Difference between revisions of "328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→"Balancing Work and Family," Betty Jeanne Boggs) |
(→Rachel Carson Answers Her Critics) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
== Rachel Carson Answers Her Critics== | == Rachel Carson Answers Her Critics== | ||
| − | I am not the world's biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions. Ridiculous that her response "No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now" (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that "A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world" (page 228). She certainly won me over. (And I would especially buy some more Samoas to support her environmentalist cause.) --Ssellers | + | I am not the world's biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and '''for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions.''' Ridiculous that her response "No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now" (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that "A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world" (page 228). '''She certainly won me over. (And I would especially ''buy some more Samoas'' to support her environmentalist cause.)''' --Ssellers |
| − | I know that earlier in this class we had talked about how women were often linked to the environmentalist cause so I tried to keep that in mind when I was reading this piece. | + | I know that earlier in this class we had talked about how women were often linked to the environmentalist cause so I tried to keep that in mind when I was reading this piece. ''' I am not sure if I could picture a man writing this with the same effect.''' Most of the points she makes are very strong and she even seems to go against the point that she is saving nature only to save the beauty of it. '''However, if women were still connected to the environmentalist cause would she have an easier time winning them over because she was a woman? Would she have a tougher time gaining support from men?''' - J Rowley |
| − | J Rowley--good questions. What if Silent Spring had been written by a man? Gotta love theoreticals... I agreed that this was a very strong answer to all of her critics--stronger still because she didn't specifically target any one person or company, and made it clear that she was not taking any of the criticism personally, and was thus not bothered by it: "I am confident that the verdict of history will show that we..." She invokes history to her side, claiming that time will tell, as it ultimately did. Very smart. --Sarah Smethurst (Samoas FTW) | + | J Rowley--good questions. What if Silent Spring had been written by a man? Gotta love theoreticals... I agreed that this was a very strong answer to all of her critics--stronger still because she didn't specifically target any one person or company, and made it clear that she was not taking any of the criticism personally, and was thus not bothered by it: "I am confident that the verdict of history will show that we..." She invokes history to her side, claiming that time will tell, as it ultimately did. Very smart. --Sarah Smethurst '''''(Samoas FTW)''''' |
In response to Sarah's post, I think that it was Carson's intention not to target one person, company, or group of people. During this period of time, when America was still feeling a backlash against women's rights, it was tougher for women to gain momentum in anything they said or did. I think Carson realized this, and perhaps realized that she would be more effective if she left the boundaries opened and made a general statement, therefore gaining more support and respect from those who supported, and even more importantly those who opposed her.--MDvorak | In response to Sarah's post, I think that it was Carson's intention not to target one person, company, or group of people. During this period of time, when America was still feeling a backlash against women's rights, it was tougher for women to gain momentum in anything they said or did. I think Carson realized this, and perhaps realized that she would be more effective if she left the boundaries opened and made a general statement, therefore gaining more support and respect from those who supported, and even more importantly those who opposed her.--MDvorak | ||
