to the House floor suggests our concerns are rooted not in the impracticality of reparations but in something more existential” (Coates, part 3 para. 14). The majority of the U.S. in my opinion, is of the mindset “don’t ask don’t tell” and “every man for himself” so the thought of paying reparations is a jab at these ideals. Lukianoff and Haidt point out the idea of vindictive protectiveness with respect to speaking on issues that may be uncomfortable for some individuals to hear. The U.S. is trying to protect itself from having to confront and pay reparations for all the hurtful history that it’s tried to cover up for hundreds of years. 

 The U.S. chooses to stay in it’s white fragility bubble by refusing to even consider reparations. “A country curious about how reparations might actually work has an easy solution in Conyers’s bill… We would support this bill, submit the question to study, and then assess the possible solutions. But we are not interested” (Coates part 3, para. 12). The possibility of learning about how reparations would be paid has been presented to the government for over 25 years. Yet they refuse to see why and how black people should be repaid. Simply refusing to go out of your comfort zone is childish, and refusing to try to learn and understand why reparations should be paid is just wrong.  The U.S. has a fixed mindset when the topic of our own history is brought up. “From their more fixed mindset perspective, their intelligence had been up for judgment, and they failed” (Dweck, 00:41). The reparations that were requested through the HR 40 bill are seen as threatening the comfort zone that the U.S. created for itself. There is no clear cut way to pay reparations after years of generational trauma, so the U.S. is faced with either not acknowledging the past, or not providing a sufficient way of paying those reparations. The U.S. does not want to fail, but it already has by ignoring this call of reparations for so long. OR The U.S. has called itself so powerful for so long that we believe it to be true. But you cannot be a powerful and prosperous country if you deny the true history of the country and deny that you have made any mistakes.

Works Cited

Coates, Ta-Nehisi. “The Case for Reparations.” The Atlantic, June 2014, The Case for Reparations by Ta-Nehisi Coates – The Atlantic, 4 Apr. 2021.

Dweck, Carol. “The Power of Believing that You Can Improve” TED Talks, November 2014, Carol Dweck: The power of believing that you can improve | TED Talk,  31 Mar. 2021.

Lukianoff, Greg, and Jonathan Haidt. “The Coddling of the American Mind.” The Atlantic, September 2015, How Trigger Warnings Are Hurting Mental Health on Campus – The Atlantic, 31 Mar. 2021.

css.php