Monthly Archives: September 2016

Reading Analysis 2: Final

Carla Sofia Fuente

Professor Hoskins

College Writing

September 27, 2016

Schindler’s Argument on Architectural Exclusion

In his “Architectural Exclusion: Discrimination and Segregation through Physical Design and Built Environment”, Schindler’s main argument expresses that man has built an environment which has made discrimination evolve in towns. Schindler expresses how cities have been built in a certain way that separates the white people and the black, the rich and the poor by designing low bridges so that buses do not cross to the rich side and building fences or walls in order to separate communities. Poor communities have disadvantages such as a lack of sidewalks and street signs, since the government does not pay much attention to these Urban communities, therefore this represents discrimination. Many environments prioritize a group of people, in this case, white and rich individuals, even though all citizens have the same rights and should have the same privileges. Discriminatory environments are present in many big cities like New York and Atlanta, Georgia.

New York was intentionally built by Robert Moses, who was known as the “Master Builder”, in a way where poor people have disadvantages (Schindler 1937). Robert Moses designed the infrastructure of NY to exclude the poor/poorer people of the area. This was achieved by designing public works so that buses, transportation common to the poorer areas, could not get to certain areas but, cars and other “wealthier” modes of transport could. As well as Atlanta, Georgia where there is a lack of public transportation since rich people opposed to allow the Metro to access to suburban areas, and by this mean, color people would not enter. This is an example of what Schindler is trying to describe: built environments support, and is the main cause of discrimination. Sadly, this has made people such as the court get used to the idea and allow disappointing actions like this happen. Built Environments built in a discriminatory sort of manner exclude individuals that have the same rights as the others. It is very important to have individuals in mind when a space is built because, “decisions about infrastructure shape more than just the physical city; those decisions also influence the way the residents and visitors experience the city” (Schindler 1939). The city’s environment has the power to change perspectives, visions, behaviors, and even ideals. Therefore, cities should not be built in a way that a group of people has less value because of their ethnicity or state of poverty.

In Conclusion, Schindler analyzes the idea of cities having their infrastructure and architecture built in a way where poor or color people do not have equal rights than rich and white people. All individuals should be engaged in the same activities and should invited to participate in all means, no matter their color or their social wealth. Furthermore, laws should present equal rights to everyone and give the same opportunities, in order to prevent built environments from setting social standards regarding race and class, creating a trend in many places, and controlling human behavior. Although environments built in this manner are hard to modify, cities that are being developed should end discriminatory architectural decisions.

 

 

 

Work Cited

Schindler, Sarah B. “Architectural Exclusion: Theory.” Architectural          Exclusion: Discrimination and Segregation through Physical Design of the Built    Environment, The Yale  Law Journal, 1934, pp. 1942–1954.

 

 

Reading Analysis 1: Final

Carla Sofia Fuente

Professor Hoskins

College Writing

September 22, 2016

         Analyzing Fleming’s political point of view

In his “City of Rhetoric”, Fleming’s main argument expresses that there is a big diversity of people in the United States, and many of them have different customs, beliefs, and ideals amongst each other, but, despite their differences, they all share a common environment where they can integrate, and be a whole community together in agreement. Although people need space for themselves, and time to spend alone, they also need a common space, where they can interact with one another and share their common interests. This common space will allow them to forget their individual problems and try to figure out their common predicaments, and realize that individuals work better as a group. Also, the common space will allow people to feel useful, and at the same time feel “free and unique as individuals” (Fleming 34). The topics and problems citizens discuss as a common interest can be referred as politics, and this is how Fleming intertwines an individual with politics. He argues how the government declares to be a specific political party, but does not act in accordance with the party’s theory (Fleming 19). They do not follow exactly what the party believes in, or what they are expected to accomplish.

democracy

        Fleming articulates that every opinion of a person is heard and valued in a democratic government. A man and woman both detail their rights as a particular citizen and at the same time, as a group. Although their opinions are different, they are weighed the same because they are equal citizens. Democracy is more “being” than “saying”; it allows people to use space as “the medium with which [individuals] positively organize [their] social lives, the material which [they] give form to [their] communities (Fleming 24). In its core, democracy is a medium that governs for the same, common purpose, yet everybody maintains their own beliefs. On the other hand, Republicanism, Liberalism, and Postmodernism do not work according to Fleming.

left-right-sign-liberal-conservative-democrat-republican-240x145

        Republicanism is a political theory that has failed because they strive to be a “self-governing, and self-sufficient human communities, founded and maintained by selfless citizens zealously guarding their own and their fellows’ freedom through physical combat and public displays of verbal eloquence, practical wisdom, and communal spirit” (Fleming 25). Republicans tend to only worry about themselves like a typical selfish person. In a community full of republicans, there is no “community-building”. As well as Liberalism, which focuses on everyone’s own good. Everyone’s own right is above anything. People are too busy worrying about themselves, and others are worthless to one another. The only feature they have in common is that they all make sure that their own right is secure. Additionally, post-modernism led society to a change in the world and has all been about instability and decentralization (Fleming 30). Postmodernism has been unsuccessful to set a ground and does not provide a place where people can settle properly. Republicanism, Liberalism, and Postmodernism have failed to offer stability in a pleasurable environment.

In conclusion, Fleming’s argument states that people need a shared space for interaction and to forget personal interests, so that citizens can collaborate for a common goal, but also a private place to have the time to think and elaborate their personal plans. Democratic problems are solved by a consensus of everybody’s opinion and not in a private manner.

 

 

 

            Work Cited

Fleming, David. City of Rhetoric: Revitalizing the Public Sphere in Metropolitan            America. SUNY P, 2008.

 

Commonplace Book: Entry 2: The conversation

 

Rhetorical pedagogies have a deep commitment to helping students make connections with public issues, including helping them understand how those issues affect them.

 

Although the actual means of pursuing this connection is unique to each scholar, there is some tacit agreement about the importance of helping students see the relevance of public issues in their individual lives.

 

–> The first topic sentence does not follow the “They say, I say” pattern, but the second does. Since it follows the “they say, I say” pattern, it has more sense, it is easier to read, and the sentence has more flow. When she expresses the “they say”, she emphasizes the other person’s opinion, but then she adds hers.

Commonplace: Entry 1

IC.IC:

I want to see how our political philosophies approach space. I begin by discussing two prevalent traditions of modern political thought.

  • I want to see how our political philosophies approach space, so I begin by discussing two prevalent traditions of modern political thought.
  • I want to see how our political philosophies approach space; I begin by discussing two prevalent traditions of modern political thought.
  • I want to see how our political philosophies approach space while I begin by discussing two prevalent traditions of modern political thought.

I have never really been into cars. I like really cool guitars.

  • I have never been into cars, but I like really cool guitars.
  • I have never been into cars; I like really cool guitars.
  • I have never been into cars while I like really cool guitars.

 

IC;IC:

I miss your smile; I still shed a tear.

  • I miss your smile, and I still shed a tear.
  • I miss your smile. I still shed a tear.
  • I miss your smile while I still shed a tear.

We are undeniably and inescapably different from one another; we live in a world where such differences matter.

  • We are undeniably and inescapably different from one another, and we live in a world where such differences matter.
  • We are undeniably and inescapably different from one another. We live in a world where such differences matter.
  • We are undeniably and inescapably different from one another while we live in a world where such differences matter.

 

 

*They all mean something different because their relationship changed.

*The difference is not big, but noticeable.