My Essay on "Human Conflict"

[th3ranger]

OK, this is my essay, the things in quote tags are from my teacher. The brackets within quotes are my comments on his comment. Besides critiques on the essay, does anyone have tips on how to deal with such an ENG101 teacher? I have heard from other students to simply brown nose and and guess whatever the teacher wants, but I refuse to do so. Should I just avoid the things I hate about every meaningless story (read: post-modern of the typical type)?

Human conflict essay

A is A

New title?

Human conflict is the struggle between individuals or countries to get what is wanted or needed. There are two ways of doing this: either you can take it with force (looting) or you can trade for it. (Capitalism.) Capitalism is voluntary trading to mutual benefit when individual rights are respected. When you trade things like money or work to get what you want, it is not a zero sum game. You or your business provides a service, and in exchange you receive money. It’s a "win-win." When you make it your business to take whatever you desire by force it is a zero sum game. What happens when you run out of loot? Failure of the authors of our stories to understand such a basic alternative in how you can try to live your life is obvious in the stories we have covered so far.

How?

In the Fall River Axe Murders, Mr. Borden is depicted as greedy, always searching for a way to make a buck. This is stated in a way as to make the reader equivocate selling goods or renting property with robbery. Unless I make a mistake, selling something requires a voluntary buyer. If someone is choosing to purchase whatever he sells, then this is plainly not robbery. Mr. Borden also owns many rental properties, and when a tenant cannot pay, he has a right to evict them. It is not anyone's, much less this character's duty to provide free shelter to the poor, so by kicking squatters out of his building, Mr. Borden commits no crime. So, if by the negative attribute of greed the author means the desire to take unearned wealth, then Mr. Borden is not greedy. The story does not seem to indicate that Mr. Borden is a mob boss, in any case, whatever his personality problems may be, he certainly did not deserve to die, as this author seems to want the reader to believe. Mrs. Borden is described as pig-like and willing to eat anything. One wonders what the author would think of most modern Americans. A good portion of the population now could easily be described in the same way, but not because of constant eating, because our life is so easy! Lizzie is given reason after reason after reason as excuse for murder by the author. So what now, a hot summer gives you an excuse to kill? Corsets make murder acceptable? If she is the actual murderer, none of this excuses it. She made the choice to kill and no one else. She alone is responsible. It would seem to be though, that if she did it, she would have been proven guilty. Since she was not found guilty, she was an alleged murderer. We should not say she did it, we should say she was accused of it. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Murder is a small crime in comparison with the next story.

In the Argentine Ant we are taught that the use of Man's mind is useless. The main character's first neighbors Claudia and Reginaudo use every insect killing substance they can get their hands on, most of it ineffective at best. The most vicious chemical solutions Man can devise for this ant problem are worthless. (Not my experience at all.) The second neighbor, Captain Brauni, has devised many complicated ways of killing worker ants, which he himself admits is pointless if it does not help kill the queen ant. Why does he continue with the whole effort if it has not succeeded after so long? The “ant man” is no better. He comes monthly for years putting out “poisoned” molasses. Why do these people tolerate a “service” that plainly doesn’t work in the least? The message given by the author must be don’t judge results, only intentions. Good intentions build no bridges. It is truly the height of evil to advocate the willful suspension of one's consciousness. What is the correct solution according to the story? Brute force (hard work) or denial is advocated. "There's no other remedy. Work, just work." (pg 67) “"The best poison against ants," ... "is this." and he raises his glass and drank it in one gulp." (pg 61) Brute force and denial of reality did not make the fantastic technologies we have at our fingertips today. Brute force did not fashion this computer. Brute force does not power my home. Denial of reality in any form does not solve any problem. Only the unceasing application of reason and refusal to deny reality at any level by hundreds of brilliant men and the money of millions of investors all working for personal profit has brought me the technology around me. It is no accident that whenever communism (looting) needs an effective design to do something, they very often steal the design and copy it. 

We have seen that the word greed is often misused, and running from one’s problems or pretending they are not there is suicidal at best. Most of all, we have observed that trivial reasons never justify murder. If you are having a bad day, except in self defense, don't kill anyone. It's a terrible faux pa.

Your writing is strong here, but you have veered off the path of the assignment ["Human Conflict" Very very little guidance is given about what the hell this is supposed to mean]. The task was to discuss conflict not the way the story was crafted. Also, you need a lot more quotation [After saying in class to avoid quotation except as necessary]. Good start.

79 or a C is what my "strongly" written essay gets...

[DavidOdden]

The title is uninformative in the broader context (i.e. "not on OO"). Either change the title, or find a way to make it obvious (from the essay) why you call the essay "A is A".

There's no point in trying to convince us that your teacher failed to make clear the requirements of the assignment. Most of the time when I encounter people complaining about the unclarity of an assignment or contradictory demands ("Don't quote" followed by "Quote"), I find that it's because the student just wasn't paying close enough attention. For example "avoid quotation except as necessary" does not mean "avoid quotation entirely", it means "avoid copying 50% of the source in the form of quotes" and "quote as required to provide the necessary evidence for your claims".

If this is really the full extent of the teacher's comments, then my criticism would be that s/he failed to adequately address the structural problems in your essay. (However, without knowing something about the teaching context, I might not bother to make such a criticism -- for example, class size, frequency of assignments etc).

In your defense of Capitalism, you are defending that which doesn't need defending. The claim that Capitalism is not a zero sum game implies that someone has claimed that it is. Who? What did they say? You have to reason for saying "it is not a zero sum game". Lacking context, I can't see how to relate the first paragraph to whatever the assignment might have been. (Since this is an English class, it's also legitimate to grade on writing style -- "zero sum game" and "win-win" are low-end language, rhetorically speaking).

You assert "When you make it your business to take whatever you desire by force it is a zero sum game. What happens when you run out of loot?". This is not an argument: it is an opinion and a question. (Questions are not evidence, they are admissions that you don't know an answer). Give a logical argument and evidence, instead. When you say "Failure of the authors of our stories to understand such a basic alternative in how you can try to live your life is obvious in the stories we have covered so far"; no, it is not obvious. Show me. What did the authors (name the authors) actually say (quotes with page numbers) in what book (name the books)?

FYI, I believe that the most difficult concept that students face in writing is their inability to grasp the "intelligent but outside reader". You are writing as though the reader knows what the basic question is, what the relevant readings are, what the authors say. That's because you think you're writing for your teacher. Don't write for the teacher, write for a smart person who is not in the class. The teacher's role is to grade the assignment, but the teacher is not the audience.

Use a dictionary: look up "equivocate". I don't know where you would look up the fact that "This is stated in a way as to make..." is just plain wrong -- the correct expression is "in such a way as to". (Here is where the teacher actually editing can be useful). I don't understand the statement "Unless I make a mistake, selling something requires a voluntary buyer". That's simply wrong -- there is no "unless" when it comes to the concept "sale".

"If someone is choosing to purchase whatever he sells": okay, first, use the plain present, not the progressive. Second, nobody buys the goods that they sell -- the use of "he" is wrong, because of the ambiguity.

In the clause "It is not anyone's, much less this character's duty to provide free shelter to the poor", you cannot separate "anyone's" from "duty, the way you did.

I'm having a hard time relating what you wrote to what appears to be the assigned topic, presumably something about the nature of human conflict. You wrote something entirely different, namely an attack on some authors for misrepresenting the nature of capitalism or for rationalizing murder etc.. Even though I agree with your conclusions, I don't see how this relates to the assignment.

If you're gonna use French in your essay, check the spelling. Faux pas.

[th3ranger]

I thought I did have the french correct but I guess not! Thank you very much for your critique this was exactly what I wanted. I'll accept a bad grade I just want an explanation less contradictory and vague. You don't even know the full assignment and you can explain better how I didn't follow it than my teacher. Thank you very much for your time!

I somewhat knowingly did not follow the topic given, but it was so vauge I just didn't know what else to do but twist it into something I could write about for at least 700 words! All of the stories that were given for reading lack any significant conflict at all, and often, for example, describe a subway ride and then it ends! When they do have conflict they blatantly assault reason or Man's mind in a philosophic sense. It's very irritating. We watched a movie for one class period called "Cool Hand Luke" where the main character escapes twice, and is caught both times. The End. Credits roll. Thanks for wasting my time teacher! How do I deal with this?