Tompkins' Article

The history of the American Indian after the arrival of Europeans has always been a controversial topic. There are so many perspectives on the topic that the truth is very vague and obscure. Some sources claim that the Indians were violent savages, and completely inferior in terms of civility to the European white man. However, there are also sources that claim that the white man brutally treated the Indian, and took away the Indian's land, which they had no right to. There is rarely any historical account that is completely objective and unbiased, and there has to be a bit of perspective and bias for a piece to be interesting to read. Using the Indians as an example, it is impossible to write a good piece about them, or really any topic in history without a bit of an opinion. When you think about it, there was no “foolproof” evidence, such as the camera or camcorder, to document history as it was at that moment. Most history that we know is based on the accounts people made of the event afterwards. We don’t know how their opinions or emotions at the time could have impacted their accounts.
Even today, when we can use photography to forever capture events as they are happening, there are always opposing views and counterpoints no matter how obvious the truth may seem. Today, it is just more difficult on some topics to draw certain opinions. 200 years ago, it may have been obvious that the white man was at fault, the Indian was at fault, or both were equally at fault, but because there is no foolproof evidence of what happened, any of those viewpoints could have substantial credibility. Since we never will know what truly happened in the past, we have to make an opinion from everything that we know.

Revisionism

Historical revisionism has become a very popular topic over the past few years. The publications of such novels as The Da Vinci code have brought new light to historical events that were always taken for granted. Many of these alternate historical theories can easily be tossed aside since the evidence is sloppy or ridiculous. I find it completely understandable (on a societal and cultural level) that historical revisionism creates so much controversy. If a society was built on a certain event, or believed something a certain way for thousands of years, that could have serious effects on their culture. Yes, there are some historical events that wouldn't affect much if they were in accurate, but if the conspiracy theory proposed by The Da Vinci Code was true, the repercussions would be drastic. Then again, when there is a piece of history that no one alive today was there to see, we don't have absolute proof that it happened the way we think it did. We can only make a very good guess. The one issue that I found with this article was that it was definitely written for a British audience. The allusions made were mostly from British history, and for readers outside of Britain whom do not understand these examples, the article is missing universal connection. I would very much like to see this article rewritten for America. I know I would be able to better connect and understand the arguments trying to be made when I can relate to the arguments being presented. George Washington and the cherry tree, JFK’s assassination, and the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh’s son are all occurrences in American history that have been subjects of revisionism. Historical revisionism is unique to a group of people, and no matter what, someone is going to be affected and stand against it.

Is Wikipedia Reliable?

For years, we've been told not to use Wikipedia because it is chock-full of false or misleading information. Anything found on the site cannot be taken for granted. However, Dunkel's article "Word War III" challenged that opinion. Wikipedia does, in fact, have a very complex system that holds up its integrity. I personally believe after reading this article that Wikipedia, when used in moderation, can be a very reliable source of information. The user just has to be wary of what good info is and what isn't. As long as the reader can tell that the entry is unbiased, and that the information is not ridiculous, the information can be trusted. In fact, there have been several occurrences where I’ve been looking for a certain piece of information, and Wikipedia was the only place I was able to find it. The vast majority of Wikipedia is correct, and what is incorrect is very quickly and efficiently controlled. There are so many administrators and other integrity conscience Wikipediers that most false and/or biased information is corrected within minutes. The fact that pages can also be locked down also shows how considerate the administrators of Wikipedia are of the integrity of information. For those, that just have to put their opinion in, Wikipedia provides a discussion board, where users are free to post any opinions they have, no matter how ridiculous their biases can be. Wikipedia is also an amazing research tool. At the bottom of every page, credible sources are cite, and they can be used to see the original information found on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be 100% trusted on everything, but it shouldn't be taken out of the game. It is the only source in the world that can be updated or revised by anyone in the whole world at anytime. Readers just have to use caution, and know how to pick out false information.

Sondra Perl's Composing Guidelines

1. a. I wrote down a list of everything that had been on mind lately, and that list was quite long. I ended up choosing the topic that is most significant to my current life.

b. When I would pause, or draw a blank, i would reroute myself back to the basics of the topic. If my mind had been going on a certain path, and all of a sudden i reached a dead end, I realized that i would have to retrace my steps, and then take a new path.

c. I wrote down everything and anything that came to mind. It didn't matter if I thought it was stupid, or if I had already written it down, I would write it down again. I just wanted to keep the thoughts flowing, and not stop because I am always feeling something, and I tried my hardest to analyze what I felt at all times.

2. a. I usually would just choose the first thing that came to mind because it seems easiest that way. It wouldn't matter if it wasn't important to me. Also, I rarely took into consideration how broad the topic was, and if it was too broad, how I could narrow it down.

b. I usually never had problems with the open-ended process, but a few times I ran into walls. Sometimes, the topic was unstable or too broad or too narrow. Perhaps it was sometimes insignificant or too difficult to find substantial research for.

c. There was no path. I would choose my topic and stop. if a teacher told me I had to narrow it, then I would narrow it down, but i wrote about a lot of broad topics. In argumentative papers, that's difficult to do since the writer rarely gets into specifics that would really challenge the thoughts or values of the reader.

3. My writing is quick and sporadic. I usually don't have many problems with mechanics, but I have to make sure that i go back and read what I wrote. Sometimes my writing is jumbled and has no clear chain of thoughts or actual meaning. In terms of language, I am more of a person to persuade via ethos and logos rather than pathos.

The Art of College Management

There are few things more relevant today in universities than cheating. Nathan hit the nail on the head when she decided to do a study on it. Although she provided both standpoints, I felt she was biased towards the “all cheating is wrong” viewpoint as I expected. For the most part, I agree that cheating is unacceptable, but she never gave thought to perhaps the small absurdities associated with academic dishonesty at many universities, including JMU. For one, collaboration on homework can be considered cheating. I personally don’t see that as dishonest as long as all parties are making contributions. When working together, new ideas and methods can be brought up, passed around, and maybe after all is said and done, those who collaborated have a better understanding of the material and the assignment. The idea that learning should be done individually is so wrong and unlike the real world that I cannot even begin to fathom it. There are few things in the world that are done completely individually and without the input of others.
Nathan also makes a point that the reason students cheat is because of the environment that surrounds them, and I completely agree with that. Universities are very dynamic and social places. When asking the average college student why they love college, they will probably respond with an answer such as, “because I have a lot of fun and all of my friends are here” as supposed to “the academic rigor and stress are really shaping me into a responsible adult”. Now, don’t get me wrong, academics are the most important part of my time here at JMU. But living with my peers creates almost a completely new environment where my social life is very important. With this, comes peer pressures, including pressures to cheat. There are many places these pressures come from including stress and competition amongst other students. I’m not saying that I am planning on cheating, but I’m saying that it is impossible to stop. Cheating is going to happen, in fact, most of the time it will go unnoticed.