This article, ‘I love cities, but they don’t all love me back,’ advocate for disabled says before Habitat IIIhttp://citiscope.org/habitatIII/news/2016/10/i-love-cities-they-dont-all-love-me-back-advocate-disabled-says-habitat-iii is taken from a forum called Habitat III, World Cities at a Crossroads. It shows the "breakthroughs, trends, and innovations from cities around the globe," and one the topics it deemed important was the discussion of what can be done in cities for those who are disabled in some manner. There were thoughts of putting up audio street signs for those who are visually impaired, making signs simpler to understand for those who are mentally impaired, and even making the sides of signs less sharp so that those who walked by would be less likely to injure themselves. Widespread plans toward acknowledging and accepting disabled people into public areas is needed, but with so many different types of disabled people, it is hard to come up with one solution that fits all needs. The U. N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities came into affect in 2008, and in the countries where the treaty was ratified (United States not included), these countries are already working to create spaces that cater not only to the able but to those with special needs. A draft of the New Urban Agenda for the U. N. mentioned disabled people 12 times but hesitates to outline exactly what it will do concerning these people. Though progress is slow, disabled people are speaking out and beginning to have their voices heard when it comes to the built environment.

These two texts were very interesting and similar in many ways. Both deal with the issue of disabled person's accessibility to public and even private areas, and both argue that not enough is being done. The Habitat III article does a good job highlighting the different kinds of disabled people while the Teaching with Trauma article glosses over the various types of disabled and only really talks about wheelchair access. The Habitat III article speaks of policies that are being put into affect already to help provide access to the built environment to disabled individuals, while Teaching with Trauma does not identify any real laws going into place to help people. Perhaps the reason for this is because the Teaching with Trauma article speaks about policies in a particular area while the Habitat III article deals with protocols in places around the world.

Now that our society is becoming more aware of the labels and stereotypes put on people by certain word usage, I find myself wondering which term of reference is preferred by those who are "disabled" in some way. I wonder if handicapped is a better, nicer term, or is there some other word that is more sensitive to the feelings of those individuals. Disabled/ disability seems to carry such a harsh connotation with it, like those people are not as good as others, but then again, so does the term handicapped. Perhaps, like in many situations, it is not the word that needs to change but the attitude about those types of individuals. Changing word choice is just a band aid for when people have poor images of certain kinds of people who are different from them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAPmGW-GDHA

I never really considered widespread wheelchair access or access for people with disabilities before and the hardships they have to endure to be anywhere. I know people who have a hard time getting around exist, I see them and the handicap doors that I walk through, but I never considered how some places could be barred to them and they could not have a voice in the public because of it. Because some people cannot get to a certain place, their voice is not heard, and that is troubling. I only see a person in a wheel chair as a rarity, but is that because they cannot get to the place where I am rather than my previous notion that there just are not that many people who are disabled?

I was not sure what this meant, so I found an article that explains what these are http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/3585?e=blackstone_1.0-ch02_s01 The article deals with the topic of a sociologists approach to situations. Micro is small group interactions, sometimes just the self alone. Meso is at a larger group level, such as a business, and macro is large scale interactions, situations that affect entire continents and global relations.

Stratify means "to arrange or classify," according to Google. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=stratify

Through italicizing experts, the author trying to make fun of the term in reference to these people in a display of satire. However, why is that the case? Obviously she must not think all of their knowledge or opinions are sound, or she would not feel the need to mock them as an expert. What is an expert in her eyes then? Is it someone with the personal life experience (not necessarily any schooling) that qualifies them as an expert, or the one who has done all the research and is very aware of the textual knowledge of a situation?

She literally just had a sentence similar to this a couple paragraphs ago. "The notion of the right to the city, understood as a right to urban life, involves both the political, social and material dimensions of the urban...begin by developing a conception of spatial justice." She is becoming repetitive in her argument already. The points she is making are not new, and she is not elaborating, but rather restating. Her word choice is even the same.

Is she arguing for access for people with disabilities, or arguing specifically for wheelchair access? I do not think the author does a good job portraying what she is actually trying to address in that regard, as people with disabilities are not just people stuck in a wheel chair.

She announces that planning in urban areas is a social justice issue, but I think it has always been one. Planning in urban areas has always affected people, and when it does that people either stand behind it or try to stop the process. One example is the Atlanta Beltline, where many people took the idea as their own and used it to aid themselves in their environment. Plans such as low income housing were a big deal for people, and that was a social justice issue to make sure everyone could enjoy the Beltline and all kinds of people could have access. Another prime example is segregation within the American south. Black people put on all kinds of protest and marches to raise awareness for their plight and try ti change the environment around them for one geared toward equality for races.

The fact the author switches between different modes, such as third person and first person perspectives is unnecessary and disruptive. The context of the article is most assuredly going to be about accessibility and the built environment for people in wheelchairs with disabilities, so there is no need for the author to go and state the point of the essay in their own words.

This concept is not as important as it should be in American society. Many schools, from elementary to college, do not put as much emphasis on holistic learning, but rather focus on memorizing information through standardized testing. Learning can and should occur anywhere, not just in a typical classroom setting. In fact, a lot of useful information for life comes outside of the classroom. It reminds me of a quote by Mark Twain “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education”. People should always be in a state of learning, figuring out new things and expanding their minds in multiple ways, not just in narrow subjects that come in school.

Is this referring to one fifth of a student's time in school is spent in the classroom, or one fifth of a student's complete life is spent in school? I would think the first would be true, but it is not hard to imagine that so much of our time is spent in school.

In some ways, while I believe addressing the need for green space as a break in attention is important, is it perhaps ignoring the real issue? In so much of American culture, there is the standards upheld of working long hours, taking smaller and smaller breaks, skipping vacations, and just the overall sense that less is more when it comes to work. I think this belief not only applies to the job industry, but schooling as well. Instead of trying to help students engage less and maintain the normal course load, would it be better for there to be more time for rest?

"...lures of the outside world" sounds very ambiguous. I'm not sure if this sentence is trying to refer to the world and it's distractions, or some other meaning. It almost makes "the world" sound like a dangerous place, like a student should not venture there. However, college is the place where students are supposed to be preparing for the world, and instead of being afraid of it, school should make a student more confident and comfortable when approaching the world. For example, I think the GSU campus does a great job of putting students in the middle of the larger world while also giving them help on how to navigate. Other campuses that are more secluded, such as UGA, do not really offer as much real world experience that one could get from being in a more urban environment. In that case, being on a campus that is separated and apart from the rest of the world could actually be a negative aspect.

Perhaps it is just me, but this phrase seems rather wordy. I feel as though the meaning behind this part of the sentence is lost or at least the point can be easily misconstrued. It is trying to say that more research should be done on this topic that is already supported by evidence. So is the research reliable, or not? Is it supported, or not? If there is not enough evidence to make a claim, why is this article being written as though this premise about green space is fact?

I think this is the first time the authors use a different point of view in their writing, referring to themselves as "we". It breaks up the flow of the article a bit as suddenly the authors are referencing themselves after writing the whole article objectively until this point. However, they do this to justify their reasoning and address any complaints that might arise from their argument, so perhaps the change in perspective is justified.

While assertions like this are cited with sources, I think this article would be much more effective if it described in more detail how it came to these conclusions about learning and the environment. Was there a study done, or did they take a survey, or perform an experiment? At this point we know the information was taken from somewhere, but are these sources reliable or recent?

In "So you like the University of Chicago’s rejection of ‘safe spaces’ for students? Consider this."https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/08/30/so-you-like-the-university-of-chicagos-rejection-of-safe-spaces-for-students-consider-this/, the article speaks of The University of Chicago's statement about denying those who wish to be alerted to controversial topics on campus. instead of getting rid of speakers who might have racial views or putting out "trigger warnings" for certain classes and their subject matter, the University boldly supported equal thought and expression on campus. The feeling behind this choice was the belief that college students nowadays are coddled way to much, and need to hear dissenting opinions to their own thoughts. I found a correlation between this article and "Recognizing Campus Landscapes as Learning Spaces" in the way that both articles speak about a "safe place" for students. While in the first article, the "safe place" refers to a figurative area where students can be by themselves with their beliefs, the "safe place" in the second one describes an area that is closer to nature.

What are quads and greens? A quad is a rectangular courtyard surrounded by buildings on all sides. It's full name is actually a quadrangle, and many college campuses are known for to include impressive quads, including Harvard, Cornell, and Yale. Many colleges that host quads are also known for their sustainability initiatives on campus. http://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-iconic-college-campus-quads-2014-1

Yet, as I mentioned, there is not enough emphasis put on rest, not enough time given for a student to recover. I talked more about this in my previous annotation.

Most often, if valuable objects are found at a site, it is inferred that these people were rich and could afford such items. However, it is known that these men only received eight dollars a month, thus making it impossible for them to have bought that item. At this point, critical thinking must come into play to determine how the pottery came into this men's possession.

“James Deetz, Parting Ways Site, Illustrations.” Accessed September 6, 2016. http://www.histarch.illinois.edu/plymouth/partingillust7.html. This is a picture of the pottery found at the site of Parting Ways

In After Flooding, Some Louisiana Students Face Uncertain School Year http://abcnews.go.com/US/flooding-louisiana-students-face-uncertain-school-year/story?id=41589657 This article speaks of the massive damage sustained to a school after a flood, displacing many students and families and providing uncertain futures. These students were unable to go to school, and some even bounced from house to house after their own was destroyed. Since so many cars were damaged as well, more buses would have to be in operation in order to pick up the same students, some of which are now out of the school district in the effort to find a place to live. This can relate to the text in that this reminds me of how these men were displaced after the war, and received just enough to start over and try to make their own lives. They were also displaced from their homes on a much larger scale, as their homeland was Africa, and they were unable to go back to where they grew up or at least where their families grew up.

The foundations of the Burr house have never been touched, so the condition of them makes it very easy to see how the house was made and what it looked like.

“James Deetz, Parting Ways Site, Illustrations.” Accessed September 6, 2016. http://www.histarch.illinois.edu/plymouth/partingillust4.html. This is a picture of the foundations.

“James Deetz, Parting Ways Site, Illustrations.” Accessed September 6, 2016. http://www.histarch.illinois.edu/plymouth/partingillust2.html. This is the Burr hosue before it burnt down.

A "simple vernacular house", this relates back to the other article we read. A vernacular house shows how people were living at the time, so buildings with small central chimneys, shingled exteriors, and six-over-six windows were typical of a house at this time.

Evans, Walker. “Nineteenth-Century House. Beaufort, South Carolina.” Still image, 1936. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/fsa1998020874/PP/. This is a picture of a nineteenth century home.

As soon as I read ""formerly occupied by Prince" all I could think of was "the artist formerly known as Prince".

Has anyone else noticed how the tone of the narrator of this article is subtly judgmental of certain aspects? For the most part, the author is informative and reflective on the meaning of what was found at the Parting Ways site, but at some points the authors personal opinion comes out, giving the reader another way to view a situation.

I wonder why there was such a difference in the vegetation that grew in the middle of the plot of land and what grew around it. Could there have been a natural spring or something, thus influencing where the men decided to build their homes?

Terminus post quem means the earliest possible date for something. So the jar was made after the cellar was have supposed to have been filled, making it harder to pinpoint the exact time of these occurrings. In history it is very hard to make pinpoint exactly when events happened, unless there are artifacts with written dates on them. I guess most of history is just an approximation.

It appears a large degree of African culture has survived the transition from Africa to America. This is displayed in the building structure of the houses these men built, where they built them, the presence of a certain kind of pottery unique to Africa and the West Indies, and how the men disposed of trash in underground cellars.

Negative evidence is "evidence for a theory provided by the nonoccurrence or absence of something". So even though there is no physical evidence that a fireplace or chimney was built into the house, that somehow proves that one did exist? I'm a bit confused by what this paragraph is trying to say.