In the piece “Don’t you Think it’s Time to Start Thinking?” Frye uses his own voice. He uses an intellectual tone throughout the piece. I believe that he is writing to people who hide in clichés and try not to think for themselves. He is addressing students by telling them that the power of their ideas lies in the articulation. He is also addressing teachers, stressing that they must inspire their students to want to be able to articulate their thoughts clearly.

I believe that he is trying to get people to stop hiding in the masses by not thinking critically. He is calling for people to learn how to think critically, as well as for people to be taught in school how to think critically. Not only is he saying that people need to be able to think critically but they need to be able to articulate their thoughts. People need to form their thoughts into coherent, understandable sentences. He believes that in order for this to happen that teachers need to step up and help students be able to articulate their thoughts clearly.

His idea is that ‘thinking’ is a loosely used term. People often use the word thinking to describe “worrying, remembering, or daydreaming.” He argues that thinking is not the same. He believes that the only reason our society values literacy is because the masses are literate and it is needed in life to be able to have general understanding of what is going on around us. He defines thinking as “the practice of articulating ideas… in the right words.” He is saying that although everyone has thoughts, they do not become meaningful or appreciated until they can be clearly defined in words.

Frye believes that teachers have a lot to overcome in order to teach their students how to articulate their ideas clearly. “Teachers are faced not simply with a mass of misconceptions and unexamined assumptions. They must engage in a fight to help the student confront and reject the verbal formulas and stock responses, to accept passive acceptance into active, constructive power.” He is saying that getting students and people in general to start thinking critically and articulating their thoughts clearly will be a struggle as there are many misconceptions in our society about literacy. This is something that needs to be overcome to better our society.

I believe that Frye conveyed his ideas well. I think that it is true that people are often unable to clearly articulate their thoughts. I find that our society does not often appreciate the thoughts of those who are able to articulate their ideas either. Frye is correct in saying that those people become targets. Our society, and possibly the media as well just wants everyone to go with the flow and blend in. However it is those who are able to clearly articulate their ideas which better society.

I believe that the voice of the author in this piece is that of a socialist. I think that Klein’s voice is also that of a middle class citizen. If not, she is then an advocate of middle class citizens. I believe that her audience is humankind in general. More specifically, middle class citizens as she wants to bring their attention to what is happening around them.

Klein’s purpose for writing this piece is to show that privatization is not the answer to the problems of catastrophes. Rather, she argues that privatization is the reason for many of the problems that arise when a disaster occurs. Many people believe that privatization of public services in the disaster industry will ensure that crises are handled better. However privatizing in reality does not do this. Rather, privatization, especially in the disaster industry, divides classes and people even more. When the poor become poorer, or the middle class become poor, (which so often occurs when disasters hit) crime will increase. Without any government, or public services available the classes become more divided. Which then will result in more need from the rich for protection, etc.

Klein’s ideas are that privatization is not the answer when catastrophe hits. She believes that the government should step in and protect all citizens but this is not happening. Rather corporations are making money off of people’s fear. “The more panicked our societies become, convinced that there are terrorists lurking in every mosque, the higher the news ratings soar, the more biometric IDs and liquid-explosive-detection devices the complex sells, and the more high-tech fences it builds.” Klein is showing her readers that this industry wants the public to be scared to make money off of them.

Klein uses many examples to show how corporations are capitalizing on the suffering of the public. One of the first examples she brings up are the citizens in Iraq. The middle class citizens are left to fend for themselves, by pooling their money together to receive basic services. While the rich in Iraq live in green zones. These Green Zones have their own phone, sanitation systems, and hospitals.  Klein describes as being in the Green Zones as “a giant fortified cruise ship parked in the middle of the a sea of violence and despair, the boiling Red Zone that is Iraq.”  She also brings up examples in the States as well. The main example being Hurricane Katrina.

I thought that Klein did a good job showing people how corporations are thriving off of the publics fear and how it is not the answer to problems. I did think though that it almost felt like she was using a slippery slope argument.

In the piece “Twenty-One Questions,” Hamilton uses the voice of two lesbian women. It would not be hard to believe that these discussions between the two women in the piece are similar to those that she had with her own parter, as she is also a lesbian. I believe that her audience is very broad. Hamilton could be writing this piece to show Canadians, possibly even all Western Nations, what homosexuals go through when deeply in love and ready to make the ultimate commitment to each other.

I believe that Hamilton’s purpose is to get her audience to think critically about  homosexual marriage. I think she wants to show her audience how similar the commitment and bond of marriage is between homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. She also shows how the stress of marriage is similar for both groups alike. She does however show what the big differences are between homosexuals and heterosexuals marriages. Although she does not compare homosexual and heterosexual marriages side by side, most people know what a heterosexual marriage looks like. Hamilton is inviting her audience to a homosexual marriage.

Hamilton’s idea is that homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage, although some parts are different, there are also many similarities.

In order to show her audience what a homosexual marriage and engagement looks like, Hamilton, created a list of 21 questions. In these 21 questions she addresses different subjects that have to do with the whole notion of engagement and marriage. Some examples would be question two, “Marriage? But what is marriage between women?” and question eight, “Where will the ceremony be performed?” She then goes on and answers the questions in a dialogue between the two women. These questions show that homosexuals have to address questions about what it means between two women, “what are they intending to say to each other by marrying? What are they saying to their community?” In their dialogue they also ask each other questions about why heterosexuals get married. This is interesting as often it is not questioned, it just commonly accepted as a part of society. Hamilton also brings up logistics of a wedding that homosexuals have to deal with, such as who wears the dress and the tuxedo? Do they both wear dresses? They also need to decide when and where to have the wedding. Who should they invite? Who is going to be the photographer? The two voices go through these questions answering them and showing their love for one another throughout the piece.

I thought that this was a very interesting piece. Once I started reading it I did not want to stop. I thought it was interesting to see all the things that homosexuals need to think about when planning a wedding. I thought that Hamilton did a good job showing the differences and similarities between a homosexual and heterosexual wedding. I thought that her writing style was effective and interesting.

In the piece “Water Incorporated” Barlow uses an informative voice. She comes across as very knowledgable and is an expert on the subject of incorporating water. It is evident to her audience that she has done lots of research on this subject. I believe that she is writing this piece to all people because water is a universal subject. More specifically the piece is written towards the citizens of countries of which are involved in the North American Free Trade Agreement (Canada, Mexico, and The United States) as well as those involved in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades, and Free Trade Areas of the Americas.

Barlow’s purpose for writing “Water Incorporated” is to inform her audience of the current water crisis that is affecting the entire world. I do not believe that many people are aware that “the global consumption of water is doubling every 20 years.” I think people are even less aware that the “privatization of water is already a $400 billion a year business.” Barlow is trying to bring these issues to the attention of her readers. She wants them to realize that water should not be privatized as it is a “human right.” I believe that she is trying to appeal to our emotions and asking her audience not to be blind to what is happening around us.  She is challenging her readers to oppose the privatization of water.

Barlow believes that agreements such as the NAFTA, GATT, AND FTAA make the privatization of water possible for large corporations. “The FTAA ‘services agreement’ grants private corporations sweeping new authority to overrule government regulations… The FTAA would increase the number of towns and cities forced into privatizing their water systems and reduce the ability of governments to ensure that the privatized systems work to protect the environment, consumers and workers.” Essentially the FTAA takes power away from the country’s government and places it into the hands of large corporations. This is not ethical as the people did not vote for corporations to control their company, they voted for their government. In some ways I believe that Barlow is implying that the FTAA goes against democracy.

Water is now being seen as “blue gold.” Corporations and governments want to treat water as “any other commodity, with its use determined by market principles.” However, Barlow insists that this is not right nor true. Water is not a commodity it is a human right and all people should be able to have access to it. By denying people the right to water, you are denying their right to live. Barlow includes “The Cochabama Declaration: Water belongs to the Earth and all species and is sacred to life. Therefore, the world’s water must be conserved, reclaimed, and protected for all future generations and its natural patterns must be respected.”

I believe that Barlow was really effective at writing this piece. She had many valid points, and facts which got her audience thinking about the issue. I believe that she supported her argument very well. I also thought it was interesting that this issue has been going on for several years and this is only the second time I have heard about it. I had also never heard about the FTAA before reading her piece. Her article was filled with information and I definitely feel more knowledgable after reading it.

http://crownedlaurel.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/suzuki-the-pain-of-animals/

Stephanie brought up some very good points in her critical analysis of “The Pain of Animals.” I agree with her that Suzuki is writing this peice to all humans. The author is challenging readers to reevaluate their ideas on animal testing, and the treatment of animals in general. Stephanie acknowledges this by writing that  “his message is to create awareness of the immense pain and suffering animals are put through for our own expense.” I agree with this point. Many people are not aware or do not consider they pain of animals. Suzuki is really challenging his readers to think beyond themselves, as well as humankind.

I agree with Stephanie that Suzuki explores humans’ right to exploitate animals. She writes about how humans have exploiated animals but does not consider the animals suffering, which I believe is a big part of Suzuki’s peice and message. I think that the most stories he tells in this peice is how he shot animals for pleasure in the past. He describes the time that he was hunting a squirrel and “the squirrel began to cry – a piercing shriek of terror and anguish. The animal’s wail shook [him] to the core and [he] was overwhelmed with horror and shame at what [he] was doing. I think that this was one of Suzuki’s main points. Most animals feel fear, terror, and pain. If a human were to inflect these emotions onto another human they would likely be called a psychopath. However when a human inflicts these emotions onto an animal no further thought is given. 

Overall I thought that Stephanie made some really good points, and agreed with most of her thoughts.

“That we lost them has broken our hearts; what is worse is that we are not surprised.”

In the peice “Our Daughters, Ourselves,” Stevie uses the voice of a mother and a daughter. She does this by describing how she raised her daughter and how things have not changed from when she was growing up. I believe that her audience is men and women alike. However, I believe that she has different messages for each group.

Her message to men is to think more critically about feminist and sexism. Men need to start making efforts (or work harder) to treat women as equals. Men need to stop veiwing feminist as something to be feared, instead they need to adjust and change their mindset. I think it also shows men how women live. It shows how careful and alert women need to be. 

I think that her message to women is that although somethings have changed, many things have remained the same. Mothers hope for their daughters that things will be different but they are still taken advantage of. In some ways I do not believe that this piece is meant to give hope to women but rather that we need to continue to strive to be treated as equals with men.

Cameron believes that although times have changed, many things for women have remained the same.  Mothers hope for their daughters that they will be able to get ahead and be treated like equals among men, and yet they are not suprised when this does not occur. Mothers want the best for their daughters and want them to be able to do anything, yet are always nervous for their safety, physiologically and psychologically. Cameron also believes that although women are pressing forward to be treated as equals, young men are not changing and being abusive. 

Women are taught to be careful when growing up. Whether it be walking home from school, or going to a public restroom alone, women need to always have their guard up. Our mothers tell us, “We’ll pick you up at the subway, we’ll fetch you from the movie, stay with the group.” Stevie writes that daughters are getting into schools that were dominated by men and hope that “by the time they’ve graduated, things will have changed.” She provides the example of the shooting at an Engineering school and how that has struck fear into the hearts of young women everywhere and has infuriated mothers. This is also an example of how some men are abusive to feminists as “the women were seperated from the men and meticulously slaughtered by a man who blamed feminists for his troubles.” ‘Why did no one stop the killer?’ women ask themselves. 

This peice really touched my heart. I thought that she was very effectively able to portray how girls and young women grow up. It was a very straightforward peice with a lot of emotion in it, especially for women readers. The peice may in some ways put all men in a bad light (hasty generalization) as there are men that do treat women as equals and would never hurt a women. But it is very true that sexism in the workplace and even out of the work place has not decreased very much.

I was running on a trail last week with my dog and I felt afraid. I was afraid that I wouldn’t hear someone catch up to me and what they might do to me.  I didn’t think too much of it then, other than to keep on running, glance over my shoulder, and turn my music down. But as I reflect on this peice and my own life, it’s almost as if I have become immune to all the safety precautions. You become used to being afraid in a sense. I don’t run in the dark, if I return home late at night my ride ensures that I enter safely, I lock my doors as soon as I get into my car if I’m alone, I don’t cab home by myself after a night out on the town, the list goes on…. Is this fair?

In the piece “I’m Not Racist But…” Bissoondath uses his own voice to show how ignorance and stereotypes are a form of racism. Bissoondath addresses his Canadian audience as a man of colour. This piece is also relevant not only to Canadians but also to Americans, Chinese, French. This is shown when he says that racism is “as American as apple pie, as French as croissants.”

Bissoondath opening statement is really effective. “Racism is as Canadian as maple syrup.” I find that Canadians often take pride in being such a multicultural country but Bissoondath states that “multiculturalism as we know it indulges in stereotype.” The purpose of him writing this piece is to try to show people that, ignorance, and stereotypes is just as harmful and damaging as racism is. “True racism is based, more often than not, on willful ignorance and an acceptance of – and comfort with – stereotype.” Bissoondath is challenging his reads to battle against stereotype and ignorance. He is asking people to think critically about statements and remarks made about different cultures and their own.

Bissoondath states that racism is “vulnerable to manipulation.” He wants to show people that racism can easily be twisted and misunderstood. Whether it be ignorant people or people who create the problem by claiming to be victims of racism. People who also do not understand racist connotations can add to the problem. Although they are unaware and “naïve” Bissoondath is challenging them to become more informed as racism is such a big problem. He also warns people to make sure that what they are saying about their own race or culture is not a stereotype as this just feeds the problem.  I think that a good example of this is when Africans call themselves the ‘N’ word in movies or music. Africans aren’t the only people watching those movies, or listening to the music, in some ways they are teaching people that saying that word is ok.

The writer claims that most naïve, ignorant people will use the phrase “I’m not racist but…” This paints an effective picture for readers as many Canadians, I’m sure, have either said this themselves or have heard someone else say this. He then goes on to say how two friendly, kind men he knew where being racist out of their own ignorance. He also states that having a “Miss Black Canada Beauty Contest” is also racist to other cultures. He asks his readers to ask themselves if they would “be comfortable having such awards only for the white.” If this is so then, “let us be frank, racism is for one as racism is for others.”

I think that Bissondath gets his message across effectively. He really got me to think about my ignorance and stereotypes in my life which is what I think he wants all of his audience to do. The writer also uses some very good examples to portray his ideas. I was able to easily relate and understand his message.

http://kevinwblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/the-veil/

Kevin brings up some good points in response to “The Veil” by Marjane Satrapi.  The author does use a very naïve tone of voice in this piece, as a child would. I believe that she is writing this piece for many different audiences. She could be writing this for western nations to show insight into what the Islāmic Revolution looked like from a child’s point of view. She could also be writing to Islāmic Fundamentalists to show how the religion that was forced unto them was confusing.  I also agree with Kevin that she is trying to find out what the purpose in her life is. Which was made even more confusing that normal by having religion forced upon her.

I agree with Kevin that her purpose for writing this piece was to show the difficulties and confusing that occurred while growing up in that time period. I believe that she also wrote this in some ways to show that she has become a prophet. Although not for what she believed when she was six years old but as a prophet against the Islamic Revolution.

I think that she shows this in the end. It doesn’t go into further detail about her being a prophet it abruptly ends. In her piece she has a prophet who is saying, “You must base everything on three rules: behave well, speak well, act well.” I think that shows that as she grew up she took this to heart and has based her life on this.

In this piece Mustafa uses her own voice to go against the stereotypes of the hijab. She uses a persuasive voice to appeal her beliefs to the audience. She is writing this piece as a young Muslim with a North American upbringing. I believe that her audience is the people of western countries that do not understand the hijab and believe that it oppresses women.

The purpose of Mustafa writing this piece is to show the world that choose to wear the hijab to be free. This goes against popular belief. Most people believe that it oppresses women and that it is wrong to wear it whereas Mustafa proposes the opposite. She is trying to show people that she is not a “radical, fundamentalist Muslim” or a “poster girl for oppressed womanhood.” She is trying to tell people that the hijab is actually worn so that people do not judge her on her looks. Many people also believe that by wearing the hijab women are being oppressed by men. Mustafa believes that by wearing the hijab she has equality among men.

Mustafa is trying to show that by wearing a hijab she no longer has to conform to society’s idea of “beauty.” By wearing the hijab she is free from that. By wearing the hijab people have to acknowledge herself as a person, and not by her appearances. She is showing that although women may have the right to wear what they want, by doing this some might make themselves party to their own “objectification.” By wearing the hijab Mustafa is placing more worth on herself and her body. This is her way of respecting herself. She is trying to show women that only when women are able to respect their bodies that true equality will occur.

Mustafa shows that when women turn down conventional beauty they often face “ridicule and contempt.” She shows that the reason these people are ridiculed is because they are not understood by others. Often time people do not want to take the time to understand. In the movie “Up in the Air,” George Clooney says “I stereotype, it’s quicker.” This is often the attitude that people have. Mustafa is trying to change their perceptions by saying that she once also was striving for conventional beauty. In her teenage years she was “borderline bulimic and spent a lot of money [she] didn’t have on potions and lotions in hopes of becoming the next Cindy Crawford.” By wearing the hijab she is free from that. Conventional beauty is always changing and making women that beauty is a “futile pursuit,” as the definition of beauty is constantly changing.

I think that Mustafa did an excellent job of persuading her audience. I never thought much about the hijab but had been told that it “oppressed” women. Her piece definitely made me think about it. In some ways I can also relate as the school I went to enforced a dress code and my parents always told me to dress conservatively. The reason this was in place was to respect our bodies and not let ourselves become subjective to our bodies.

http://elusivegreenbike.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/what-a-certain-visionary-once-said-tomson-highway/

Elusive Green Bike response, to What a Certain Visionary Once Said by Tomson Highway, was very well written and thoughtful. I agree with her that when you first start reading its like you are watching an imax film. Highway’s vivid description of Manitoba makes you feel as if you were there, even if you have never been before.  I would expand on what Elusive commented on his voice and say that he really has a passionate voice throughout the piece. You can tell that he is in love with the land.

I agree with Elusive when she writes that Highway is writing for “all Canadians… and the Cree and other First Nations groups.” I also agree with her when she says “there is an obvious attempt to bond all Canadians by creating a sense of pride in and awareness of the land.” I think that Highway is not only trying to bond all Canadians, but I think he is trying to reach each Canadian on a personal level to make them realize of the bond that each person has with the Earth. I think he is trying to communicate to us that we are more like the land than we realize and we need to be more aware of it. Elusive also says that Highway is “request[ing] that we enjoy [the land] and respect it for the power it contains.” Highway is a very talented author and did an amazing job of depicting the land and the power it has.

I believe that Elusive wrote an excellent critical analysis and I completely agree with all the points that she brings up throughout her analysis.