Here is the link to the original article. Please read it.
Have a safe Halloween. I'll see you next week at your conferences.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Week 9.3
Great discussion today on the analysis essay. I want you to now read the original source that the analysis essay commented upon and come up with your own opinion. Do you agree or disagree? What are some points that Winne makes that the student essay did not talk about? Please quote from the original article in the Washington Post. Did reading the analysis essay before reading the original article skew your view on it? Did you find yourself, as you were reading, referring back to the analysis essay? Answer the following questions in 1-2 paragraphs. A paragraph is 4-6 coherent sentences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reading the article gave me a whole new opinion on Winne, the author. In the essay I felt like Winne was against food banks and helping people less fortunate. The author of the essay made him seem like a bad person who didn't care about those less fortunate. But the author of the essay leaves out the fact that Winne actually started a food bank, he just thinks there could be better ways of fixing the hunger problem. Winne states in his article, "The more you provide, the more demand there is." Winne knows that when people know there will be food, they will show up, but he also knows that is not the way to stop hunger. The way to do that is to get rid of poverty. Reading the analysis essay definately skewed my view on Winne and his article. I did begin to question the analysis essay because I didn't think it was being completely truthful and fair.
ReplyDeleteOnce I read this essay it gave me a very different look on the author. The author made him seem like a very bad person who didn't care about other people that were lesser than them. The author of the essay left out a key fact that Winnie started a food bank. Winnie knows that when their is food involved there will be more people who show up. After reading the essay it changed my opinion on Winnie and the article.
ReplyDeleteI don’t entirely agree with Winnie, he does make some strong points but at the same time I am not sure we can fix the problem. Some things that were not mentioned in the paper was that people would donate rotten potatoes, mice or horse meat; many people would donate food just to feel better about themselves not caring that many of it wasn’t useful. “I remember the load of nearly rotten potatoes that we "gratefully" accepted at the warehouse loading dock and then promptly shoveled into the dumpster once the donor was safely out of sight”. They were unable to use the potatoes making it a waste. When reading this article I did start to think about the other essay and the points the author made.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the actual article it gave me a different look on Winne. The esaay made it sound like Winne hated food banks and he was agaisnt helping the poor. Also that people are taking advatage of the food banks. Winne just wants a better solution in fixing hunger. Winne actual started a food bank that the essay left out. He does actualy care, the essay skewed my judgement on Winne.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article it made me feel like the essay wasn’t very clear. In the essay it seemed like the writer was trying to say Winne didn’t care about the food banks. But when reading it I found out that he was actually the starter of the food banks, I felt that the writer could have put the quote in his essay where Winne says, he was the man that founded the food bank in Hartford, Connecticut. I felt that reading the actual article before reading the essay would have been better because I felt that the essay was not very clear and was saying a totally different message than what the article really was saying.
ReplyDeleteUpon reading the original essay, I agree with the author. The analysis made the original author sound cold and uncaring, when in reality he was trying to provide a long term solution. The original author makes his point more clear with stories relating to the overall theme, one major point concerning the lines at a free food station in a poor neighborhood, the author saying that "Both parties were trapped in an ever-expanding web of immediate gratification that offered the recipients no long-term hope of eventually achieving independence and self-reliance." This made the problems with the system very clear.
ReplyDeleteThe original author also said talked about the quality of the food they would receive, something the analysis essay did not mention. What stuck with me the most was "...the moose parts proudly presented by representatives of the Connecticut Fish and Game Division who'd been forced to put down the disoriented Bullwinkle found wandering through suburban back yards." This helped to clarify why the author had some of the issues he did with food donations. I do not feel like reading the analysis essay skewed my view on it because I realized fairly early on that there was a lot that it did not mention so it could not be relied on to give an accurate account of the original source's content. I did refer back to the analysis essay on occasion, mostly to confirm that certain subjects were not brought up.
Reading the original article I feel like the essay did not make the things he talked about very clear. When reading the article it seems like Winnie was the starter of the food banks and the author of the essay does not mention that. He makes it seem like Winne didn’t care about food banks. In the article the Winne says, "The more you provide, the more demand there is." When people know there will be food they will come to the food banks. I think if I would have read the article before reading the essay I would have a different point of view and a different message would have been shown.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, it made me question what the essay said. While reading the essay, I felt that Winne, the author of the news article, was very much against food donations and working at soup kitchens. The essay made Winne sound like a very almost cruel person for neglecting the poor. But after I read the article, I got a different perspective of him. As I read what Winne said, I really understood that he does not just want to end with giving the poor food and let them die. He really did want to help. He just wanted to help in a more benificial way for the poor's future. In his essay, Winne quotes socioligist Janet Popendied saying, "As sociologist Janet Poppendieck made clear in her book "Sweet Charity," there is something in the food-banking culture and its relationship with donors that dampens the desire to empower the poor and take a more muscular, public stand against hunger." He did not want to stop helping, he just wanted to help in a different way. The essay did sway me after reading it, making me think that Winne was a bad person, but then after reading his article, I was able to make my own oppinion on the subject from what I read.
ReplyDeleteReading the article changed my opinion about Winne and the points that the essay made. The essay brought up good points, but made Winne seem like he made people feel guilty about giving to food banks and made it seem like Winne contradicted himself and the points he was trying to make. After reading the original article, I did not feel like he was contradicting himself at all. Winne made a clear statement, "The cycle of need -- always present, rarely stated, never resolved -- will continue. Unless we rethink our devotion to food donation." This statement is not mentioned in the essay but should have been because it shows that Winne wants people to break the cycle rather than continuing it. Winne's article did a good job at making his point across that just simply giving out free food isn't going to stop hunger or poverty.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the analysis essay, my opinion on Winne has changed. When I read the analysis essay published in our book, I got the impression that Winne was somewhat mocking the food bank system. Now, I feel that Winne’s article in the Washington Post paints a more informative and sympathetic picture. I found that the author of the analysis essay failed to mention the growing number of food banks and volunteers, as well as the graciousness they express when volunteers receive moose meat or rotten potatoes. Although the analysis essay author mentioned that food banks may negatively impact the need for policy helping those in poverty, she fails to mention its effect on the local government, “Food banks are a dominant institution in this country, and they assert their power at the local and state levels by commanding the attention of people of good will who want to address hunger.” I found myself constantly looking back at the analysis essay when reading the original article, and found that Winne’s unsympathetic character introduced in the analysis skewed my perception of him.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the origonal article in the Washington Post, I think that Kelsey Turner quoted Winnie out of context, gave an unfair view of him, and did not convey the message he was trying to establish in his article. What he wanted his readers to do, was take a step back, and realize that food banks were on a road to no-where; that to fix the bigger issue, poverty, they must look beyond themselves. Turner, skewed Winnie's statistics of, 8.6 percent of conneticut residents remaining impoverished, and hungry, when she neglected to include the rest of his data. Winnie had gone on to say, "The department of Agriculture puts 11 percent of the U.S. population in this category." Could it be that the Conneticut food banks are helping to reduce the needy in that state? He even gives access to state-by-state breakdowns. Turner, again quotes Winnie out of context when she paraphrases him by saying,"If people take food even though they don't need it, have they really become less "'independent?'" Not only is Winnie's concerned tone taken out of context, so is his meaning. Winnie said,"Both parties were trapped in an ever-expanding web of immediate gratification that offered the recipients no long-term hope of eventually achieving independence and self reliance." He was making a concerned observation, that everyone involved is caught up in an endless cycle. He tried to convey his belief, that all the money, and effort put into food banks, should be allocated to changing legislation, to stop poverty. He's telling us to take a moment to, stop, look and listen. He does not belittle anyone.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the analysis essay by Turner, I thought Winnie's article was goiing to be short, and frivolous. I thought that his article was going to show a man , so disenchanted with his endeavors, that he only half-heartedly wanted to make a change in Washington. When I began reading the article, I knew I had been duped by Turner. Winnie was genuine after all. Since, I did not trust Turner anymore, I found it necessary to refer back to her analysis many times, for conviction of what I had already deduced.
This blog is closed.
ReplyDeleteAfter reding the original source my thoughts on Winne are a little different. The essay brought up many good points however, Winne put guilt upon people donating to food banks. He did not quite go about it in the right way and in a couple instances even contradicted his own argument. He got point across effectively in the first source that arguing that peolpe did not need to stop donating, they just needed to change it up and donate in a different manner.
ReplyDelete