Conflicts with and Old Friend

(Art of Democracy)

On September 27, a woman arrived at my house. She met with my mother, crying and pleading, and quick footsteps echoed throughout the house. The two loitered on the driveway, at which point my mother took the woman's keys and called 911. Of course, neither me nor my elder brother were informed that there was a drunken, suicidal woman just outside the door until the police cars and ambulance arrived. She was, apparently, an old friend that had gone fifteen years without being seen by my parents, potentially dangerous due to the fact that she held no care to the repercussions she could cause herself.

My brother, mother, and I argued considerably over the woman and offered our speculations on what we should have done. In the end, though, we all begrudgingly agreed that it was best to have called the police.

Native American Genocide

There are three primary documents highlighting the Spaniards initial treatment toward the Native American peoples. One of which quoted Antόn Montecino, a Dominican friar who gave a sermon in 1511. In essence, the man said but one idea: greed has led to the corruption of the soul. The friar insisted that the Spaniards' lust for gold had resulted in condemnations of themselves. For, instead of completing one of their main goals in the New World, which was the spreading of the Catholic religion, he asserted that the Conquistadors were enslaving and murdering the Native American peoples instead of attempting to convert those who could easily join the Christian religion. In the years of 1512 and 1513, King Ferdinand of Spain created an adequate response that dismissed all accusations of the conquistadors sins. This missive, known as the Requerimento, was to be read before the Native Americans in order to offer them a chance to convert. In short, the text rejected all blame set onto the Spaniards by the Dominican friar. The Pope, as the letter stated, was God's mortal king on Earth, and had given Spain's King and Queen all of the Native Americans' lands. If the Native Americans willingly converted to Christianity, their lives, peoples, and claimed lands would be spared, as well as be treated in the same regard as other Spaniards by the wills of Spain's leaders. Resisting Christianity, though, would result in death, enslavement, and loss of lands. Truthfully, though granting relief of blame for the sins, as would be known as, committed by the Spaniards in the New World, the Requerimento implied that Christianity was, and is, the ultimate religion; and, that those who do not believe in God (in the addition to living a peaceful and fruitful life) were heathens, needing to give their wealth and lives to those of the faith. The missive was read by Spaniards in Spanish and few Native American tribes were given a translation. Bartolomé de Las Casas, in the year of 1552, wrote what is known as The Cruelties of the Spaniards Committed in America Destruction of the Indies. His was an eye witness account of the the acts Spaniards did unto the Native Americans. This man described the Native Americans of the isle El Salvador to be living in one of the most heavily populated areas, rich with fertile soil, and thriving with diversity. The people themselves were effeminate in nature, reminding Bartolomé of European aristocrats; albeit, the Native Americans were, as he implies, in no way to hold grudges or will revenge, allowing the Spaniards to dominate whilst they were hospitable, honorable, and kind to their visitors. And, in this way, as Bartolomé remembers, the Native Americans were "innocent Sheep." Yet, Bartolomé assures that the Native Americans did not die without reason, for they completed their wills to nature, but the cause of their death was contradictory to the followers of God (as in, it was sinful to commit such heinous acts against other living beings). But, the man insists that the Spanish peoples were not fit for the very idea of quick riches, for it was contradictory to their social structure and personalities. The man continues, saying that the Spanish treated Native Americans as "... not as Beasts, which I cordially wished they would, but as the most abject dung and filth of the Earth..." he furthers that fifteen million peoples of the Americas were killed within forty years without even knowing the Christian faith that was meant to be instilled upon them. These Spaniards killed, walked over, and left the Bible free of their tortures; thus, the Native Americans did not even know the cause of their mass deaths, repeated injuries, and unjust harassment. Although the "... Spaniards never received any injury from the Indians..." and were provoked by only their greed for slaves, gold, and riches; the Native Americans themselves soon began to arm themselves with distinctly primitive weapons in way of defense, on the isle of Hispaniola. At this slight resistance, the Spaniards began to massacre the peoples, sparing no age, gender, or disability. To them, it was more a game, as these conquistadors made wagers to how they would kill the next Native American, how they would slice them in half or decapitate them, taking special appreciation in murdering the infants in brutally horrific ways - much as the rest of the population. Some Native Americans were sent free, crippled in a dispraise of their flight, to carry the messages of the Spaniards to their brethren farther inland. Native American nobility were killed upon gallows with fires beneath their feet setting them aflame and burning them alive, but the Captain of the Spaniards found their painful screams disrupting his sleep. A man, whom Bartolomé knew his parents, gagged them so that their torture could be prolonged instead of the more immediate death by strangulation. In essence, what the man was saying, was that he did not believe the Native Americans deserved to live as they were heathens and did not accept God, but their deaths left no hope for the conquistadors salvation. Yet, moreover, easy wealth - one not gained through noble efforts or morally correct ways - created warped, shrewd, greedy, and twisted personalities, ones not fit for the riches acquired; much as the Executioner of the Native American nobles, who preferred to watched the peoples burn to death and fill the air with the scent of scorched human flesh then screams. Moreover, Bartolomé presents the idea that the Native Americans, albeit of a completely different culture and mindset, deserved a chance to become followers of God and live in harmony with the Europeans. Essentially, the idea presented throughout these texts is that the conquistadors were driven by greed to murder the Native American peoples, holding the firm belief that it would not be their fault for the deaths committed.

After quiescent deliberation a few objects of consideration must be stated. In regards to a general subject matter, this shows that differencecs cannot be equally respected. The diversity the inhabits Earth and its peoples are not valued and that unique ways of life are smothered before they can continue their devlopment into a sophisticated society of their own regards and customs. Moreover, these text tell me that greed is the driving force of corruption, and thus the downfall of all humanity. Because, when there is greed, only the momentary gains are important, not the effects of such wealth or the reprocusions of acquiring them. In this way, only those who offer to give such a gain to the greedy are accepted and protected, much like King Ferdinand and his Requerimento. Those who condemned the greedy for the sins caused to gain such riches were dismissed, in fashions similar to Antόn Montecino. To these selfish peoples, nothing matters but the object they want, not those who suffer to attain it nor those who die to protect it, just the object. I suppose, in the end, it will be this greed that kills us all, much as President George W. Bush has killed countless innocents all for the gain of oil and, thusly, his gluttony. In such a matter, we must strive to overcome the obstacles that the conquistadors had fallen to so that, plausibly, peace may be a lasting solution for us all.

The Beginning of My Writing Philosophy

Put very simply, I myself am a writer. And as a writer, I find myself buried beneath ideas and papers filled with little notes and other such magical tidbits of information. Herein, I write as thusly: novels, short stories, poems, essays, and whatever else someone asks me to reform in written word. My personal works themselves are of the purely fantasy type, since realism and science fiction seem to be challenging to me, but I can write angry letters rather well. Going about these I generally do them in the same fashion (essays excluded). I begin them so that, like the reader, I can live the words and find the plot as I go on when the text plays about before me. Only I do this because I know I would lose interest if I were to plot out these works and I would leave them lying dead and alone on my stack of ideas. These are purely for my fantasy stories, and poems, seeing as they usually take more than a week for me to write (with exceptions). And as the works go on into long, elongated chapters, I return to the beginning and start tweaking minor details that helped me in the beginning but eventually were spurned with a plot twists. In essense, it takes many drafts, a large stack of white paper, and enough money to buy more ink. For essays and letters, although, I go about it in a completely different fashion. These texts need to be plotted beforehand, in the normal droll essay-text that will forever be either persuasive or arguementive tone (as with my letters). In this manner, I do the standardized plotting of ideas, rough drafts of which are thoroughly edited in hard copies. Usually, I only spend a week on essays (starting with the rough draft on Monday and the final by Friday). But, as with all my writing, I'm never satisfied.

Now, templates are another subject matter entirely. In my purely academic writing, I suppose I should begin the usage of those from the "They say/I say" text I have attained. But, aside from that simple matter, I almost fail to see how it will affect me. Perhaps, if maybe writing a conversation of people debating, clashing viewpoints, or diverse characters such templates will come into play in my writing. But, aside from essays and formal submissions into my classrooms, it might not carry long into my life. Perchance, though, I really do use these templates. And, as the authors of the text said, I quote, "... you'll realize that once you've mastered [an activity] you no longer need to give much consciuos thought to the various moves that go into doing it." So, given how I normally just sit and let the words fall out, not giving much care to formality or grammatical correctness, I might be one of these people. In the styles portrayed, templates are just a pattern to become accomstumed to - something which the human brain can easily recognize and accomplish. And, because I have no true pattern to go by (unless random words can be patterned in some way) I suppose if I began using this format in my original works, then it would become bland, tasteless, and otherwise deprive the text of my style (which as my teacher once told me was a way of crafting long, round-about sentences that flow seemlessly together). So, I suppose, I'd prefer my rather lax showmanship to that of the templates. They are, probably, something I fall back on about sixty percent of the time, but in a different form of template. Either way, though, templates would only lead to a rather unwanted and uncharactaristic meshing of my work. Thus, I do not believe, except for academic uses, I will be using said templates.

Writing Defined

Writing has has a definition different to each individual. For the authors Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein (of the book "They say/ I say" Moves that Matter in Acedemic Writing) I cannot say for sure, but I now what I believe might be their beliefs. Originally, I thought they viewed writing as a science: something structured and regulated by formulas, deemed and studied by scrutinizing eyes, and always changing with new questions. As the passage I read went on, though, I realized that they saw writing as a tool, an instrument by which opinions could be reasonably and equally shared. The two saw writing, also, as a form of conversation, of something that is response to another's words or actions. It is, to them, merely a replying text instead of something that should stand alone.

Now, for myself, I have trouble defining writing. Because writing, to me, is living the words and breathing them through fingers. It is both an emotion and a passion. For me, when my writing stops, the world outside begins again. This is simply because writing is not just another thing, nor another profession; but, it is life. Or, to be more precise, my life.