Final Project Proposal

Madison Kraemer

Dr. Adam Johns

English Composition 0200

19 November 2014

Final Project Proposal

Sources:

1.      http://firsttoknow.com/911-conspiracy-theories/: I decided to use this source because it has many different videos that theorists have constructed. I do not plan on incorporating all eight theories in my paper but I do want to include the ones that are the most logical and believable.

 

2.      Abbey, Edward. Desert Solitaire; a Season in the Wilderness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Print. Obviously, I must incorporate Abbey’s Desert Solitaire in my paper and I will most likely be focusing on the chapter “Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks” since it has many direct references to Abbey’s personal feelings on the government. But my overall goal is to try and incorporate as much information throughout the entire book by using specific quotes to support the conspiracy theories.

 

3.      http://newsone.com/742485/the-11-most-compelling-911-conspiracy-theories/: Again, this is another website that contains a wide variety of conspiracy theories on 9/11. It also includes many videos of possible explanations to these theories but again I will only be choosing the ones that are the most logical and believable in my paper.

 

4.      Wood, Michael J., and Karen M. Douglas. "“What about Building 7?” A Social Psychological Study of Online Discussion of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories." Front Psychol. 2013 4.409 (2013): n. pag. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. This is a scholarly journal found on the library database that basically describes the reason why there are conspiracy theories and the effects of conspiracy theories on the public. I plan to make this my first body paragraph so it sets up the importance of my argument and my paper.

 

5.      Knight, Peter. "Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: Popular and Official Responses to 9/11 in Germany and the United States." New German Critique 104 (2008): 1+. Web. 18 Nov. 2014. This is another scholarly journal article found on the library database. This journal article is about the effects the 9/11 conspiracy theories have on not only Americans but also the Germans. It lists multiple statistics that state the percentage of people who believe the government is behind the 9/11 attacks and their views on the conspiracy theories. I plan on using this journal article in the majority of my paper and using specific statistics to support the conspiracy theories.

 

Argument: As citizens, we need to believe in these conspiracy theorist and their views because each year the government gains more power and control over us citizens which gives them the power to sensor all information released to the people.

Counter Arguments:

1.      9/11 was not “planned” and it was a terrorist attack

2.      US government it out to protect us not destroy us, so why would they make something up

3.      Why would a country kill their own people on purpose and destroy massive/important buildings that would cost millions even billions to repair or rebuild?

Meaning: The whole purpose of my paper is to show the corruption in the government by using the event on 9/11 as one example. I want to show that everything we “see” my not be what it really is. The government is very powerful and has the capability to sensor all information released to the media. For example, the government resembles the way North Korea runs their country (not as extreme) because they control all information we citizens obtain. I chose this type of approach because we all know that conspiracy theories exist but what we don't know is why they matter and why we even have them. People think conspiracy theorists are "crazy" and irrational and not the "norm" because they think differently. But my question is, what if these conspiracy theories are actually true and the reason we think they are "crazy" or not the "norm" is because we are so corrupted by our government that we do not know any other answer than what we have been told. 

Outline:

Introduction:

September 11, 2001 was a tragic day that Americans will never forget. On this day, it is believed that terrorist attacked the United States and killed thousands of people in order to make a statement. My question is, did terrorist attack the United States or did our own government stage the attack? “Theorists believe that the World Trade Center buildings were demolished by bombs, phone calls from the planes were made up, and the former President George W. Bush secretly profited from the attacks,”(NewsOne). Abbey is an anarchist that believes the government has too much control and has the capability to do anything they desire. Abbey’s beliefs match up quite well with a conspiracy theorist which leads me to believe he would have the same views on the attack on 9/11. As citizens, we need to believe in these conspiracy theorist and their views because each year the government gains more power and control over us citizens which gives them the power to sensor all information released to the people.

Body Paragraph 1:

·        Wood, Michael J., and Karen M. Douglas. "“What about Building 7?” A Social Psychological Study of Online Discussion of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories." Front Psychol. 2013 4.409 (2013): n. pag. Web. 18 Nov. 2014.

·        Reason for conspiracy theories

·        Effects of conspiracy theories on society

·        Why conspiracy theories matter

Body Paragraph 2:

·        World Trade Center was a controlled demolition

o   Bombs is what brought the towers down, not planes

§  Reason for the stack collapse

o   The infrastructure of the towers would not make it not fall the way it did

§  Metal structure of the towers would not make it fall straight down

·        Falling collapse

o   Aluminum planes can’t penetrate steel structure of World Trade Center

§  Commercial airplanes’ frames are constructed with a very light aluminum material in order to make it easier to fly.

·        Theorists maintain that there is no possible way an airplane can do as much damage as it did to the Twin Towers as it did.

·        Theorists believe that missiles or explosives were used to ensure the buildings collapsed.

Body Paragraph 3:

·        Cell phone calls made from plane are fake

o   Cell phones cannot receive reception from that altitude

§  No way the calls could have been made

§  How could there have been calls made?

o   Planes back then did not have “airplane mode”

§  Didn’t have the capability to make calls/texts

o   Even today, you cannot call from a cell phone while flying

§  Technology today is far more advanced than 2001

Body Paragraph 4:

·        The Pentagon attack scientifically doesn’t hold up

o   Impact in the pentagon were smaller than airplane

§  How can this be

o   Plane was not shot down

§  No planes can fly close to white house or pentagon

o   Crash occurred in a vacant area of pentagon

§  Coincidence?

 

*My goal for each body paragraph is for it to be broken up into two, maybe three paragraph so I they are not so dense and lengthy

*I will be explaining the true meaning of each conspiracy theory in each paragraph and describe why each one MATTERS

*I will be incorporating Abbey in almost every paragraph by using a quote or summary of his views

*I will also be including the 5^th source in almost every paragraph because it includes vast amounts of information that is beneficial to all aspects of my paper

 

 

Final Project

Final project: Dec 10^th

Essay: 8-10 pages

Secondary sources: 2

Question leading argument: How is Abbey able to construct his observations on humanity and present them to us? Is he an anthropologist? How does he make himself seem like one?

How does this question generate an argument: This question generates an argument that Abbey was intentional and calculating in his narrative choses to most effectively and credibly display his observations

Why does this argument matter: It allows us to explore methods of writing and tools that span Abbeys "Desert solitude" and connect that to the way we look at culture and the way anthropology looks at culture. It will link to anthropology and the blindness we have toward our own cultures

Counter: We can judge our own culture by ourselves without the help of some outside perspective. These are Abbey's true observations

I think I want to use "Desert solitaire" in comparison to "Righteous Dopefiends" and some other articles on anthropology to explore how ideas on humanity and culture are constructed.  I would look at the kinds of situations you have to be in to comment on humanity.

To Hate or not to Hate: An exploration of Misanthropic messages in “Desert of Solitude”

In his book “Desert Solitaire” Abbey displays distrust for “humanity”. He describes it as misanthropic. He expresses it directly and also indirectly through the use of story telling. How does Abbey define “humanity” exactly? Throughout the book Abbey has a theme of duality, so it only makes sense that Abbey would have two definitions for what he calls humanity. Readers could misinterpret him for a bitter introvert who hates people. When in actuality Abbey would love to have family or friends with him at some points. He does not hate people or necessarily humanity, but rather the warped society that we have created. Therefore Abbey is not as misanthropic as he thinks he is just frustrated with cultures ability to change.

            You could not say that Abbey hates people. In his chapter Cowboys and Indian part two he directly states that he gets lonely he says “that the one thing better than solitude, the only thing better then solitude is society” (Abbey 97). He then goes onto explain that his definition of society is not a city, but a group of friends or family. Abbey makes it very clear that he is not a people hater. He appreciates people their qualities and the relationships you can build with them. His loneliness is also expressed by his displacement of qualities he misses from humanity onto aspects of nature. These small descriptions make it seem impossible for Abbey to hate Humanity either.  He says later in the book, “I was accused of being against civilization, against science, against humanity. Naturally, I was flattered and at the same time surprised, hurt, a little shocked. He repeated the charge. But how, I replied, being myself a member of humanity (albeit involuntarily, without prior consultation), could I be against humanity without being against myself, whom I love - though not very much…” (244). Abbey is clearly picking fun of himself here, but the ideas and his shock are true he never meant to come of the way he did. Abbey does not hate people or humanity. What he does hate is the destructive culture we have some how taken on.

            In Omohundro’s article “Thinking like an Anthropologist?” he describes the seven characteristics necessary for culture.

            “1.Cultures are integrated

            2. Cultures are products of history.

            3. Cultures can be changed, and the can cause change.

            4. Cultures are strengthened by values.

            5. Cultures are powerful determinants of behavior.

            6. Cultures are largely composed and transmitted by symbols.

            7. Human culture is unique in complexity and variability” (Omohundro 36).

For Abbey not all of these are deterrents in every culture. Abbey really only hates the rapid change in consumer culture that has started. To get even more specific the roots of Abbey’s hatred are focused on numbers 3 and 5.

            Abbey is clearly able to discuss this general hatred for our evolving culture through many little rants and short stories. He shows a clear hatred for anyone who disrupts or destroys the natural order of nature, but Abbey never attacks any specific person instead he attacks groups. He attacks sub-cultures of our consumer culture. The groups he rants against are the businessmen, tourist, shepherds, and the government. All of these titles are cultural constructs. He says that sheepherders are “as hog-rich as they are pig headed” (31). He thinks that their persecution of the wolves is ridiculous if one whole pack could be supported on one sheep, and they don’t need the money. He continues on with his hatred of consumer destruction by describing the industry that national parks are becoming. He dislikes the tourist industry because they are disrupting nature. He believes everyone should vacation to a national parks, but not interfere just observe. In his chapter Rocks he describes the greed of prospectors as they mined for rocks. For Abbey these people have done nothing wrong he blames the culture for dictating their behavior. This falls under category 5. Omohurdro discusses this and says, “Culture is powerful because much of what we have learned is beneath our awareness, or has become a comfortable habit…But sometimes we step out between the bars of our cage and do something alternative, deviant, unique or creative. All of us break some of the rules sometime” (Omohundro 38). For Abbey traveling to the wilderness and working at Arches is his break from the cage before he goes back to New York City. He is able to look back at the cage we live in and criticize us for getting trapped in our consumerism. He believes everyone needs to take vacations in nature just to get some perspective. Abbey says, “Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spare, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.” He is saying human civilization is cutting off the origins of humanity. He wants us to defend our humanity against our culture.  

           In his chapter Down the River he is more direct about his feelings. He starts off by belittling the government witch he refers to as the “Beavers” for building a damn and flooding the Glen Canyon (151). He hates it because it was and interference that ruined the canyon witch he refers to as “Eden” (152). This dam is made even more offensive because of its lack of purpose. This is an example the pointless progress Abbey hates. He goes on a journey to see the dam and afterwards is so angry he discuses the idea of misanthropy. Misanthropy is a distrust or disdain for Human nature. He mentions other writers who were also clearly dissatisfied with humanity. He then goes on listing all the things he hates about humanity “ The useless crap we burry ourselves in”, “The domestic routine”, “Crafting cheating”, and “Slimy advertising of business men” (Abbey 155). However, Abbey is not saying the people who are businessmen are slimy and the people in domestic routine are pathetic, but is criticizing the social construct of these things. He does not hate humanity and the people who occupy its roles, but the conformity and consumerism we have all been taught to honor as progress. Abbey also says, “Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit, and as vital to our lives as water and good bread. A civilization which destroys what little remains of the wild, the spare, the original, is cutting itself off from its origins and betraying the principle of civilization itself.” He is saying human civilization is cutting off the origins of humanity. He wants us to defend our humanity against our culture.

            In the chapter Cowboys and Indians Abbey describes how both groups are disappearing. Cowboys disappear to the modernized food industry, and the Indians to tourism. He says “Cowboys and Indians disappear, dying off or transforming themselves by torturous degrees into something quite different. The originals are nearly gone and will soon be lost forever in the overwhelming crowd” (Abbey 111). There is a certain amount of sympathy Abby makes us feel for these dying cultures. These culture which were once American Icons. This ties into requirement 5 of Omohundro, but also 3. Omohundro explains that the only thing constant in culture is change. Abbey calls this change progress, and thinks there is nothing worse. He is able to make readers feel slight disgust with a country that claims to be accepting of many cultures, but ends up killing them off. That is the nature of our society though we live in a culture where ideals are always pushed out and progress is always made. Yet we can see it’s not all culture he hates just our tendency to progress, change, and shift as a nation to the newer and shinier trends, but in particular shifting this way without the consideration of how conformity will affect our environment and older traditions.

            The ending is where you realize Abbey most defiantly doesn’t hate humanity. Abbey ends up leaving his life in the desert for a life in New York City witch at first seems surprising, but he is going to be a volunteer caseworker. He is not only going to be the defender of humanity, but because he misses civilization. He says, “After twenty-six weeks of sunlight and stars, wind and sky and golden sand, I want to hear once more the crackle of clamshells on the floor of the bar in the Clam Broth House in Hoboken. I long for a view of the jolly, rosy faces on 42^nd Street and the cheerful throngs on the sidewalks of Atlantic Avenue… I grow weary of nobody’s company but my own” (265). Abbey goes back to a big city in order to get in touch with humanity again. Omohundro would say he is re-entering his cage in society. For these reasons I don’t think Abby is misanthropic. There is a clear distrust for our culture because of it powerful influence over our actions and it’s rapid-fire shifts, but none for human nature. He wishes for us to preserve our human nature against the corruption of our culture.

• Use the intro to desert of solitude

Outline

1. Introduction Thesis
2. Introduction to Anthropology:
• Omohundro
• Hall
3. How does Abbey construct himself as an Anthropologist
• Separation from Humanity
• Spiritually
• Physically
• Observations
• Include field notes from Dopefiends to compare to
4. What is his goal? How does it compare to real Anthropologists
• Disgust but observations target real issues
• Compare to Dopefiends goal for better treatment
• Blame shift: disgust with pete masks levitates responsibility of system (Doctors, cops, changing demographic of san fran) 
5. Counter: Abbeys ending
• Why is he going back to humanity? Why wouldn't he stay in the desert?
• talk about Anthropologist who have become to involved with their work. Is this the same thing that is happening to Abbey?
• Dopefiends 12 yrs in the field
6. Conclusion

Bibliography:

Abbey, Edward. Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness. New York: Touchstone, 1990. 

Omohundro, John. Think Like an Anthropologist: A Practical Introduction to Cultural Anthropology.  McGraw-Hill, 2007. 

Final project proposal

Meaghan Duffy

11/19/14

Final project proposal

Professor Adam Johns

Proposed argument:  Living in a world such as ours, it is important to understand and be well aware of the abundance of religions, languages, cultures and lifestyles practiced by the pockets of people surrounding us. 

Why does it matter? :  Those who are content with only knowing and exploring what is directly in front of them run the huge risk of seeming increasingly ignorant and are less able to adjust to change and are conduct logical decision making. 

I chose to focus on this topic because in order to write a successful extended paper, I believe it becomes easier and flows better if the writer is super passionate about the topic, as I am with this one.              Growing up and taking an abundance of history and world culture classes I have become accustomed to thinking in a way that follows the logic that although it is important to have an opinion on a topic it is also important to understand the opinions of others even if you doesn’t necessarily agree. 

Counterargument: One should thoroughly understand his/her direct surroundings before he or she ventures out into the complete unknown searching for different views.

Why is this counterargument wrong? :

1) Humans, and the society that humans have created for centuries, are so ridiculously intricately dynamic and complicated that it would be entirely foolish to believe that any single thing could ever be completely understood. 

2) Those who travel and search the intricacies of different separated life forms and lifestyles are able to collectively think about things from a variety of standpoints and produce the most valid conclusion or solution from their acquired knowledge. 

Rough outline:

Paragraph 1:  Introduction to topic.  Discuss the importance of  well informed opinions and the difference between understanding a clause and supporting that clause.  End paragraph with a clear thesis statement. 

Paragraph 2:  Briefly discuss the culture, economics and politics of very different cultures and the reasoning and logic behind each to allow the reader to understand that not everyone follows the same ideals as his/her country or other associated area. 

Paragraph 3:  Discuss specific quotes and examples from, Desert Solitaire, where Abbey writes about how disappointed he is in humans because of their inability to step out of society and enjoy the small intricacies of nature and other forms of life away from big business and hierarchy.  Use example where he scolds people for driving through the national park staying in the safety of their cars not even hopping out to take a deep breath of fresh air or look up close to the life occurring all around them.  Possibly discuss more of Abbey’s work and papers written about him. 

Paragraph 4:  Maybe I will bring in Butler’s work, writing about how a severe lack of understanding of culture between the Oankali people and humans created a noticeable level of distrust and tension throughout.

Paragraph 5 and on: In the next few paragraphs I plan on discussing specific examples in history where ignorant political decisions led to failures for different countries.  Have an idea of using the U.S. entrance into and fight in the Vietnam war and the unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion into Cuba.  A new paragraph will logically plan out how, if the people in power were more knowledgeable about the standings and plans of their so-called “enemies,” they would have been able to be more successful in their conquest.

Finishing paragraph/s:  Plan to finish my paper by further stressing my original argument and discussing how studying and understanding the ideals of others can create a more open mind and a more peacefully coexisting world. 

Bibliography:

Abbey, Edward. Desert Solitaire; a Season in the Wilderness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Print.

Butler, Octavia E. Lilith's Brood. New York: Aspect/Warner, 2000. Print.

An article or possible psychological study correlating intelligence and diversity, or an article simply discussing the importance of knowledge of diversity.

A literary work written on political downfalls based on ignorant decisions.