Dear future APELC member...
First of all, don't be too intimidated by the course outline (or Mr. Yost). If you enjoy reading and writing, you'll probably enjoy this class. I know I did. There will be a lot of writing, entirely non-fiction, so brushing up on some rhetorical terms or writing tips would be a good idea. Essay-writing will make up a bulk of the focus and activities of the class, so be prepared to write a lot. Some writing tips to keep in mind, whether you are writing Analysis, Argument, or Synthesis are: make sure your thesis is clear, link EVERY SUPPORTING TOPIC back to your thesis, and write clearly-the less convoluted the better. These are three big items that always have room for improvement. Another major assessment grade will be group projects (3 or 4 in the year). It is important to do well on these, and two key ways to do that is communicate ideas with your group and PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE. The more smoothly the presentation goes the better. Since the groups will be different every time, it is important to get to know your whole class. My APELC class was very friendly and connected to each other, which helped a lot with the general classroom dynamic, as well as when it came time for group activities.
You may run into some bumps along the way, but fear not, with a little help you will succeed. First, don;t be afraid to ask Mr. Yost or Ms. Pronko for help. They don't bite. If you want help or advice on revising an essay, understanding a reading passage, or on any assignment, definitely go to them before it is too late to seek help. You should also be open to asking your fellow students for help, which is why, as I mentioned before, it is great to have a connected, tightly-knit class. One major bit of advice I have is DO NOT PROCRASTINATE. I made this mistake in the beginning of the year and unfortunately suffered from it. Start a take-home essay four days before it's due if possible, or even sooner. This leaves plenty of time for writing, revising, and seeking help if you need it. If you have questions as to whether an argument or analysis is viable or not, again, do not be afraid to run it by Mr. Yost. He is always ready and happy to help. Make use of his office hours and I/Es. With help and guidance from your teacher and peers, there is no doubt that you can reach a 5 on the test in May. If you find you're using all these tips but are still struggling, again, talk to Mr. Yost. He will be able to help you identify and work on the problem and get your grades up in no time.
Those are the words of wisdom I have for you as you step into the world of AP English Language and Composition. To recap, the most important things to remember are: continue to improve your writing skills, establish friendly links to the rest of your fellow classmates, and do not be afraid to seek help when you need it. Believe me, you do not want to neglect seeking help you know you need. Mr Yost and/or Ms. Pronko want the best for each of their students, and are fully willing and capable to provide guidance-if you are brave enough to seek it. If you are drawn to reading and writing, this course is a great one to take. You get to read non-fiction books of your choice (but must be approved by Mr. Yost) and some of the essay topics you will write about are actually pretty interesting. Good luck with APELC and good luck on the AP Exam-with diligence and support you'll reach that 5.
Monday, June 9, 2014
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
TOW #29-Documentary Part 2
One of the key claims that the Food, Inc. documentary stresses is how mass-produced foods can often lead to serious health problems. For example, numerous cases of food poisoning are reported daily, most of them from mass-produced meats. This problem is also spreading towards foods like spinach and other grains and vegetables. Although recalls are made each time an illness is reported, due to the millions of pounds of food being produced and shipped out each day, with the high possibility that at least one animal or ingredient was carrying a harmful pathogen or bacteria, it is impossible to completely solve the problem. With mass food production companies constantly getting larger and larger and producing more and more, subsequently they are spreading bad pathogens increasingly far and wide. This claim is true because of the many food recalls, and the many cases of food-related illnesses that are reported.
There was an article from the Huffington Post in June of 2013 about the recall of over 20,000 pounds of ground beef being recalled nationally in that month due to the possibility of an e-coli contamination. There was another article from some time ago in the New York Times about California issuing the largest beef recall in U.S. history, nearly 140 million pounds, from schools. 140 million pounds of possibly contaminated meat in one state, and in schools at that, where the children would be the majority of victims. The fact that so much contaminated meat could be in schools is truly scary. The mass-production methods of large food producing businesses often do not thoroughly inspect their animals before killing them and shipping the meat out to consumers. It would simply cost them too much time and money to conduct a rigorous examination of each animal to make sure it is free of any harmful pathogens, bacteria, or diseases. In addition, the animal does not have to be sick itself to be harmful. If the animal is weak, undernourished, or maltreated, it's meat can often have harmful effects on anyone who eats it. In my house, if we store meat in a plastic bag for any period of time, once we use the meat we immediately throw the bag away. For other foods, like fruit, vegetables, sandwiches, etc... we can wash and reuse the plastic bag (saves money). However, if it was used to store raw meat, we immediately throw it out because it cannot be used to store anything else. If the meat was tainted, we want to be sure that it will not taint any other food. This is how dangerous contaminated meat can be. The most common diseases carried by meat are salmonella and e-coli, and children are often warned against touching any meat that looks unusual or has been left un-refrigerated for a period of time. These dangers stem from the fact that the great majority of meat produced is mass-produced (i.e. with inferior conditions for animals and inadequate examinations), and now the danger is spreading to mass-produced grains and vegetables to (although the risks are not as prominent).
Evidence of how dangerous mass-produced foods can be can be seen in how many food-related illnesses are reported. in 2010, the CDC (Center for Disease Control) reported nearly 30,000 food-borne illness reports, of which e-coli and salmonella represented the bulk of causes. 30,000 illnesses in a year is roughly 82 reports a day across the nation. Each day about 82 people report an illness caused by some type of contaminated food. of these 82 people per day, it is highly likely that most (if not all) of them ate fast food or ate food produced by a major farming corporation. These illness might be avoided if the major corporate farming businesses put more revenue into better food, housing conditions, and treatment of their animals, and into examining the animals for potential harmful pathogens. However, these big businesses' main concern is growing bigger, producing more, and gaining more profit. The consequence is that as they produce more likely-contaminated food, and that food is sent all over America and even into foreign nations, they are further spreading diseases like e-coli and salmonella. This results in food recalls, which costs the companies time, money, and prestige. Ultimately, by not investing enough in healthier animals, the mass production companies are not only harming themselves, but are also harming the general population of consumers.
Food, Inc. is correct in its analysis that mass produced foods are often the cause of serious consumer health problems. Millions of pounds of food (mostly meat, and of meat it is mostly beef) are recalled every month, and thousands of food-related illnesses are reported each year. Many of these recalls and illnesses could be avoided if the producers would spend more time and money in ensuring the health of their animals. By not doing so, the companies like Tyson and Cargill are harming both themselves and their customers.
There was an article from the Huffington Post in June of 2013 about the recall of over 20,000 pounds of ground beef being recalled nationally in that month due to the possibility of an e-coli contamination. There was another article from some time ago in the New York Times about California issuing the largest beef recall in U.S. history, nearly 140 million pounds, from schools. 140 million pounds of possibly contaminated meat in one state, and in schools at that, where the children would be the majority of victims. The fact that so much contaminated meat could be in schools is truly scary. The mass-production methods of large food producing businesses often do not thoroughly inspect their animals before killing them and shipping the meat out to consumers. It would simply cost them too much time and money to conduct a rigorous examination of each animal to make sure it is free of any harmful pathogens, bacteria, or diseases. In addition, the animal does not have to be sick itself to be harmful. If the animal is weak, undernourished, or maltreated, it's meat can often have harmful effects on anyone who eats it. In my house, if we store meat in a plastic bag for any period of time, once we use the meat we immediately throw the bag away. For other foods, like fruit, vegetables, sandwiches, etc... we can wash and reuse the plastic bag (saves money). However, if it was used to store raw meat, we immediately throw it out because it cannot be used to store anything else. If the meat was tainted, we want to be sure that it will not taint any other food. This is how dangerous contaminated meat can be. The most common diseases carried by meat are salmonella and e-coli, and children are often warned against touching any meat that looks unusual or has been left un-refrigerated for a period of time. These dangers stem from the fact that the great majority of meat produced is mass-produced (i.e. with inferior conditions for animals and inadequate examinations), and now the danger is spreading to mass-produced grains and vegetables to (although the risks are not as prominent).
Evidence of how dangerous mass-produced foods can be can be seen in how many food-related illnesses are reported. in 2010, the CDC (Center for Disease Control) reported nearly 30,000 food-borne illness reports, of which e-coli and salmonella represented the bulk of causes. 30,000 illnesses in a year is roughly 82 reports a day across the nation. Each day about 82 people report an illness caused by some type of contaminated food. of these 82 people per day, it is highly likely that most (if not all) of them ate fast food or ate food produced by a major farming corporation. These illness might be avoided if the major corporate farming businesses put more revenue into better food, housing conditions, and treatment of their animals, and into examining the animals for potential harmful pathogens. However, these big businesses' main concern is growing bigger, producing more, and gaining more profit. The consequence is that as they produce more likely-contaminated food, and that food is sent all over America and even into foreign nations, they are further spreading diseases like e-coli and salmonella. This results in food recalls, which costs the companies time, money, and prestige. Ultimately, by not investing enough in healthier animals, the mass production companies are not only harming themselves, but are also harming the general population of consumers.
Food, Inc. is correct in its analysis that mass produced foods are often the cause of serious consumer health problems. Millions of pounds of food (mostly meat, and of meat it is mostly beef) are recalled every month, and thousands of food-related illnesses are reported each year. Many of these recalls and illnesses could be avoided if the producers would spend more time and money in ensuring the health of their animals. By not doing so, the companies like Tyson and Cargill are harming both themselves and their customers.
Tow #28-Documentary Part 1
Food, Inc. is a 2008 documentary by Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser that analyzes corporate farming methods in the United States.The documentary stresses how Americans are so far removed from the actual source of the food they consume that most do not know where their food came from. It also illustrates how mass farming methods over the years have become increasingly more unhealthy and the majority of the market has become concentrated in the hands of four main/large companies (Tyson, Cargills, Smithfield, and Perdue). The first part of the film is about the meat production industry, the second part is about grains and vegetables, and the third portion of the documentary deals with the economics. The intended audience is for the average American consumer, but also extends to the four main companies themselves, all of which refused to be interviewed. In this documentary, Pollan and Schlosser use appeals to pathos and facts from primary sources to show how mass food production methods (a large portion of which is for the benefit of fast food companies) in the United States is, inhumane for animals, unhealthy for consumers, and exploitative of workers and farmers.
Throughout the documentary are scenes of the conditions animals are kept in before being slaughtered for meat. Many of these images show severely cramped, unhygienic conditions. Most of these images are used as appeals to the pathos of the audience, since it is highly likely that the majority of viewers are against animal abuse. For example, one primary source, Carole Morison, a Perdue grower, allowed Pollan to view the inhumane chicken house conditions on the land she managed owned by Perdue. She said that, "“It is nasty in here. There is dust flying everywhere, there is feces everywhere. This isn't farming, this is mass production just like in a factory." However, the conditions the animals are kept in aren't the only thing inhumane about the industry. In the case of these chickens, they are fed and bred to encourage rapid instead of natural growth, so they will become fatter and ready-to-eat sooner. Yet, “their bones and internal organs cannot keep up with the rapid growth.” The consequence is that the birds are often in pain or can barely walk.
The majority of this documentary consists of interviews of primary sources; people who have first hand knowledge of the facts about the mass food production methods occurring in America. Many of these interviews provide evidence of how unhealthy the results of corporate farming are for consumers. A segment was shot of Allen Trenkle, a Ruminant Nutrition Expert at Iowa State University examining the contents of a live cow (painlessly for the cow) who was being fed a diet of cheap corn. In the stomach he found millions of dangerous e-coli bacteria. This is because when cows, whose natural diet is grass, are fed corn (which is cheaper for the large companies), it results in the evolution of acid-resistant e-coli. The bacteria then becomes part of the meat that is packaged and sold in stores and restaurants. One tragic case of this was Barbara Kowalcyk, food safety advocate, whose son died at 2 1/2 of e-coli found in hamburger. New cases of meat-related illness are being reported daily. Another reason why mass food production is detrimental to consumers' health is because, in most cases, the less nutritious a food is, the less expensive it is. For example, you can buy a whole hamburger at a fast food place for 99 cents, but you cannot buy even a head of broccoli at the grocery store for the same price. According to Pollan, this is because, "we have skewed our food system to the bad calories" because the bad calories are cheaper to produce.
The last segment of the video is devoted to the economics of the corporate farming business. These large companies like Smithfield and Tyson are exploitative of their workers and farmers. The farmers are kept bound to these large companies because of debts, and workers in the companies' factories are often composed of the poor minorities of the population (e.g. immigrants). These companies often pay only minimum wage, and do not pay enough attention to safety precautions in their factories. Most of these factories like a Smithfield slaughterhouse that was secretly videotaped by workers provide very poor conditions for both workers and animals. One worker reports there being "blood, urine, and feces everywhere" and that getting injured or sick was a high possibility.
Pollan and Schlosser want to make the American people more aware of how their food comes to be at their tables. Even "Farm Fresh" products are produced by mostly the same few companies that hold a virtual monopoly over the industry. The fact that none of the major companies would allow themselves to be interviewed, and even discouraged their farmers' to refuse interviews, begs the question of what they have to hide. However, this is not the focus of the documentary. The focus of the documentary is to highlight how dis-attached Americans are to the source of their food, and to inform American consumers across the country of how these mass food production methods are inhumane towards animals, harmful to consumers themselves (especially consumers of fast food, i.e. the majority of the nations), and how the major corporate farming consolidations exploit their farmers and workers.
Throughout the documentary are scenes of the conditions animals are kept in before being slaughtered for meat. Many of these images show severely cramped, unhygienic conditions. Most of these images are used as appeals to the pathos of the audience, since it is highly likely that the majority of viewers are against animal abuse. For example, one primary source, Carole Morison, a Perdue grower, allowed Pollan to view the inhumane chicken house conditions on the land she managed owned by Perdue. She said that, "“It is nasty in here. There is dust flying everywhere, there is feces everywhere. This isn't farming, this is mass production just like in a factory." However, the conditions the animals are kept in aren't the only thing inhumane about the industry. In the case of these chickens, they are fed and bred to encourage rapid instead of natural growth, so they will become fatter and ready-to-eat sooner. Yet, “their bones and internal organs cannot keep up with the rapid growth.” The consequence is that the birds are often in pain or can barely walk.
The majority of this documentary consists of interviews of primary sources; people who have first hand knowledge of the facts about the mass food production methods occurring in America. Many of these interviews provide evidence of how unhealthy the results of corporate farming are for consumers. A segment was shot of Allen Trenkle, a Ruminant Nutrition Expert at Iowa State University examining the contents of a live cow (painlessly for the cow) who was being fed a diet of cheap corn. In the stomach he found millions of dangerous e-coli bacteria. This is because when cows, whose natural diet is grass, are fed corn (which is cheaper for the large companies), it results in the evolution of acid-resistant e-coli. The bacteria then becomes part of the meat that is packaged and sold in stores and restaurants. One tragic case of this was Barbara Kowalcyk, food safety advocate, whose son died at 2 1/2 of e-coli found in hamburger. New cases of meat-related illness are being reported daily. Another reason why mass food production is detrimental to consumers' health is because, in most cases, the less nutritious a food is, the less expensive it is. For example, you can buy a whole hamburger at a fast food place for 99 cents, but you cannot buy even a head of broccoli at the grocery store for the same price. According to Pollan, this is because, "we have skewed our food system to the bad calories" because the bad calories are cheaper to produce.
The last segment of the video is devoted to the economics of the corporate farming business. These large companies like Smithfield and Tyson are exploitative of their workers and farmers. The farmers are kept bound to these large companies because of debts, and workers in the companies' factories are often composed of the poor minorities of the population (e.g. immigrants). These companies often pay only minimum wage, and do not pay enough attention to safety precautions in their factories. Most of these factories like a Smithfield slaughterhouse that was secretly videotaped by workers provide very poor conditions for both workers and animals. One worker reports there being "blood, urine, and feces everywhere" and that getting injured or sick was a high possibility.
Pollan and Schlosser want to make the American people more aware of how their food comes to be at their tables. Even "Farm Fresh" products are produced by mostly the same few companies that hold a virtual monopoly over the industry. The fact that none of the major companies would allow themselves to be interviewed, and even discouraged their farmers' to refuse interviews, begs the question of what they have to hide. However, this is not the focus of the documentary. The focus of the documentary is to highlight how dis-attached Americans are to the source of their food, and to inform American consumers across the country of how these mass food production methods are inhumane towards animals, harmful to consumers themselves (especially consumers of fast food, i.e. the majority of the nations), and how the major corporate farming consolidations exploit their farmers and workers.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
TOW #25-Visual: Lint Roller
This advertisement is by the company 3M which sells various technological innovations around the world. The particular product being promoted here is a lint roller. The focus of this advertisement is on the image of the lint roller itself, made striking by the image itself as well as its background. These two visual considerations together, the lint roller with the image of a cat on it and its neutral resting space, work together to create an intriguing, striking advertisement that is meant to catch people's attention and make them want to buy the product.
In this advertisement, the consumer's eye is immediately drawn to the white lint roller. However, in this case you cannot actually see that part of the tool itself. Instead what is shown is the image of a white cat rolled up on the lint roller. The detailing on this part of the image is done quite well, including minute details such as the pads of the cat's feet and individual strands of hair that make the image more realistic. The message is obvious: this lint roller is so powerful and effective that it can easily catch enough hair from a surface to make up an entire cat, all without a new sheet needing to be used. The picture of the cat rolled up on the roller catches the viewer's immediate attention, since it is an innovative and intriguing way to advertise such a product. It is also a testament to how efficient the lint roller is, fulfilling 3M's ultimate goal: to persuade people to buy the roller.
The second important thing to consider regarding the visual effectiveness of this advertisement is the background/resting place of the roller. It is obviously some type of fabric (likely a suit of some kind), based on the wrinkles and the apparent texture. This is more effective than having the roller rest on a table or hard surface, since the primary purpose of the lint roller is to remove hair/lint from clothing. The color of the background is also important. It is a neutral color that ensures that people's eyes go immediately to the bright contrasting color: the white cat/lint roller. The thin white stripes on the background are also significant because, while still allowing for the rolled-up-cat to be the primary focus of the viewer, they make it easier to see the handle of the lint roller as well, so people can see the entire product. If the background were a solid dark color, the handle of the lint roller might not be seen. Then the product would simply look like a rolled up cat resting on a blanket; a confusing image.
The appeal of this advertisement is mainly in its visual aids: the cat rolled up on the lint roller and the neutral yet complimentary background. The only text appearing on the advertisement is the name of the company (to give the advertisement ethos) and the name of the product ("Lint Roller") in case anyone should be confused as to what the image is or does not understand what the product is supposed to be. Overall, the combination of striking imagery and mostly lack of textual advertising makes the advertisement more successful, striking, and persuasive to its audience: consumers (esp. consumers with pets who shed pet hair and fur on the furniture, clothing, etc...)
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
TOW #24-Digital Wild West
Goals: Reading-Identify most prominent rhetorical devices
Writing: Clearly, persuasively analyze devices/relevance to author's purpose
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/opinion/taming-the-digital-wild-west.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
The primary use of the internet when it was first introduced was mainly to provide information for people who sought factual answers. However, that is not the case anymore. The Internet has evolved. It's purpose is no longer solely to inform, but now encompasses creating and dealing with changes in everyday life, especially for consumers since many companies have online sites. In this article, Eric Schneiderman uses clear examples and personal experiences to show how online companies should be subject to/cooperate with government regulations and the regulators themselves.
The bulk of this article is devoted to examples both of companies that have opposed regulation, and those that have cooperated, and how the companies that cooperated were better off in the long run. Schneider calls to attention the hotel-apartment company Airbnb and the cab company Uber. The purpose of Airbnb is to allow users in nearly 200 different companies to turn their homes into rentable apartments. "In 2010, the state of New York passed a law confirming that short-stay rentals were generally illegal in apartment buildings....Airbnb “hosts” rent out apartments every day in violation of this law." When regulators attempted to step in, they were fought by the Airbnb law team. A subpoena on the company was obtained, but the day before the court date, Airbnb removed nearly 2,000 listings from New York, implying that the regulators were right to be concerned. This act, according to Schneider, lowered the confidence users felt toward the site from that point on. As for Uber, during bad weather this last year, they charged New Yorkers nearly 8x the regular price, violating New York laws against price gouging. Uber has already attempted to defend its prices, and will likely not work quietly with regulators. In both cases, battling against regulations would only result in legal actions being taken and the company losing consumer confidence and its reputation.
Schneider also gives example of a company that has cooperated with regulations, and therefore suffered no ill effects. In 2013, Yelp cooperated with law enforcement on an investigation that resulted in fines against 19 companies that had been hired to fraudulently inflate rankings for clients (other companies), as well as hurt their clients' competitors. "This furthered the public interest, but also burnished Yelp’s reputation for reliability." By working with government regulators, Yelp kept itself out of legal difficulties, was able to eliminate illegal companies from its website, became viewed as the "good guy" by the public, and managed to bolster its reputation and good standing as a company. Had Yelp fought against investigations, it may have been labeled as an accomplice to the fraudulent companies and faced possible consequences for obstruction of justice (an investigation).
The author also gives descriptions of his personal experiences as a regulator to establish himself as someone qualified to speak about this topic, as well as make the article itself more persuasive towards his overall purpose. He says that, "The cold shoulder that regulators like me get from self-proclaimed cyberlibertarians deprives us of powerful partners in protecting the public interest online. While this may shield companies in the short run, authorities will ultimately be forced to use the blunt tools of traditional law enforcement. Cooperation is a better path." Companies that oppose government regulations will only be injuring themselves in the long-haul, when more pressing methods are used against them (e.g. the subpoena brought against Aibnb). Cooperation would be both quicker, easier, and avoid any legal troubles or loss of consumer interest/confidence. He goes on at the end of his article to say, " we are now living in an online world, one that offers great promise but is also becoming one of the primary crime scenes of the 21st century." It is up to regulators like him to manage these new online companies to ensure they dont step out of line at the expense of their clients, or treat this new online-oriented world as a "digital Wild West."
Through clear-cut examples and his own experiences as a government regulator of online companies, Schreidner attempts to show how cooperation with regulations is actually beneficial for online companies in the long-haul. Battling with regulators will only lead to negative consequences such as legal troubles and loss of client usage. In the blooming digital age, regulations are even more necessary to protect consumers and ensure that no online companies exploits others or its consumers through illegal methods.
Schneider also gives example of a company that has cooperated with regulations, and therefore suffered no ill effects. In 2013, Yelp cooperated with law enforcement on an investigation that resulted in fines against 19 companies that had been hired to fraudulently inflate rankings for clients (other companies), as well as hurt their clients' competitors. "This furthered the public interest, but also burnished Yelp’s reputation for reliability." By working with government regulators, Yelp kept itself out of legal difficulties, was able to eliminate illegal companies from its website, became viewed as the "good guy" by the public, and managed to bolster its reputation and good standing as a company. Had Yelp fought against investigations, it may have been labeled as an accomplice to the fraudulent companies and faced possible consequences for obstruction of justice (an investigation).
The author also gives descriptions of his personal experiences as a regulator to establish himself as someone qualified to speak about this topic, as well as make the article itself more persuasive towards his overall purpose. He says that, "The cold shoulder that regulators like me get from self-proclaimed cyberlibertarians deprives us of powerful partners in protecting the public interest online. While this may shield companies in the short run, authorities will ultimately be forced to use the blunt tools of traditional law enforcement. Cooperation is a better path." Companies that oppose government regulations will only be injuring themselves in the long-haul, when more pressing methods are used against them (e.g. the subpoena brought against Aibnb). Cooperation would be both quicker, easier, and avoid any legal troubles or loss of consumer interest/confidence. He goes on at the end of his article to say, " we are now living in an online world, one that offers great promise but is also becoming one of the primary crime scenes of the 21st century." It is up to regulators like him to manage these new online companies to ensure they dont step out of line at the expense of their clients, or treat this new online-oriented world as a "digital Wild West."
Through clear-cut examples and his own experiences as a government regulator of online companies, Schreidner attempts to show how cooperation with regulations is actually beneficial for online companies in the long-haul. Battling with regulators will only lead to negative consequences such as legal troubles and loss of client usage. In the blooming digital age, regulations are even more necessary to protect consumers and ensure that no online companies exploits others or its consumers through illegal methods.
IRB Intro #4
For my fourth IRB I hve chosen The Nazi Officer's Wife: How One Jewish Woman Survived The
Holocaust. In this book, the author, Edith Hahn tells of how she survived the Holocaust as the wife of a Nazi party member in Munich. She was sent to a ghetto and then a labor camp by the Gestapo when she was a young woman. She managed to return home after a few months, but was forced underground for fear of being hunted. She created a new identity, Grete Denner, and moved to Munich where a Nazi Party member named Werner Vetter fell in love with her and kept her secret that she was Jewish. Edith tells of the suspician she and her family faced, how her husband was captured by Soviets and her house was bombed. However, despite all the dangers, she kept all records (including this partial autobiography) of her life and events which are now kept at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
TOW #23-Historic Letter
Source: http://marxists.org/archive/zola/1898/jaccuse.htm
In 1894, military officer Alfred Dreyfus was
accused of providing secret military information to Germany via a secret
“memo.” In his open letter to the President of the French
Republic Emile Zola speaks out against what he deems the unjustified
imprisonment of Dreyfus by pointing out the miscarriage of justice that
occurred, explaining an affair that proved Dreyfus to be innocent but was
largely ignored, and enumerating the wrongdoings of those involved in the
Dreyfus case, attempt to convince the President of Dreyfus’ innocence.
Zola begins his letter by identifying
commander Paty de Clam as the main orchestrator of the Dreyfus investigation,
and the one who ultimately turned into an “affair.” Zola accuses de Clam of using several
unethical methods in an effort to get Dreyfus to confess, among which were
things such as shocking Dreyfus into confessing to threatening the man’s wife
if she should protest her husband’s arrest. “One could not conceive of
the experiments to which he subjected unhappy Dreyfus, the traps into which he
wanted to make him fall, the insane investigations, monstrous imaginations, a
whole torturing insanity." However, de Clam was not alone in this
miscarriage of justice. He had three main accomplices, Generals Mercier,
De Boisdeffre, and Gonse, who, at the very least, were guilty of failing
to ensure that justice would be carried out fairly.
The letter finishes with Zola
recapping the reasons for Dreyfus’ innocence by issuing accusations against
those who convicted Dreyfus of a crime he didn't commit. Zola accuses the military
department and the judge/jury of the trial of being affected by the feelings of
antisemitism, making them already biased toward Dreyfus (a Jew) before the
trial had even begun; the military officials involved in the miscarriage
of justice and then the concealment of a possible correction to this wrong;
and the handwriting experts who provided a study of the memo of
submitting falsified reports/evidence.
Through his letter, Zola seeks to
bring the French President's attention to a grave miscarriage of justice that
had been committed in the French military. To do this, he cites the
illegitimacy of the investigation, the cover-up attempt by high ranking
military officials, and recaps the various crimes the convictors of Dreyfus
themselves are guilty of. Zola speaks out for Dreyfus' innocence, and was
ultimately successful. Not long after the publishing of J'Accuse in
a public French newspaper, Dreyfus' case was reexamined, culminating in his
ultimate acquittal.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)