1,843 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2018
    1. "The old American Dream ... was the dream of the Puritans, of Benjamin Franklin's "Poor Richard"... of men and women content to accumulate their modest fortunes a little at a time, year by year by year. The new dream was the dream of instant wealth, won in a twinkling by audacity and good luck. [This] golden dream ... became a prominent part of the American psyche only after Sutter's Mill."

      I don't think this quote helps you much.

  2. Oct 2018
    1. Race was a tool used by white men to enhance their ability to achieve theirgoals, and it was used quite sucessesfully.

      Now that could be an argument. I would scrap everything in this first paragraph except this and try to explain what you mean here better.

    1. Chacon was born of either French and German or Spanish and German parents. She was of European decent, however, because of her dark complexion and Mexican tongue she was listed in the 1910 US census as being of Mexican decent. Ten years prior her and her husband both were listed as a white American.

      Why does this matter?

    2. Instead whites created racial differences to justify the exploitation of Mexican workers and the kidnapping of a group of Catholic children in an Arizona mining town.

      Now This right here is an argument you can build upon. Everything else is just another way of saying racism is bad.

    1. Gordon75

      You HAVE to stop summarizing the book like this. Your assignment is not a double book report. You have to answer the question, using quotations from the book to help that process along. Summarizing teh book doesn't help.

    2. The Comanche had no tribal unit, no big chief, no governing council, or Comanche nation, no one that the American Government could go to for peace treaties. To the white settlers this made no sense at all, there was not one governing person,that could make decisions for the rest. The Indian male was totally free to make his own decisions. He had no one to answer to, no church, no military society, no state, no police, no domineering clans or powerful families, no rules. He was free to come and go as he pleased, he could even take his friend’s wife, if he had enoughhorses to pay for her. (Gwynne 51)

      Why does any of this even matter?

    3. Gwynne 45

      So far, everything in this paper is description. You can't just summarize what you read. You have to analyze events in the process of answering the question.

    1. The dichotomous view of race in the West by white people defined race relations and justified all manner of atrocities and injustices; one was white, Indian, Mexican or one was other, each viewing separate races as alien.

      But it's a lot more than dichotomous, right? Remember Limerick?

    2. Mexicans and Indians were the other to whites. Absent that other, whites would simply otherize different white ethnicities as they did in New York City.

      You need a separate first paragraph that does nothing but makes a general argument that answers the question. Save the details for later.

    3. e in the West was defined specifically by skin color as opposed to the Northeast but not like the South.

      That's an incredibly messy first sentence. Just make a clear argument and go with it.

    1. The  white  women  turned  down  their  noses  to  the  Mexicans  and  used  them  when  it  was  convenient

      You have to do more in this paper than just summarize the Gordon book. draw connections between the two books along abstract racial lines.

    2.  

      You are going to HAVE to bring Gwynne into this. It is required in the question and drawing the two books together is supposed to make you think abstractly. If you can't make connections between books with the argument you have, then you're going to have to find a totally different argument.

    3. dly.    In  a  man  made  society,  the  white  American’s  saw  only  their  way  of  life,  and  the  ability  to  assimilate  others  into  the  white  mans  society,  if  the  people  did  not  fit  into  the  white  mans  categories,  they  were  discriminated  against,relocated  or  eliminated.

      You're going to need a better argument. This is too general and isn't even about the West per se, which means that it doesn't answer the question you were asked. I'd try the whole paragraph again.

    1. it.

      This is not going well. What's written here shows incredibly little understanding of what's written in the books, let alone the abstract concepts that the question wants you to address.

    2. With every interaction an emotion was formed.Good or bad, the news always spreadacross the land.

      This is impossibly vague. You have two highly detailed books in front of you. There is no reason to be this incredibly non-specific.

    3. Aneffect wascaused betweenthedifferent culturesforcing them to engage with one anothermore often.

      That is a terrible sentence. What effect? Who caused it? What did it do?

    4. The only problem was these forms of stereotypingwere normally incorrect.

      All of this is much too general and vague. You were asked about the West. The course is about the West. Write about the West.

    5. in.

      I don't like this paragraph for many reasons. The most important one is that it doesn nothing to address the question you were asked. I can't even tell what COURSE this paper is being written for from reading this.

    1. The Mexicansin the Gordon book were payed way less and treated as second class citizens compared to the white people.

      I don't think this point fits win this paper. Make everything somehow about teh fluidity of race.

    2. Once someone went out West their race was alternated to one that fit the categoriesof race in the West.

      Can you stretch this point to include Native Americans? Quanah after retirement, for example.

    1. Race in the American West was used as a tool by Anglo-American settlers to establisha new, cohesive cultural identity to establish superiorityin a harsh and competitiveenvironment.

      I like that thesis but you really have to explain it more than you do here.

    1. The adopting of the superior race,

      Racism is bad. However, it is not an argument that answers this question. You have to explain exactly how it changed the course of history with details from both books and you are doing none of that here.

    2. Thehue they were designated at birth put a stamp on who they were going to be in this society and how they were going to live.

      This is true, but where are you going with this? How is this any different from race in the East?

    1. “Why is Sourdough considered a bread of the American West and how did it gain its notoriety in places such as San Francisco?

      That's a good question. This suggests some broad stuff at the beginning, then a tight focus on SF. That seems like a good strategy.

    1. I need my BBQ. YouTube. March 03, 2011. Accessed October 04, 2018.

      You're going to need some secondary sources written by historians. If they haven't written about BBQ, they've certainly written about the history of race relations in KC.

    1. how its changed - throughout the years various changed have been made, i plan on covering those changes.

      So this definitely has to be a chapter. Remember my 50% history rule?

    1. Loma Linda Sanitarium exterior view and menu, c. 1908."

      Your media seem very random to me. When you specialize with respect to colonies, it will help you focus your search for pictures.

    1. How were 19th-century political and religious reform movements related to, and expressed through, the various vegetarian organizations and experimental communal utopias?

      That's a book topic, not a Scalar topic you can complete in 14 weeks. Narrow your focus so that you can increas eyour depth.

    2. My pages will be arranged roughly chronologically. 

      That's ten topics for ten different Scalars. You're going to need to specialize more to avoid looking like it's done at a 7th grade level. For which ones do you have the most sources? What exactly do those sects have in common?

    1. Conservation and future outlook for gulf shrimp industry

      I think there's a natural organization for these topics; a supply chain. Start in the water. End at the table. Some of these here would be natural subsets of particular steps.

    2. https://cdn4.picryl.com/photo/1911/01/01/unloading-oysters-on-the-dock-alabama-canning-co-location-bayou-la-batre-alabama-1-640.jpg

      I really do regret ever be worried about the availability of sources for this subject. Even though you've left no titles for the pictures, I'm confident you'll be fine in the media department.

    3. culturally, ethnically, environmentally, and economically?

      Weirdly enough, that's actually a lot to cover. Which one of these issues is producing the most sources?

    1. 2013.

      As per the instructions, you're missing the brief outline of topics you might cover. I can live with that now, but You'll be absolutely, positively required to make these decisions when the flow chart is due.

    2. What makes Cracker Jacks a “Junk Food”, and why is it the first?

      I'd urge you to reconsider if not the subject of the question, then the wording. You need to think "How am I going to tie this Scalar into a trend that's bigger than just this one food?" It's not that junk food is unimportant, but that the term is anachronistic, and therefore probably unanswerable.

    3. No description available.Scalar URLhttp://emptythoughts.net/education/cracker-jacks/media/worlds-fair-2 (version 1)Source URLhttp://emptythoughts.net/education/cracker-jacks/media/cracker-jack-learn.jpg (image/JPEG)dcterms:titleworlds fair 2View asRDF-XML, RDF-JSON, or HTML

      Oh my God, that picture is AMAZEBALLS! I have to know the date on it.

  3. Sep 2018
    1. Meat was able to be sent from the cattle ranches in the West around as well. Chicago in American history is known well for its meat industry, but without the cattle ranches in the West and the railroads, the meat industry in Chicago would never be as significant as it was.

      Why use this to answer THIS question?

    2. With the West having three types of natural resources, mining, farming, and cattle ranch-ing, the upcoming of the railroad transformed the way these natural resources were transported from area to area

      You're just summarizing. You need to try to answer the question you were asked.

    3. While slavery and conquest West, were able to be compared significantly to one another, the coming of factories and railroads transformed the West and were able to link it all together to the South and the North.

      This sentence really makes no sense.

    4. American West happening side by side, the expansion west gave the southern free African Americans a place to go and begin a new life.

      How does this help you answer the question you were asked?

    1. Many came seeking fortune in the nineteenth century as well as the twentieth just to be let down. They had to settle for wages back in the days of mining and cattle ranching. Wage labor was not the concept it is now.

      Why is any of this relevant?

    2. ough all the turmoil and optimism of the West, industry rolled on with new innovations and inventions regularly.

      This is descriptive, but it could easily be made analytical. You need to tie it directly to the question you were asked.

    3. various Indian tribes of the West felt heartbreak at the hands of the white man’s government and military.

      This is descriptive. What does any of this paragraph have to do with answering the question you were asked?

    4. It created a balm of unification for the North and South after the Civil War that kept the United States together.

      This is the first thing you've written that's relevant to the question but essentially it's the Richardson argument. What's YOUR argument?

    1. Because if we think of it on those terms, how is going to be funded? What does that look like?

      No rhetorical questions in teh first paragraph. Make arguments. Don't ask questions.

    2. The goal of the antiquarian is the dead past; the goal of the historian is the living peasant.

      There shouldn't be any footnotes in your first paragraph. It's for your argument. Not someone else's.

    1. The American Indians saw the encroachment of Eastern Americans onto Western lands as a threat to their way of life.

      True point, but what does this have to do with your thesis?

    2. The importance of Western history, in relation to American history, is that it is the key component in shaping America’s image as the land of opportunity.

      So this is actually a good thesis. However, you bury it at the end of the paragraph. Try moving it to the top of the paragraph and see how that changes everything else. [Trust me. It'll help you explain what you mean better and set the stage for the rest of the paper.]

    1. When visualizingthe West, land and money are prominent, but underneath those wanteddesires lies a want most desired by all, freedomto become who you wantto be.

      How does this tie back to your original argument?

    2. “At the same time, word of the money to be made in the West in agriculture, hunting, mining, [and] cattle had spread east quickly...”6

      You might consider paraphrasing some of these smaller quotes.

    3. The important role the American West played in American history was not a location or physical being; it was an idea.

      This is your argument. It is a very good argument. It deserves more explanation.

    1. She alsostated that “mining set a mood that has never disappearedfrom the West: the attitude of extractive industry—get in, get rich, get out”(100).

      I think you're trying to let Limerick do your job for you. You have to spend more time showing that you're thinking about the question. Not just quoting.

    2. the migration was that “southern cotton could not recover the ground lost during the war: heirloom seeds had been lost, fields overgrown with weeds, levees broken”(Richardson 83). Meaning that thesouth was a place of struggle when trying to get workand there was a lack of money withintheSouth due to thecotton not being a good market for them anymore. So,more southernerswent West to find more resourcessuch as farming resourcesor mining opportunities.Furthermore

      Again, this is a very awkward transition between paragraphs.

    3. So,more southernerswent West to find more resourcessuch as farming resourcesor mining opportunities.

      You're describing. That's OK, but I'd do less of that and more explaining how the history you describe helps you answer the question you were asked.

    4. “there were cattle in the West, and gold, and silver, and apparently endless herds of cattle”

      I don't think anyone is disputing this. Use the parts of both books that help you make a general argument rather than re-tell well-known stories.

    5. “The existenceof an area of free land, and its continuous recession, and the advance of Americansettlement westward, explain Americandevelopment”

      Your first paragraph should be devoted entirely to explaining your argument. Save the quotations for the body of your paper, after your response to the question is clear.

    1. Generations before us have learned of this fascinating timethrough popular Westernson television. Although my generation did not participate a whole lot in this leisurely activity, we learned about the American West through school. We learned of the cowboys and Indians,the same content that was present in the Westerns, just orally passed down to us from the generation that actually sat down and watched them. Being in some elementary classrooms during myfield experience, now the children are given a quick overview, a sort of glaze over, of the American West. It seems to be shrinking both in knowledge and popularity. Battles seem to be the highlight of the American West now, in classrooms, with a quick applause for the main characters such as Sitting Bull or Ulysses Grant.

      This isn't helpful because it doesn't help you answer the question you were asked. Explain the West's place in american history, not how it is being taught.

    1. “Farmers had gone west in the great optimism of the postwar years, convinced to that they could succeed if only they tried hard enough” (Richardson, 148)

      All quotes need to be introduced. Starting it with something as simple as "As Richardson explains,"... would be enough.

    2. Both authors set into the detail the importance of the West in regard to the active role in the government in American’s lives and the identity of what it truly meant to be American.

      This great!!! It is an argument that directly answers the question you were asked. I might just explain this argument with a couple of more sentences, though. Be 100% crystal clear, then move on.

    3. Explain the importance of the American West to American history as a whole. Use information and quotations from Limerick and Richardson as your sole sources for

      You don't need to repeat the question on your paper.

    1. After the war had ended there were many African Americans that had no place to go and no way of earning a living for their families. T

      All of this is descriptive. That's not bad if you can tie it back to your answer to the question, but you have to actively tie it back to your answer to the question.

    2. (Richardson 118)

      Everything here is descriptive. You need to make it analytical. That means you have to adopt what you read in the book to help you answer the question you were asked. That's not as hard as it sounds. It just means you have to justify the importance of every story for purposes of this assignment.

    1. “the west seemed to be a region of inexhaustible resources, where labor could easily realize profit from nature as soon as resistant Native Americans could be overcome. With the backing of western resources and the nationalization of the free labor ideal, a growing cadre of northern farmers, laborers, mid-level business men, and government officials (joined by some southern Americans who hoped to make the best of the postwar economy) were determined to make America the greatest nation on earth.”(37 Richardson).

      There's a lot in this quotation that you should be directly unpacking. Instead, you're letting her do your arguing for you.