Week of SEPTEMBER 11 - 17TH
Assignment due: September 17th by 11:58 pm
This article is truly American: Capitalism, Environmentalism, Native American Land, DAPL, Energy, Safety, water supply.............holy cow...........this article has it all.
Requirements:
- Read CRITICALLY
- Pay close attention to the uses of persuasion (ethos, logos, pathos, fallacies)
- Contemplate both sides of the argument
- Writing:
- 12-15 sentence response that 1st discusses the argument as it is presented in the article
- Next, you will use an academic tone to define onto which side of this argument you fall.
- YOU MAY NOT BE A FENCE SITTER; CHOOSE A SIDE.
- You need to focus on ethos and logos in your response, and avoid the use of pathos and logical fallacy.
- Write well. Be better than last week. And, hopefully more than 26 of you will remember this week so I don't have to give so many zeros. Goodness Gracious.
Dominic B.
ReplyDeleteAudience: The author wants everyone to be aware of this situation.
Topic: A company is trying to put a pipeline through the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota.
Purpose: To persuade the public that this company should not be allowed to do this, because white people should not be allowed to continue to take from the Natives Americans like they have been for hundreds of years.
I think it is wrong for the government to be allowed to put the pipeline through the reservation because while it would generate millions of dollars tax revenue for states, and it would add jobs, it would damage ancestral land and possibly pollute their water supplies. They want to go through ancient burial grounds. It basically seems like the government just doesn't care about the natives. I guess that the natives are just tired of getting pushed around by white people. They are standing up for themselves, and the national guard is using dogs and pepper spray to try to stop them.
Madison Mantich
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this essay is to inform people of both sides of this argument. The DAPL wants to run a pipeline under the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and that's the topic of this essay. I think the audience is whoever will listen or wants to be informed of this issue. I think they make a good job at using Pathos (emotions) in showing how this is Native American land so of course they want to preserve it. I'm on the side with the Native Americans not wanting to have a pipeline through their ancient land. It states that one of the risk factors is the pipeline could possibly contaminate the Native American water and make it dangerous. I don't think it's fair that the reason the DAPL could just do it anyway is for money and jobs. I understand that everybody needs money and jobs but they could get it else where. Is money really more important than the Native Americans feelings and even health safety? The use of pepper spray and attack dogs against the protesters not wanting the pipeline done is so unnecessary. I would get if the protesters were crazy and out of hand but they are being peaceful and have a reason for not wanting it done. Everyone has a right to freedom of speech and this is unfair to the Native Americans.
purpose of the article was to give facts and statements about the situation of a native american tribe between the four states. i dont believe the author gave both sides of the story. he gave plenty of information of what the construction will do for people outside the tribe.in the article it does state that it will give thousands of people jobs and give millions of dollars in taxes but how is it affecting the tribe? the author never really described why the tribe was protesting or why it was a situation for them. in the article the author gives good statements towards the outside people but not enough information about the tribe, so my favor is towards the tribe. the article states that conflict escalated over the pipeline. also they requested aid from the national guard just for protest. thats not called for.i could fall on the side of laying the pipe. but if i could hear more of the other side of the story then maybe i could see why they denied the request. its unfair to the tribe to not put there opinion or there voice in something that they were apart of.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this article is to tell us what is happening between the Indian tribe that resides among the 4 states and oil pipeline workers. The author does a good job making sure the audience knows what is going on in the article. This reading has 2 sides, the company that wants the pipe to be layed and the Indian tribe that thinks it is wrongful to put a pipeline where they have been for centuries. The worse part about it is they try and tell them the money and jobs people would gain from this but the tribe wouldn't gain anything. That's why I choose the side of the Indian reservation cause I know how wrong it would be for the government to destroy a piece of history like that
ReplyDeleteGrant McGrail
ReplyDeleteThis article is intended to inform people of both sides of the argument about the Dakota Pipeline construction. After reading the article I noticed a bias towards the defense of the pipeline, whereas the author defended it on multiple occasions. Even after noticing the authors bias towards the defense of the pipelines construction. I would still side with the defense of the pipelines construction. This pipeline would allow for the transport of tons of oil across the Midwest. Therefore trucks would no longer have to transport the oil taking them off the road and reducing the risk of accidents. It would also create hundreds to thousands of jobs not just for the construction of the pipeline but also the maintaining of it. The courts also ruled that the pipeline company received all of the proper permits for the construction. The company is also taking precautions to protect lake Oahe and keep it clean. The other side of the argument would argue that it is endangering the Native American tribes near the pipeline, but as long as all proper precautions are taken the people will have nothing to worry about. Instead of trying to futily stop the pipeline construction they should be making sure that the pipeline company will be building the pipeline safely and correctly. Through this they would know that there is nothing to worry about.
Ayme Sumpter
ReplyDeleteThis article does a very good job at citing factual information and providing details of the debate that is taking place over this pipeline, which is incorporating logos. Mentioning the involvement of the U.S. District Court in DC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides evidence that the issue is being discussed and debated at a very serious level and that it is not just being overlooked. The writer, Catherine Thorbecke, does do a good job at avoiding the use of pathos to keep the article factual and informative. She does not include any personal “I think” or “I believe” statements, which makes it clear that the purpose of this article is simply to inform citizens of this controversial issue. The argument is a valid one that I believe will always be occurring in America; is it okay to disregard the safety and rights of a group of humans for the sake of capitalism?
Yes, the pipeline is very beneficial and profitable, it is estimated that 8,000 to 12,000 jobs during construction would be made, but ethically, it should not be permissible. It is made clear that the pipeline puts some features of the reservation in danger, like the sanitation of the water, but more importantly could damage culturally significant and sensitive sites on the ancestral lands that make up the reservoir. Native Americans have lived on this soil longer than we have, so it is unfair and unethical to harm the land that is rightfully theirs. The article brings up an important topic by mentioning that “this case highlighted the need to consider "nationwide reform with respect to considering tribes' views on these types of infrastructure projects.”” It is certainly truth that we as Americans don’t always do the best job at respecting and protecting the rights of the original Americans, Native Americans, who were here before we claimed this as place our home. We have already forced them onto reservations that don’t compare in size to the original land they inhabited, so we don’t need to build a pipeline that invades their peaceful home for the sake of our benefit. Yes, the pipeline would help out America’s economy as a whole, which is why they should build it, but just not so close to the reservation.
Sources used: http://www.daplpipelinefacts.com/docs-dapl/08092016/DAPL_FactSheet33-8_09_16.pdf
Evan Arnold
ReplyDeleteThe main argument in this article is between the Dakota Access oil pipeline and Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The pipeline is being built to transport oil from North Dakota to South Dakota, Illinois, and Iowa. The tribe argues to stop the building of the pipeline. They believe it can cause environment issues that directly effects them. The pipeline is very close to their land and they believe it can effect the water. The project owners state that it is more of a benefit than a curse. They say it will transport a great amount of oil to help out other states. This will also give them a huge profit. It gives them money not the tribe who gains nothing from this. They tribe protests because they are effected by this in a negative way. The tribe was never told about the pipeline either. I would have to go with the tribe because it can greatly effect them in very negative ways. It might not only effect them, it could effect other people around the pipeline too.
Sam Denker
ReplyDeleteThis articles main focus is to inform Americans of the conflict between the DAPL and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The DAPL wants to run a large pipeline in the midwest, to enhance the transportation of oil and help open up the industry. This sounds like a great idea, however the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is worried about the mistreatment and destruction of their grounds. It is fair for the tribe to be concerned, however i must side with the DAPL on this conflict. Courts have ruled that they have obtained all proper permits and dont plan to destruct the land of the Tribe. This construction will not only help transport oil efficiently, but also open up a great amount of jobs. Not only that, it will also generate a large number in tax revenue for the involved states. While this article is absolutely sided with the DAPL, I still find myself swaying to their defense, as they've done what must be done to protect the tribe. With fair concern of their land, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will hopefully realize that their property is being monitored, and taken care of to the best it can. Leaving them with distaste, but hopefully some satisfaction.
The purpose of the article is to inform and persuade the audience to agree with the fact that , in North Dakota , at the Standing Rock Souix tribe, there should not be a oil pipeline constructed. The author wants us to see that while building a pipeline may have its benefits in a few states, overall it is just going to effect the native and sacred lands in a negative way, this causing an uproar. In my personal opinion I am with the authors argument. I don't think that it is correct to build a pipeline through native lands just for profit and a few jobs here and there. Taking into consideration that the lake reservoir nearby would possibly become contaminated. Native tribal land and its assets should not be tampered with at all because it is a larger value to them than we know and taking it away would result in a protest and possibly some violence.
ReplyDeleteEvie
ReplyDeleteThe dispute at hand is between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ pipeline construction, running from North Dakota to Illinois, and the Native Indian tribe that the pipeline could possibly endanger. In the argument stated, the author does a satisfactory job with keeping her opinion neutral. She effectively persuades for both sides of the disagreement. She uses logos in order to show the positive statistics the pipeline would bring. “… it expects the pipeline to transport about 470,000 barrels… creating thousands of construction jobs…”. She keeps the playing field very even, however, when she uses pathos to represent the native Indian tribe’s feelings about the situation. “… damage culturally sensitive sites on the group’s ancestral lands”. Logos is used in the first quote by giving a set of statistics that provides the reader with a good sense of why this pipeline is so important. Pathos is used in the second quote and provides the reader with an emotional appeal due to the Indians possibly having some of their ancestral lands impaired. Lastly, she effectively uses ethos through her rhetoric and vast knowledge and research on both topics making her a credible source.
I, personally, will side with the Native Indians. The first problem is the water supply. The pipeline is going to travel under the Missouri River. This is a vast problem because if the pipeline breaks, the whole river could end up like the Flint River disaster, due to pollution, for any state that uses it as a source of water. Another pressing matter is the cost of the pipeline. The pipeline costs around 3.8 billion to produce. However, as stated in the Washington post, “… and will deliver nearly one billion in direct spending to the U.S. economy”. This is not nearly enough to cover the costs, especially if the pipeline does break and the river has to be cleaned and if there are other costs associated with it. Lastly, there would be a lasting effect on the native tribe. Even though the sacred territory is not on their land, it is still rightfully theirs because the government forcefully took it away from them. Not to mention that it is their ancestral land that gives the tribe pride and a connection to their heritage. In the long run, the pipeline does not have enough benefits for the price that has to be paid by everyone. We should want to be preserving our natural resources, not exploiting them. The energy used for this argument would be better spent in trying to find new technology that accommodates both sides.
The purpose of this article was to persuade the readers of the article that a pipeline should not be built through the are of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Native Americans who choose to live in the small reservoirs should not have to worry about anything else being taken from them because the land and resources they are already given is scarce. The pipeline that would be built could contaminate the water making it dangerous for the people to drink. Although the pipeline could be useful to other people in America, it's not fair to those on the reservation because it would end up damaging their land. It has already been stated that the pipeline would destroy parts of the land that are ancestral to them. Many could argue that this is only one small group that it would harm, but do good for the rest of the nation. But these are still people, whose homes and land would be destroyed because of a pipe. I think it's important for people to be able to use the oil, but maybe find another way to get it. Although they might live differntely, the Native Americans who live on the land are still people, so it's only fair everyone treats them like every other citizen in the U.S. And no person or group that lives in America should get their home taken away from them when there's maybe a way to go around it.
ReplyDeleteThis article's purpose is to persuade the people reading this article that the government should not be able to build an oil pipeline through the Native American reservation. They do not accomplish this goal for me, even though they provide some facts about what "could" happen to the land. I believe that the Native Americans are being selfish in the fact that they not letting the government provide for its country. The Native Americans don't want this pipeline going through their land because it will disturb the ancestral land and will corrupt their fresh water. People are saying we should end segregation and racism by treating everyone equally, but if we are too selfish to realize what we are doing is not helping the common goal, than in the end we are driving a wedge between people. "Although they might live differntely, the Native Americans who live on the land are still people, so it's only fair everyone treats them like every other citizen in the U.S." -Cade, I don't think any other American would make a big deal about this, because they understand that it is for the public good. The people would understand they would be getting paid to relocate, and that this project will better the economy for America, which in return will lower prices on the natural resources. If the Native Americans are so concerned about the oil being run through there territory they should just tell the government to tax every barrel of oil that is shipped through there land and so this way if something does go wrong they will be taken care of financially, and when nothing goes wrong they can better there living situation, and maybe, just maybe get more than one fresh water supply for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the article was to display both sides of the argument and persuade the people that the government should stop production of the pipeline on the reservation. The DAPL wants to put a pipeline through the Sioux Reservation in North Dakota. The pipleline could potentially damage any nearby drinking water, and the tribes request to temporarily stop construction was denied. The pipes will transport crude oil, and the people don't want to ruin the reservation or the drinking water. Logos and pathos are being used because they provided facts, but also try to get you to feel for the Native Americans. I don't think the native Americans should have a say in what the government does, but also the government should try to work it out peacefully and try and figure out how to build their pipes and potentially not damage fresh drinking water. I believe that some sacrifices need to be made and a compromise should be made.
ReplyDeleteJackson Curtis
ReplyDeleteThe author of this article wrote to provide
information to the public. There seems to be little persuasion used here, as the author gives us information and arguments of both sides of the debate. Personally I must take the Native American tribe's side on this topic. Firstly, building this pipeline through sacred Native American burial grounds is humanistically unethical. If Given a predominately white cemetery, the oil company would not and could not dig it up and build through it. Judging by the events of Flint, Michigan, it seems as if the poorer minority communities are being targeted with these grand construction projects the most, for the benefit of the suburban and urban white communities. On top of this, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of November 16, 1990 defend Native American burial grounds from being destroyed for construction purposes. These are both federal law.
The author of this article wrote to assess what has happened in the past with this issue and where it currently stands. To me, the author didn't appear to have a bias to either side, because most of the article was just stating facts or what happened in the court case. If there was a bias that had to be chosen, I would say that the facts supported the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the pipeline's construction company. This is because they followed the codes and restrictions set upon them by the government and had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the governments. The court also favored them because they had done nothing wrong from the legal standpoint. The Native Americans were basing their argument off the fact that they thought it was wrong to get that close to the reserve and that they didn't follow the proper precautions. I would also say that I'd have to stand by the Army Corps of Engineers and the pipeline construction because of the fact that they had done nothing wrong legally. The construction of a project this large shouldn't be stopped by a problem as little as: "This is too close." As a student studying to become an engineer, I know that for the project to even start construction, or even planning, it has to be approved by many different people and companies. The engineers also aren't but a few people. A project of this scale would be the product of hundreds of people and thousands of hours put in to it. The decision to have the pipeline wasn't one person saying so, it was multiple, and they all had to agree for it to go through. If the pipeline's construction company and the Army Corps of Engineers went through all the necessary precautions and regulations to get the project approved, then I would definitely side with them on this case.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the Article is to persuade the readers that the pipeline is wrong. Personally, I still side with the tribes, even though th author used some fallacies. One fallacy he used was when he said that Leonardo Dicaprio sided with the tribes. Using authority to persuade is a fallacy. I still side with the tribes though because that is there home. Not trying to use pathos here, but that land has everything they need. Building a pipeline will destroy there water. Also, not only is that inhumane, but why right there? All of the land in this world and they wants to go and disturb the Native Americans? There is so much on that land that means something to all of them, and taking that away for a pipeline is wrong. Building a pipeline can also destroy the land along with the water . So what happens if the pipeline does break ? Then a land full of rituals and old history would be destroyed . If the tribes are protesting so much, shouldn't the government just give up and find a new place to build their pipeline ? The Native Americans were there first, that is their land, so it's there choice. That land is their home that they have built up themselves, and no government should have the right to take that away.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this article was to provide details and information over the debate of the the pipeline through the native american reservation. (which is showing logos) The Army Corps of Engineers provides actual evidence and how this topic is being discussed and debated over rather than over looking it as not a big deal.
ReplyDeleteThere is not much use of pathos through the essay because the writer Catherine does a good job of keeping the article very factual and informative. The agrument is very valid in todays society and i believe will always be one here. I don't thinks its right or okay to disregard someones safety or rights. Yes i agree that the piplne is very beneficial and would create anywhere from 8,000-10,000 but one the other hand I don't think it is right to do so. Throughout the article it is clear that the pipelines would put the native reservation in danger and damage the cultural significant of the sites. Native americans have lived on the land a lot longer than we have and I don't think its right to invade there homeland. Iknow we would get very upset if someone did that to us. I think we just need to leave space between the pipeline and the native Americans reservation. Its the native Americans home we need to respect there property and rights. Overall i think building doesn't have enough benefits for us in the long run, We should be wanting to preserve natural sacred land not trying to destroy it by pipelines. There are many other things that would be way more beneficial than pipelines.
peyton schendt
ReplyDeleteThe articles main argument is between the dakota access oil pipeline and the standing rock sioux tribe. The author does a great job of keeping the article very informational and keeping it away from pathos and includes lots of statistics about the two groups. I agree with the the dakota access pipeline company that it would be very beneficial to have the pipeline built to transport 470,000 barrels of oil a day. The building of the pipeline will also create thousands of job opportunities for those who are jobless. However, the pipeline could possibly contaminate the Native American drinking supplies and damage sites and that would be very unethical to do. Their safety is more important than building a pipeline across the borders.
Makinsey Pladsen
ReplyDeleteThis article does a good job of providing ethical and logical statements towards the debate about the pipeline. During the debate with the District Court and Army Corps, the author is providing logical information towards two sides of the argument. "Direct Access says the pipeline allows the oil to be moved in "a more direct, cost-effective, safer and environmentally responsible manner". Arguing that the reasoning behind the pipeline running through the tribes land, is because it will be better and more effective. The two sides of this debate is also arguing about if it is right or wrong to have the pipeline go through the tribes land. "The tribe says it also is fighting the pipeline's path because even though it does not cross the reservation, it does traverse sacred territory taken away from the tribe in a series of treaties that were forced upon it over the past 150 years". It is so wrong to disrespect their rights. Taking over their land because of the pipeline, that could possibly break and spill oil everywhere and destroy their territory is absolutely insolent. They have the right to defend themselves and fight for their rights. I would support the tribe in so many ways because having a pipeline run through the land, that could break at one point in time, could destroy so much. "It's not going to be if it breaks; it's going to be when it breaks". Saying, that when it breaks their land is gonna get completely ruinous, and whatever community is near this pipeline, that is running downstream, would be in danger. The reason I support the tribe is because "when" that pipeline breaks, everything will get ruined, and they will be left with little. I support the stop of the pipeline in North Dakota.
The article argues over the issue of where to construct a new, revolutionary oil pipline. At first it was too close to a large city in North Dakota, 20 miles away, and they feared the contamination of their drinking water. After complaining construction just so happened to be moved half of a mile away from nayive American land who have less amounts of water than any city in the area! I believe that the government and contractors were the wrong doers in this situation. They had no warrant or permission from the tribes to construct this pipline through their land. Its a huge violation of Native American rights. In the article one of the tribe leaders explains how the pipline will run through sacred burial grounds and how it would be the equivilant of running it directly under a catholic bchurch or through an american graveyard. If the government would have ran into an american graveyard they would construct the pipe around it out of respect and by not acting the same towards Native American graveyards shows a huge discriminatory issue within our government. This is the land of the free. Home of equallity, yet the government still decides to discriminate against the native people by limiting their rights and land.
ReplyDelete-Niq C
Niq - you write with ease and you have great voice. Make certain you answer all parts of the question, not just the last. Still, well done. =)
DeleteThe arguments of this article are from the Native Americans and the fact that this oil pipeline will run straight through their sacred grounds. In return a specific judge stating that there isn't enough evidence on why it wouldn't be there. The side I find more fitting would be on where this pipeline will be located (the Native Americans). There is a lot in this article but I personally like how the tribe is handling the situation. “The Corps of Engineers failed to adequately consult it before granting permits that allowed construction of the pipeline that began earlier this summer about a half mile north of the tribe's reservation in North Dakota.” Say this is true, this is something the Corps of Engineers should have mentioned to everyone it will involve, and so this tribe should have been informed. “The lawsuit also claims that the pipeline could endanger drinking water supplies and damage culturally sensitive sites on the group's ancestral lands”. Part of ancestral lands include burial grounds, with that so sacred, who would think it's okay to dig it up and put a pipeline there. "Any act of violence hurts our cause and is not welcome here”. The chairman explains that they will fight this with peace, and personally I support that. Peaceful protests can be very impactful if done correctly. Over all, inside with the tribe and do not think these people should place the pipeline anywhere where it will disrupt someone ancestral lands.
ReplyDeleteTravis Koesters
ReplyDeleteThe main purpose of this article is on where they should construct the new oil pipeline. It was suppose to be in a large city in North Dakota but they feared what would happen to the drinking water. It the government were to build the pipeline along a American graveyard that would be totally out of respect of the Native Americans graveyard. We are suppose to have equality but yet our government will still districmate against natives by limiting their land.
Sydney Morehouse
ReplyDeleteThe author, Catherine Thorbecke, wrote the article in a way that was seemingly void of pathos. She stated the current situation using quotes from both sides of the argument, leaving the reader able to critically evaluate both standpoints. Although the author leads the reader to believe quotes to be logical and unbiased, both sides use language to prove themselves empathetic and/or blameless. For instance, Judge Boasberg says he understands the “indignities” the tribe has gone through the past century and claims “the Court scrutinizes the permitting process here with particular care”, meaning the process to attain a permit was quite difficult. The judge puts trust in his system of law that whatever passed, passed for a good reason and whatever mistake may have been made would be the system’s fault and not his own. On the other hand, Tribe Chairman Archambault’s quote doesn’t even have ethical reasoning. The author chooses to use his quote about peaceful protest; assuming the reader would have compassion for these tribe members since this is a cause they hold dearly to their hearts and worth protest that may turn violent. Using the few logical facts provided by Thorbecke, the Dakota Access pipeline should continue construction on the project. The proper permits to construct were obtained and the court of law, in theory, goes off of a ‘greater good’ ideology. Since the project would create thousands of jobs and millions in revenue, I think the greater good is served best by finishing the pipeline.
Michael Strohmyer
ReplyDeleteThis article was to inform the public about the dilemma between the DAPL and the native tribes. The DAPL wants to run a pipeline through the Dakotas to Iowa and Illinois. The original plan was to go past Bismarck but got changed because it was a threat to their water supply. So they changed it to go through ancestral land to the natives. The author used logical fallacies when mentioning actors like Leonardo DiCaprio to try and persuade the reader. Although this pipeline will create many jobs and revenue to the states, I am against it. The natives have been here for longer than we have and it would be morally unethical. If it were to run through mainly dominant culture land, it wouldn't even be considered. Plus they have already lost so much land already from us that it would be plainly unfair to do it. Also if it were to be built and the jobs would be created, who would get them? I don't think the natives would get the job over a white person if they would apply for it.
You raised a really important question.
DeleteHollie F.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this article is to persuade the people reading it, though argument and information given, about both sides of the debate involving the oil pipeline production through the reservation.The pipeline seems very beneficial from the outside looking in, because of the amount of jobs that will be brought along with the production. But in fact, looking deeper into the production of the pipeline, we are made very well aware that the pipeline is in fact extremely dangerous to both the people that have lived on these reservations, and the land itself and the meaning it holds. The protests shall go on no matter how many permits are accepted. Peacefully standing up for land is a right we all have.
Makenzie Hettinger
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this article is to persuade people that the government should not build the Dakota access pipeline. The author uses arguments from both sides but her argument is for the Native Americans. I agree with the author I don't think that the government should build the pipeline on or close to the Rock Souix tribe's reservation. If there is a possibility that something could happen that would harm a group of people, like contamination of water. Then that thing shouldn't happen. If the government isn't going to put it by the state capital then they shouldn't put it closer to the reservation. When people were protesting against the pieline it was very unecessary to use pepper spray and dogs on them. The author uses some statistics to show how the pipeline would be bad for the reservation. I think the pipeline should not be finished.
In the article, it appears as if the author just wants to report. I say this not to demean them or their article but rather to point out how it appears to have no bias. I say this because throughout it lacks any real use of pathos. It seems the author uses only logos as they state factual evidence from both sides of the argument, and proceeds by stating events that actually unfolded. As i read more and more into it, i still can not pick out a distinct side of the author. From the article, it appears that the court's decision to side with the Corp of Engineers wasn’t wrong, as they were not quite invading on the reservation. Even though i think both sides were equally represented from the article i will side with the Corp. The Corp is a group of professional engineers with at least 4 years of education. A decision like this would not be taken lightly. In order for a project to even get approved by the Corp excessive quantities of time is spent researching and developing the problems and solutions. A lot of people had to agree that this project was ready for the undertaking. For a group as large as the Corp of Engineers to agree that this project was ready tells me that all preparations were taken to get it done correctly.
ReplyDeleteThis will be a really interesting discussion because there is another faction of students who find this article to be outrageously biased.
DeleteLarry Mercier
ReplyDeleteThis purpose of this article is simply to inform the readers of this important event going on the world today. The author shows no signs of bias or ways persuasive speech throughout the article. The way the author does this is through her words; she avoids using the persuasive technique of pathos totally and focuses solely on facts and statements. That brings up another great point, the author packs this piece of writing with a plethora of facts rather then statements on how she feels toward the event. This article presents the event that is taking place as a disagreement in court among a group of American Indians, the Army Corps of Engineers and the pipeline company all of which are very large and well known groups/ companies which makes this court case a very important event (giving this article good credibility). The issue at hand is, this pipeline company wants to run a very long pipeline to transport oil. The problem is that the pipeline plans to be set in ancestral grounds for this group of American Indians and is also very near to this Indian water reservoir. This not only puts their water source at risk and puts them in danger but it also disrespects the ancestral grounds of this group of American Indians.
In my opinion, I believe that this is immoral and downright wrong to this select group of people. I completely understand that how important this pipeline may be, considering how much oil it can move and how many jobs could possibly be created from this. But nonetheless it is not okay to destroy the lands of the American Indian Resevoir. Americans have disrespected them and their culture enough thoughout history and we have put them on these small reservoirs. The least we can do at this point is respect the small amount of land that they do have. If the pipeline is truly a must, then it may be alright to negotiate and talk out a deal with the Indians but it is not okay, under any circumstances, to disrespect them or their land.
Throughout this article, all of the appeals to persuasion are used, and the article does do a quality job reporting about the actual occurrences of the tribes fight against the project, while still maintaining its easily seen stand behind the Native American tribe, even through the neutral title and subtitles. The author describes all the events that have occurred almost completely objectively, giving the reader a good sense that they can trust him, but his subtopics speak differently. The author speaks in logos only when describing the pipeline and the reasons for building it, at any other point it could be argued that ethos or pathos is being used. A good portion of the article is speaking only of the Native American side of the issue, using very strong pathos, ethos, and an Ad Hominem, even if the titles say differently. The section speaking of violence, speaks only of that against the protesters, and even the last paragraph where a neutral author would have a neutral ending, is ended with a quote from a Native American, speaking about the plight of his people and the oppression they have faced for the past two hundred years.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that the Native Americans have faced enough deceit and racism from the white people in our government since before the beginning of this country. They should not be treated as second class citizens and they already are. If it was not okay to put this pipeline by a water supply for a different city, it is not okay to put it by the reservation's water supply. Now, I do understand that the pipeline will reduce america’s dependency on foreign oil, create jobs and money, but that will happen no matter where the pipe is put, so why must we put it somewhere where it could damage the lives of people? The pipe should be placed somewhere where it will not run through a town at all, or at the very least, nowhere near anyone's water supply.
Alexis Fields: The focus of this article is on the conflict between the Native Americans and the Army corps regarding an oil pipeline being constructed on the Natives reservation. The natives want to postpone the contrition on grounds that the engineers did not obtain proper permits to construct this pipeline on their reservation. The Army engineers argued that they did follow proper protocol and get the right permits though. While I do agree with the fact that creating this pipeline would be good in terms of creating jobs and bringing in money, I don't agree with drilling on the reservation. The natives land and nature is very sacred to them and construction would go against everything they believe in
ReplyDeleteAlexis Fields: The focus of this article is on the conflict between the Native Americans and the Army corps regarding an oil pipeline being constructed on the Natives reservation. The natives want to postpone the contrition on grounds that the engineers did not obtain proper permits to construct this pipeline on their reservation. The Army engineers argued that they did follow proper protocol and get the right permits though. While I do agree with the fact that creating this pipeline would be good in terms of creating jobs and bringing in money, I don't agree with drilling on the reservation. The natives land and nature is very sacred to them and construction would go against everything they believe in
ReplyDeleteThis article's purpose is to persuade the people reading this article that the government should not be able to build an oil pipeline through the Native American reservation. The engineers didn't even get the proper permits to construct this pipeline, so the natives tried to postpone it. I personally believe that the government shouldn't of even thought about building these pipelines without asking the natives. They have already been through a lot in the past and I think its not right of them to not consider how the natives feel about it. But in the article I get a sense that the Army engineers didn't even care and they thought they were right. They believed that they followed proper protocol and had the correct permits for this project. In this article there is a lot of persuasion trying to be used. While the author explains why the pipeline should be built, they use logos. Overall, I disagree with this. The natives have a different culture and land is very important to them, so I don't think the government had a right to it.
ReplyDeleteMaddy Gaspard
The purpose of this article is to persuade those people who are peticularly neutral about the pipeline, to protest against the pipeline.The engeneers/archetects didn't have the correct permitable sheets for the pipeline to even be built. Native americans haven't really had the greatest time with the united states govornment, but they have been granted reserves where they can live by there own law and rule. By the govornment not contacting them about this, is simply another way the govornment has just blown off the native americans. That is their land, and it is their call pn if they are going to allow the govornment to build this pipeline over their land, or not, and the govornment needs to respect it. This author uses logos to persuade the reader. In conclusion, i disagree wkth the govornments disicion, to make the pipelinr over native land without asking. Heith whiting
ReplyDeleteRiley Butterfield
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the article was to inform the reader of the situation, and the arguments for each side. On one hand, the company wants the pipeline to be built. On the other, the tribe says it is unlawful to build a pipeline relatively close to their land without authorization. The judge initially ruled their wasn't enough evidence that the pipeline would be harmful.
I disagree with the judge's decision. Building and protesting a pipeline being built on your land is one thing. Having them do it without notice is another. Simply put, the company had no right to begin construction, and is very possible that the company was aware of the possible damage they could/could have caused.
The author does a good job of presenting both concepts of the argument. The author states the facts and does not give an opinion. The author also uses statements from the North Dakota National Guard and the tribe chairman.
Maison Clark
ReplyDeleteThis article is to inform readers about a pipeline that is being built on Native American's land. Both the company building the pipeline and the tribe have valid arguments for their side. The company says it will benefit more people and that the pipeline will create jobs and influence the economy positively. But on the other hand the tribe says that the land they plan to build on is part of their cultural and that they were never informed of the building of the pipeline even though it is their land. I am on the native Americans side because there has to be another route that the pipeline could have took. Another argument the tribe pointed out using pathos is that the pipeline could make the drinking water dangerous in that area. So now it's not just effecting the tribe it's effecting everybody that lives in that area. Even though the majority of people would benefit from the pipeline being there it doesn't mean you can just ignore the tribe completely. They should still have a voice in what is going on in their community.The fact that the tribe wasn't even told that the pipeline was being built at first just means that the company was trying to do it fast so nobody would notice and there would be no media reporting about it. This land means more to the tribe than it does to the company because it is part of the natives culture. So I believe that the construction of the pipeline should stop
John Byrne
ReplyDeletethe main purpose of this articale is to pursuade the reader and to inform the situtations and arguments for each side. the company wants to build a pipe line but the native americans are saying its unlawful to build close to their land. i do not agree with the judge, because the company just started building on their land with no permission and they dont know what kind of damage they could have done. the author does a great job of showing both sides of the argument, they state all the fact but not their opinion.
Ryan Byrne
ReplyDeleteThis talks about the pipline taht is being built on Native American land. The company that is building the pipline is stating that the pipeling itself will create more jobs and influence economy positively. The Natives state that the pipeline is being built over their culture and that they were never properly informed about the pipeline being built. Im in support for the Natives because they have very little now from what they had before, people have taken from them for so long and we are still doing it, were isolating them more than they've ever been.
Ryan Byrne
ReplyDeleteThis talks about the pipline taht is being built on Native American land. The company that is building the pipline is stating that the pipeling itself will create more jobs and influence economy positively. The Natives state that the pipeline is being built over their culture and that they were never properly informed about the pipeline being built. Im in support for the Natives because they have very little now from what they had before, people have taken from them for so long and we are still doing it, were isolating them more than they've ever been.