Retrospective

The experience of collaborative learning through the use of this blog has taught me a little about my thinking process. When writing a paper, I can sit in front of the computer screen for hours, not putting anything on paper. But when I write on my blog, I am putting my free thoughts on paper, and then can use these ideas to later revise into a paper. I really like this method of thought process, it helps me to invent and clarify my ideas before I begin writing on a graded assignment.

I also like how I was able to view other's blogs. This allowed me to further my critical thinking skills by viewing differing perspectives. It helped me to write more well-rounded papers, rather than allowing my bias to show through in them. This blog really seemed to help me this year.

While I probably won't continue with this blog since the class is over, I may turn to blogging in the future. A friend of mine is using a blog to document the time with her fiancé before their wedding. She recently posted a photo montage of her and her husband recreating a $1800 headboard as a craft project for their new house. It is a really great way to present wedding ideas, and it will be great for them to go back and read through as years pass. This might even be a good idea to document my time here at USC. Only time can tell what I will do with blogging.

view my friends blog here: http://babblesofbrooke.wordpress.com

For now, Dancing my Way through the California Dream is SIGNING OFF!

Fallacy #3 MasterCard

MasterCard uses the false dichotomy fallacy in their main slogan "There are some things money can't buy, for everything else, there's MasterCard." This implies that for those items that you can buy, there is no alternative to using a MasterCard.

By not providing any other option, the ad implies that it would be impossible to buy anything without a MasterCard, therefore forcing people to apply for the card. The ad provides an unrealistic proposal, and therefore is a logical fallacy.

Source: http://www.mastercard.com/index.html

Wikipedia--Useful or Not?

After doing a little research on the controversial "encyclopedia" Wikipedia, I have discovered something more beneficial than the articles themselves. I used to search a topic on google knowing that Wikipedia would provide a concise and clear article--something upon which to grasp the subject-- and immediately understand much of the topic. From there, I would search more in-depth authoritative sources for a better understanding of controversies or opinions. For example, when studying the Watts Riots, Wikipedia was extremely useful in finding out the facts of the riots (how long it lasted, how much damage was done, etc.), but when it came down to researching the controversy, Proquest provided primary and authoritative sources through which I could gain a more comprehensive, well-rounded view of the issue.

However, after learning about the different functions of Wikipedia, the discussion tab has provided me with an entirely new method of research. I will expand my use of the website to reading these discussion threads, allowing me to see many sides of the issue. This will be especially helpful in finding counterarguments and arguments to discuss in my future papers. I do not think I will join in on the discussion unless there is something that stands out to me as a necessary correction--I am not one to often contribute my own opinions to discussion. I have, however, expanded my view of Wikipedia, and am more likely to rely on it for future research.

Acquisition of Knowledge

We have all been in the classroom when a student proceeds to correct a teacher, discrediting the "authoritative opinion" of which we believed to be true. Often times, the student is correct. I believe this to be a prime example of the tension between authoritative and communal acquisition of knowledge--common knowledge can prove as a stronger source of information. For example, in comparing the Encyclopedia Britannica with Wikipedia, both have error. In a study completed in 2005, Nature Journal chose articles from both sites in a wide range of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which article came from which site.

In the end, the journal found only eight errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123. Traditional encyclopedias are based on the reputation of certain authors. These authors, though small in number, are highly interested and qualified to find good sources for their information, and are therefore expected to produce good quality articles - however, they are not immune to human error. Thus, tension arises between the authoritative (Britannica) and communal (Wikipedia) sources.

I believe that communal sources of information are more practical. They force people to read other perspectives and carefully consider a response, such as the discussion boards on Wikipedia. I find that authoritative sources can often be limiting, or represent only one side of an argument. By collecting information from many sources and compiling it in a database, we are allowing a further use of critical thinking skills and building upon our knowledge base.

Source: Terdiman, Daniel. "Study: Wikipedia as Accurate as Britannica - CNET News." Technology News - CNET News. Web. 22 Nov. 2011.

Korean Americans

I have chosen to write about Korean Americans for Assignment 4. I find it interesting that Korean Americans are not fully integrated into American Society in Los Angeles, the assimilation that has occurred appears to have caused more harm than good. However, you could look at this from two perspectives: 1) The Korean American attempt at assimilation has been undermined by the racism and tensions in Los Angeles, or 2) By not trying their hardest to assimilate (ex. Koreatown enclave), they have brought these racial tensions upon themselves, leading to events such as the 1992 Riots of South-Central LA.

According to Edward Park, in his article "Competing visions: Political formation of Korean Americans in Los Angeles," the 1992 violence created a new wave of "political activism" among Korean Americans, but it also divided them into two main groups. The liberals worked to connect with other minority groups in LA to fight against racial injustice, where as the conservatives highlighted law and order and ultimately favored the economic and social policies of the Republican Party. It essentially was the common story of liberal versus conservatives. The conservatives tended to emphasize the political disparities between Koreans and other minorities, specifically blacks and Hispanics.

I am interested in examining the different way that the Koreans have assimilated, as well as how they have avoided becoming an integrated part of American culture, and how it has affected the racial tensions that were exacerbated with the 1992 South Central LA riots.

Sources from the readings

Home Is Where the Han Is: A Korean American Perspective on the Los Angeles Upheavals

This 1993 essay by Elaine H. Kim explores questions of whether or not recovery is possible for Korean Americans after the 1992 Riots, and what will become of attempts to “become American” without dying of han. Han, a Korean word, means the sorrow and anger that grows from the accumulated experiences of oppression. The condition it describes is taken quite seriously. When people die of han, it is called hwabyong, a disease of frustration and rage following misfortune. She says that the Korean Americans cannot call the trouble an “uprising” or a “riot.” To them, it is a sa-i-ku, a combination of three words used to describe uprisings in Korean history. If put into musical terms, Han would be the blues. Kim says, “What is clear is that we cannot ‘become American’ without dying of han unless we think about community in new ways.” She also states, which I find very helpful for this project, “If Korean national consciousness is ever to be such a weapon for us, we must use it to create a new kind of nationalism-in-internationalism to help us call forth a culture of survival and recovery, so that our han might be released and we might be freed to dream fiercely of different possibilities.” Because this article is written from a Korean-American Perspective, it provides insight into the life of an immigrant and how she feels about assimilating into American culture. While it may not be extremely recent, it does give a fairly modern perspective on the issue. I could quite possibly use this article for my paper.


From Different Shores: Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America

In his book, written in 1994, Ronald Takaki compiles 35 essays focused on race and ethnicity in America, past and present. The book is organized into six sections: 1) "Patterns" focuses on the racial and ethnic patterns seen in society 2) "Culture" covers the contradiction between typical American "Culture" and race and ethnicity, based on issues of identity and conflict 3) & 4) "Class" and "Gender" both focus on issues such as political economy, immigration, labor movements, class conflict, and feminism. This section seems to be the most helpful for my project. Section 5) "Public Policy" focuses on the government and policy workings for the topics covered in 3 and 4, and finally Section 6)"Prospects" ties together all of these topics by trying to dictate the future of these issues. This could also be helpful for Essay 4. Written from a scholarly perspective, both past and present, this book could be useful for my Writing 140 essay, however it may not provide a "real-life" perspective on immigration and living in the US, and could be difficult to find material worth including. Also, since it was written in 1994, the sections on public policy and section 6 could be dated and no longer relevant.

Ad Hominem Fallacy #2

In this news report by CNN about Ron Paul's tweet about WikiLeaks, CNN analysts Roland Martin and Erick Erickson attack the politician, rather than his argument. Quotes such as "I have trouble calling myself a Texan if Ron Paul is a Texan" and "he starred in a cartoon a while back as Marvin the Martian." By attacking Ron Paul, they get no where with the argument about the WikiLeaks, and essentially are working against themselves.



This is a prime example of Ad Hominem fallacy.