Sun Liang

The tragedies that happened on black young men in recent months are distressing. The fact that the black men killed in the course of arrest is twice as high as the white men shocked me when I find the statistics. Emotionally, I blame the policeman who accidentally killed the poor young man. No matter what crime the young man commits, the policeman has no authority to punish him without the judgement of law. The police are supposed to be the presentation of justice, the guard for the citizens, not the killers of citizens.

Exercise on Editing for Concision

Reflective Annotated Bibliography #1 popular sourceSource

Reflective Annotated Bibliography Source #2 academic source

Reflective Annotated Bibliography #3 popular sourceSourceReflective

Annotated Bibliography Source #4 academic source

I am interested in the topic of Hong Kong Democracy Movement because I am concerned about the relationship between mainland China and Hong Kong. Hong Kong has its special history and thus special social system. There does exist ideological differences between mainland China and Hong Kong. But since Hong Kong has been reverted to China in 1997, Hong Kong is a part of China. And the steady of Hong Kong society is also an important issue to mainland China. I think the break out of Hong Kong protest movement derives from the different ideology between Beijing and Hong Kong. However, both sides don’t have a perfect way to deal with it. Because of Hong Kong special status, there is no precedent to follow, both sides are in game and are looking forward to a balance point. So I think the problem deserves to be discussed. In my research paper, I will try to define whether Hong Kong so-called democratic movement is really democratic. Because so far, with my collection of information, this movement still remains to be discussed whether it is democratic or maybe only semi-democratic. Also I want to analyze whether this movement will lead Hong Kong to a full democracy future. My target audiences are those who comment or regard Hong Kong protest as a democratic movement. I want to question them and challenge their conception towards democratic. I also want to express my opinions about Hong Kong future political development to those who also forecast Hong Kong’s future themselves. I have found one academic source relating to Chinese reaction towards Hong Kong inclination to democracy, and this is helpful to my forecast of Hong Kong future political development. And another popular source is a detailed analysis towards Hong Kong society in economy, politics and judiciary. It is useful because it tells me something deep in Hong Kong and I will apply it in my research paper.

My topic is based on Hong Kong democracy movement. It is still hard for me to decide my argument. I do find two different voices towards this democratic movement. One is back Hong Kong, pointing out mainland China’s authoritarian regime. Another is from Chinese official tone against Hong Kong movement, denying that it is democratic. But I do not want to stand on either side. Instead, I am considering whether I can analyze or argue that it is different ideologies or cultural background that create different social consciousnesses and thus different forms of government. Because such words like ” authoritarian regime” or”autocratic policy” seldom happens in Chinese media, these were basically from Western media’s judgement of China. But China and Western countries do have essential difference, China is Socialism while most of western countries are capitalism. There exists difference. Also, my thought of China also is influenced by where I grew up. So I am still considering and thinking.

Précis

The Economics analyzes deep into relationship between Hong Kong and China. According to The Economics, applying “universal suffrage” in China-style was the reason of Hong Kong’s rage and thus the break out of Hong Kong Democracy Movement. China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress , proposed the voting style to make sure the candidate in Hong Kong was under China’s will, while “Occupy Central” declared a new “era of resistance” to fight for real universal suffrage. The tension grows especially among young people in Hong Kong and people in Hong Kong regard mainland-Chinese as “locusts”, reflecting a serious social  problem between Hong Kong and China. But as The Economics mentioned, “Hong Kong’s importance to China is dwindling”^[1], China hopes it as an “economic city” rather than a political one, so the communist party might take some actions to reserve its “sovereignty, security and development interests”.

Work cited

[1]”Political City; Democracy in Hong Kong.” The Economist 412.8903 (2014): 45. Web.6.Nov.2014

<http://www.economist.com/news/china/21615636-denied-free-elections-hong-kongs-democrats-plan-reluctantly-protest-political-city>

The main idea for this task is to train our ability of academic writing with accuracy and in professional style. It is inevitable for us to cite others’ articles in our writing and the formal format relating to citation is necessary in order to avoid plagiarism.

Intro:

In the introduction to “They Say/I Say”: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein provide templates designed to help readers put abstract principles of writing into practice. Specifically, Graff and Birkenstein argue that the types of writing templates they offer can be used to structure in writing and expanded to almost any length. As the authors themselves put it, “useful.” Although some people believe such templates may stifle creativity, Graff and Birkenstein insist that even the most creative forms of expression depend on established patterns and structures and that creativity and originality lie not in the avoidance of established forms but in the imaginative use of them. In sum, their view is that the types of templates recommended in the book not only help readers to structure their writing but also facilitate their creativity in writing.

I agree. In my view, the types of templates that the authors recommend are useful. For instance, I am now using one of the templates to present my opinions about templates, and it makes my sentences more logical. In addition, it also help in my academic writing, where I have to quote or refute others views. Some might object, of course, on the grounds that if everyone applies this form into writing, it would be lack of creativity. Overall, then, I believe creativity lies in the imaginative use of forms- an important point to make given the real passion on writing.

Chapter 1:

The main point of Chapter one is advising readers to begin their argument with “what others are saying”, and then introduce their own ideas as response. In opening of Chapter one, the authors devote the first paragraph to an anecdote about the conference speaker and then move quickly at the start of the second paragraph to the misconception about writing exemplified by the speaker. It’s main aim of this example is to tell readers that ”a writer needs to indicate clearly not only what his or her thesis is, but also what larger conversation that thesis is responding to(p.20)”. And also, it reviews that “to keep an audience engaged, a writer needs to explain what he or she is responding to- either before offering that response or, at least, very early in the discussion.(p.20)” It also quotes Grorge Orwell’s famous essay “Politics and the English Language” as an example to support their saying that “ we also believe that you need to present that argument as part of some larger conversation, indicating something about the arguments of others that you are supporting, opposing, amending, complicating, or qualifying.(p.21)”

I have no question about Chapter One. My only doubt about Chpater one is whether this “starting-with-what-others-are-saying” is kind of cliche? Because although the examples it cites like George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” and Christina Nehring’s opinion piece all apply such technique that to start with what others are saying. Their forms seem natural and consistent with the content, while the templates the book provides with us seem more rigid.

Before I read the Revising Attitudes, I regarded revising as tough and time-wasting work. To be honest, I am one of the people that Brock Dethier described as the one that resisted revising. So when asked what I think of when “revising” my writing, my dominant thought might be “quick”. I want to finish the task as quickly as I can.

Frankly speaking, I seldom revise my writing. It’s not because that I think my writing is really good. It is because that I don’t know what or how to revise my writing. My only job in my revising is to do some surficial grammar or spelling correction.

I must admit that what Brock Dethier said was really persuasive. After I read the article, I started to ask myself about my attitude towards revising. I realized that what I said about my weakness in revising might only be my excuses to resist revising. It is my deeper resistance or my thought of revision as donkeywork that block my way of revision. I had strong sympathy when reading about the third excuse Brock Dethier listed about reasons of resistance to revision. “Revision makes things worse.” Sometimes it is true. The analysis of Brock Dethier makes sense that revision does make things worse if you change just for the sake of changing. But it is not always the case. Sometimes an inspiration just sparks on you, and you put your heart and soul into the process of revision, hoping that the new edition would get the nod. However, you get upset because your readers may think that your first edition is better than the second one. So I agree what Brock Dethier said that in the process of revision, we should treat it seriously, not just palter it. But sometimes the writer also needs some support or encouragement in the process of revision.

The difference between revising, editing and proofreading, I think, depends on different layers of writing process. Revising is more dependent on the writer his/herself. Based on the opinions from readers, peers and editors, it is the writer who revises his/her writing. S/he may change the structure or even the theme of the article, it is all under the writer’s control. S/he is the architect of his/her writing. While in the process of editing, editor is another essential role to help. At this layer of writing, the theme and main structure have already been built by writers, the rest is to adjust the format, add some insets for example, to polish the article. As for the proofreading, I regard it as the last insurance of the article. At this stage, what writers or editors should do is to find and correct any spell or niceties to make sure the article looks perfect.

1. I have already decided my topic: Hong Kong Democratic Movement, and I have determined my two proposals relating to the topic. I spent about 2 hours(in total) to finally determined the proposals and spent about another 2 hours to determine the annotated bibliography and about 3 hours to form my zero draft as well as to organize my outline.

2. I have an outline for my rhetorical analysis but I haven’t started to write. I decide to write in the evening of Tuesday and revise it on Wednesday.

3.My outline:

1. Generally explain why I choose these two articles for rhetorical(1. Interest about the topic 2.they are related(democracy) 3.related but in difference).point out the personal view that these two articles are all persuasive and use their own rhetorical techniques to support
2. Summarize the main argument in article 1 and article 2 (question: is it better to analyze separately of these two articles or to compared each other in the same aspect one by one?)
3. Analyze rhetorical situation,audience,purpose,images,titles,Aristotelian appeals

4.Conclude (detail the common link between these two articles and differences from the analysis of their rhetorical techniques-inclusio

4.my question: is it better to analyze separately of these two articles or to compared each other in the same aspect one by one?

5.my understanding of the purpose of the assignment: The purpose of the assignment is to practice our critical thinking. When reading an article, we gain information from it. This rhetorical analysis is to help us discover the process, the mechanism of how we gain the information from it, of how we are persuaded by the argument that the author conveyed.

zero draft

Annotated Bibliography source 1

Annotated Bibliography source 2

Annotated Bibliography source 3

Annotated Bibliography source 4