Comparative Essay

Name:Elijah                                             Humanities

7th Grade                                                                         Comparative Essay

 

Imagine if your role models, and the people who represented you in every way, went against everything you stood for in a single moment. If they had promised many things, but then changed their ideas for the sole purpose of self gain, they would be hypocrites. Hypocrisy has been a driving factor in all of the persecutions that have taken place from the Salem witch trials, to the Red Scare, to the present day. Hypocrisy has always been a get out of jail free card for those who are in power because they can always dismiss their past beliefs in a way to keep their reputation up.. Hypocrisy has always and will always be eminent in society because it’s of natural human nature to lie to save your reputation.

 

Hypocrisy is a major theme in the Crucible, and is shown through many characters. Those who are hypocritical misuse their power, and end up as the antagonists in the story. Hypocrisy comes more from those in power, like Reverend Parris, or Deputy Governor Danforth, and sometimes others take notice of these things.  In the play, John Proctor is quick to point out Parris’s hypocrisy. “But Parris came, and for twenty week he preach nothin’ but golden candlesticks until he had them. I think, sometimes, the man dreams cathedrals, not clapboard meetin’ houses,” Proctor says, (Miller, P. 89) This quote shows pure hypocrisy on account of Parris. The entire puritan religion is about being simple and honest. Meeting houses built by hand– bent wooden beams. That’s what they’re society is built of. But their minister, Reverend Parris is going against that. Literally the leader of the religion, Parris, is going against the founding principle religion by searching for wealth. This is only one of many examples of hypocrisy. Danforth is incredibly hypocritical. Danforth condemns many, many people just to keep his reputation intact. Everybody is hypocritical but they take it to an extreme in the Crucible. When there’s hysteria, people act very differently. When people started accusing left and right, everybody went crazy. Hypocrisy can lead to greed and scapegoating, and of course, that’s exactly what happened in the Crucible. Everything is connected. History repeats itself. This was not the only time there was widespread hypocrisy.

 

Hypocrisy in the McCarthy Era was widespread because of leaders like Joseph McCarthy, who set an example for others which led them to corruption, and scapegoating. During the McCarthy era, the U.S. Senate was contradicting the Constitution of the United States. That’s like someone writing a how to book, and then saying that it doesn’t work. It’s complete hypocrisy. Many, many people were brought before congress, and forced to give names of other “communists.” If they didn’t testify, they were persecuted. This is a direct violation of the 5th amendment. “Nor shall in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” (Constitution of the United States of America.) When the U.S. Senate contradicts the Constitution, it’s a prime example of hypocrisy because it’s basically their job to go by the Constitution. They’re tearing apart the system which they’re supposed to be maintaining. The charge was led by Joseph McCarthy, who falsely accused thousands of people, but it turned out was making all of it up. He was the biggest hypocrite of them all. McCarthy said to have a list of communists, but it turns out, there was never a list, and he was making it all up for attention. McCarthy hadn’t done anything really as a Senator since he had been elected. He wanted the spotlight, and he was willing to do whatever would get him center stage. Even in our common day we have leaders like Joseph McCarthy.

 

Donald Trump shows an enormous amount of hypocrisy, through his public policies and his private life, this results in doubt of the people, and corruption of the office. Trump’s hypocrisy is most evident when he’s talking about the issues in the country. He often changes his opinion at times that seem a little too convenient for him. The New York Times notes his hypocrisy in an article about him. “If Mr. Trump favored such a hard line on immigration, the logic went, should he not then favor the deportation of his own wife, Melania, who was alleged to have worked while in the United States on a visitor’s visa? The charge of hypocrisy didn’t stick, not so much because it placed its proponents, unwittingly, in the distasteful position of advocating the deportation of someone for a long-ago and common transgression, but because Mr. Trump wasn’t just breaking the rules of political conduct: He was destroying them.” (The New York Times.) Trump has condemned many immigrants in this country, when his own wife is an immigrant. The difference is that his wife is rich and white. The people he’s persecuting tend to be from Latin America, or the Middle East. This is just plain racist. Trump has also accused many many people of being hypocrites, but he himself is a hypocrite. That’s hypocrisy on it’s own. It’s a paradox. Trump has many, many instances of hypocrisy, he hates immigrants but his wife is an immigrant. He tweeted before the election about how awful the electoral college was, but he pulled ahead in the polls, and suddenly it’s genius. This shows a lot of hypocrisy from our president. People overlooked his hypocrisy, and voted for him. Now we have a sexist, racist, bigot as our president. Trump is so unintelligent that he says things that he contradicts over and over again. He’s changed his views on almost all of his issues. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but he always seems to change his opinions at times where it would really save his face. He has no respect for anything but his reputation. Hypocrisy is a theme in our world and will always be a theme. No matter how much we learn, history repeats himself.

 

Throughout all of history, hypocrisy has been a driving factor in all of the wrong decisions we’ve made, because people tend to contradict their core beliefs for self gain. In the Crucible, Danforth condemns countless innocent people because he can’t admit he was wrong, even when he knows. McCarthy completely tattered the constitution just to get attention. Trump “hates all immigrants”, but his own wife is an immigrant. Hypocrisy is always on our shoulder whispering in our ears, but it will fall off when we learn to work together instead of only working for ourselves. If we learn to do that, all of our lives will be much better. Could we have a world without hypocrisy?

 

Research Paper Grades

image

MSS7 December 2016
The Super-Glue of Society: Government, Law, and Punishment in Colonial America
By Elijah Meltzer
In Colonial America laws determined the way people lived their daily life. Those who broke these laws often suffered. Imagine swiping a few apples from a market to support your hungry family, and later being branded on the cheek for the rest of your life. Just one moment of trying to help your loved ones, and for the rest of your entire life, you would be labeled as a criminal. This is how law, punishment, and government worked in Colonial America. There were very specific ways laws were made and the process varied by culture. The courts were very biased in Colonial America, and some people didn’t get the representation that they deserved. Law was even more strict in times of Martial Law, instances and moments in American history when restrictive rules were instituted. People often weren’t happy with these laws, and on rare occasions, some protested. English law in the Virginia Colony was a complex system that included the House of Burgesses, the Governor, and the King of England. Native American law, on the other hand, was decided only by Powhatan. Laws in both of these cultures were essential to creating a fully functional, and thriving society.
There were many parts to English laws and the making of laws in the Virginia Colony. Law making in the colony always involved the House of Burgesses, the Governor, and the King of England. The King of England was the head of the legal system, but he let the other groups basically decide their own laws if they met the restrictions. Every law started in the House of Burgesses.The laws the Burgesses decided on were subject to veto by the Governor, and the Governor’s Council. Then they were sent as charters to England. The King approved and finalized the laws by signing the charter document. The law had to get past many things before it became final. But there were restrictions on who could be lawmakers, and who could elect them.
The House of Burgesses was established in 1619, and it was the first form of representative government in the colonies. However, it wasn’t representative of majority of the population. To vote, or be on the ballot, there were very many qualifications you had to meet. You had to be white, male, own at least 100 acres of land, and be a Christian Protestant. “The enfranchisement of all land-owning white male inhabitants made the assembly a model for future representative institutions that eventually characterized governments throughout British America,” (McWilliams, James. E Government in Colonial America) . This quote shows how small a group the Burgesses were. It was by definition, a representative government, but it only represented the views of a small select group of people. The views of women, Africans, Native Americans, people in poverty, and people who didn’t practice Protestant Christianity were totally unheard. They couldn’t be in charge, they couldn’t even help decide who would be in charge. There was prejudice, and sexism. This was so unfair because they might have really good ideas about things like politics and the way the colony should be run. So not only was the system oppressive towards all groups other than white land-owning, Christian Protestant men, but they were harming themselves as well. They were depriving themselves of huge possible changes for the better. Our world might look completely different today had they let the other groups take parts in government earlier. These restrictions were similar to the restriction of the judges and juries in court.
Judges and Juries often had little, to no legal practice. Much of legal practice was lost on the trip overseas. The very few who did have any, either forgot it, or didn’t use it. The people who ended up doing most of the legal work were highly respected members of the community. They were known as “lay people.” They had to meet the exact same restrictions as the Burgesses and voters. “Because there were no full time lawyers in the colonies in the 1600s, respected members of the community, known as “lay people,” dealt with legal matters on a part time basis,” (Daily Life in Colonial America, Nardo and Don.) This quote shows that there weren’t many people with legal practice, so they relied on lay people. Having lay people make the big decisions might have made the colony have a bunch of unfair rulings. If they didn’t have legal practice, they were bound to be wrong some of the time. This also made a big difference in history. Innocent people might have been killed or punished. We will never know what they could have done for the world. Because of lay people, we might live in a completely different world than if we had real lawyers. Additionally, their decisions were affected by religion.
Religion was primarily what lay people used to make their decisions. It was basically all they had because they had no legal practice. “Most judges, like the legal system itself, were guided less by the legal concepts of facts and fairness and more by religious considerations. The primary goal for a judge was to enforce God’s will.” (Daily Life in Colonial America. Nardo, Don.) This quote shows how much people were afraid of disobeying the views of the christian church, and the consequences that entailed. This meant that some of their decisions weren’t even logical based on the scenario. Their laws then might seem totally crazy compared to our laws now. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” (U.S. Constitution First Amendment)
The goal of the courts in Colonial America, were very different then what we have now. In Colonial America, the goal of a trial was to get the defendant to confess. But today, we are trying to find out whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. Their trial was shifted in one direction to favor the prosecutor. It was the prosecutor who got the benefit of the doubt. The prosecutor was allowed to be much harsher on the defendant and the judge would go along with it. This was because that was the whole point of the trial, by their standards. “Indeed, most trials were heavily weighted against the accused person, or defendant. There was a district attorney-like official appointed by the colonial governor; his job was to vigorously prosecute the defendant and get him to confess.” (Daily Life in Colonial America. Nardo, Don.) This quote shows how heavily weighted their system was. The defendant had almost no chance of winning in this system because the system itself was against them. If that was true, how could anybody ever win, if the thing they were trying to win didn’t let them win. It would be impossible. Their system was totally unfair, and it resulted in the punishment, torture, and death of many innocent people. These were the easiest of times if you could believe it! In times of Martial Law, the system changed for the worse.
Under Martial Law in Colonial America, the entire court system was changed. It had already been in favor of the prosecutor, and organized against the defendant, but now, it became even more extreme. “You are still considered innocent until thought guilty, but it’s not exactly proof. In other words, if two of the three officers think you might have been guilty, then you will be executed or punished.” (Interview Williamsburg Va. Nov. 18.) This quote shows how the courts were affected in times of Martial Law. There was already only a tiny chance for the defendant to win, but it was possible. If they were very clearly innocent, they still might have a chance. But in times of Martial Law, the situation became even worse. It wasn’t only the courts that were affected. Daily life was too.
Under Martial Law in Colonial America, the people in society were stripped of their rights. The government could impose its will by way of military force on the people. “Since Jamestown was under Martial law, normal rights weren’t the same. Martial Law basically means using state or national military force to enforce the will of the government on the people. It basically allows the government, or a tyrannical politician, to shred the Constitution and impose its will through military force.” (Interview Williamsburg Va. Nov. 18) This quote shows how horrible Martial Law really was. If there was a corrupt leader during that time, then they could do whatever they wanted. People would be hurt, and killed. Former laws might be changed, and their entire society could go down the drain in a single second. Nobody could oppose the military because they were too powerful. Anything the government wanted, would be done with no questions asked. But that wouldn’t happen, because most of the early governors were terrific.
John Smith was essential to starting the Virginia Colony. He was the very first governor, and he really helped out the colony by being hard on them. The Virginia Company made a huge mistake by paying the gentlemen and boys before the voyage to the New World. Once they got there, they had no incentive to work, because they had already collected their money. John Smith took care of that problem. He was as smart as he was harsh. “If any man should not work, neither should he eat” -John Smith 1608. He gave all of the people incentive to work. He also had the odds against him because he was a yeoman. A yeoman is a poor farmer. When the people of the colony found out their first governor who was chosen by the King was a yeoman, they barely respected him. It made it even harder for him to develop a command over them, but he still pulled through. Somebody with the same method followed him.
Governor Thomas Gates had a very strict mentality that really help the Virginia Colony get started. After John Smith left, the colony was in disarray. Thomas Gates did something that turned it around. “Virginia governor Sir Thomas Gates drafted a code of laws in 1611 that, although harsh, instilled a discipline that helped the colonists survive in the difficult environment.” (Twist, Clint-Colonial America) This quote shows how much Thomas Gates helped the people survive. One of the laws imposed heavy penalties for crimes against the Virginia Company. These new laws really shaped the colony up into doing what they should be doing. Everybody was helping the colony in their own way. Of course that doesn’t mean everything was perfect because there were still things like sexism and prejudice. And there were some people who weren’t in favor of the laws made either.
There was a lot of protesting laws in Colonial America. There were two kinds of protesting. There was English or American patriotic protesting the laws, and there was African protesting against slavery. The Patriots generally protested tax laws from Britain. “Attacks on property took place in some cities in reaction to the Stamp Act. In August, protesters in Boston, spurred on by the Sons of Liberty, attacked and sacked the homes of the lieutenant governor and the stamp master and hanged the latter in effigy from a tree, later to be named the Liberty Tree.” This quote shows how the English protested and what they protested. They mainly protested against tax laws, and they protested brutally, and relentlessly. The Stamp Act was another way for Britain to get tax money from America. The protesters showed no mercy as they killed many people in reaction to this. But for the English, there was only one class who protested.
White men in the Middling class were pretty much the only people who protested for the English. Women couldn’t protest because they didn’t have enough power. Men in the gentry class would have no reason to protest because they were well off already, and some of them even profited from the taxes. White men in the laboring class didn’t have enough money and security that they could protest. If they were punished for protesting, they probably couldn’t survive because they needed money. Africans did protest, but in their own way.
Africans protested in their own way against slavery. They weren’t secure enough to outright strike, or hurt and kill their masters. They had to use more subtle methods. Some of the things they did were working slowly. It slowed down production for the English. Actually, the slaves used work songs so that everybody worked at the same speed. If someone worked too fast, they made the others look like they were slacking, and they often ran out of energy quickly and worked too slow. If someone worked too slow, they would get beaten. The work songs helped everybody stay on pace. Another method of protest was running away. If the slaves ran away, the work force for the English was gone. They needed to work themselves. Another method was music and dance. It was a way to keep their culture and spirits up, when all the English wanted to was to take that away. It also showed that they were resilient and could have fun in tough times. Another method of protest was to destroy property in secret. This was a bit more direct than the other methods, but it also got them in more trouble. It was easier to tell when it was the slaves. But the masters didn’t even need an excuse for punishing the slaves. If they said there was any possibility the slaves had done something wrong, he or she could whip them without anybody paying a second glance. But as the time went on, protesting for both races became more and more organized.
The push for American independence started in 1775. The declaration of independence was signed in 1776. Soon enough, the Revolutionary War broke out. It started with the Boston Massacre. The war lasted until the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. America won the war and became their own country.
Native American Government was very different from English Government. In the Powhatan Confederacy, there was only one leader: Powhatan. He made all the decisions. He was a dictator, so his word was law. “A sachem named Powhatan ruled about 30 tribes and almost 15,000 people. This tribal organization came to be known as the Powhatan Confederacy. Chief Powhatan made decisions.” (Asseline, Kristine Carlson- The Real Story About Government and Politics in Colonial America) This quote shows how much power Powhatan had. All he needed was to say the word, and 15,000 people would run to his side. But there was more involved in the local politics. Their system of government was very similar to what we have now. But it was also very different. They too had one leader who lead a big group of tribes. Powhatan, and our president. A tribe was like a state. Each tribe had a leader, like each state as a governor. Inside tribes were villages, just like cities. There were village leaders, just like mayors. But the difference between us and them is that our government is carefully designed so that no single person can have too much power. The president can’t just do whatever he wants to. He has to have approval from congress. Things congress does are subject to veto from the president. But in their government, Powhatan could do basically whatever he wanted. There was a different tribe farther north who did things a little differently.
The Iroquois Native Americans had a very different system. They had very different views on who could be a leader. “In Iroquois society, the sachem led only during war. During peacetime, Iroquois women were in charge, The women elected the sachem and decided when the community went to war.” The English men were taken aback by this because they assumed that only men could be leaders. The idea probably didn’t even cross their mind that women could lead. Women did most of the heavy lifting in terms of politics for the Iroquois. All men did was lead during war. Women led everything except during war time, and decided when to go to war. The Iroquois were very unprejudiced people.
There were very many parts to government law and punishment in Colonial America. They all worked together to create a functional society. Without them, we wouldn’t have the world we have today, because they shaped their entire world. All of the parts like the courts, the house of burgesses, the jail, and even the Native American government played a crucial role the building of the colony. But law has changed a lot since then. In Colonial Times, laws were made up almost entirely of religion. Today, it’s actually against the law to create a law that’s based on religion. Law meant very different things then and now. We’ve progressed a lot as a nation if you think about it.

Mathematical Similarity Summary

Figures are mathematically similar when corresponding side lengths are related by a scale factor, and all corresponding angles are congruent. For triangles, it only matters if the corresponding angles are congruent. For rectangles, it only matters if the corresponding side lengths are related by a scale factor. All mathematically similar figures have the exact same shape. Some are bigger, and some are smaller.

 

Any two rectangles are similar: False.

A 3×5 rectangle is not similar to a 3×3 rectangle. Their side lengths are not related by a scale factor. You can do it by ratio too. If you set it up like a proportion, you have three over five and three over three. Three times five equals fifteen. Three times three equals nine. Fifteen and nine aren’t the same number.

 

Any two equilateral triangles are similar: True

 

All equilateral triangles have three sixty degree angles. Triangles are similar if their corresponding angles are congruent. If all angles are 60, then they’re automatically similar.

Roto-Copter Experiment

I also really enjoyed doing the roto-copter experiment. It was a great reminder on how to conduct a good experiment after the summer. There was also incentive to conduct a good experiment because the better it was, then the better you would do in the competition. This was really fun, and helpful.

Ecosystem simulation games

I really enjoyed the ecosystem simulation games. This is because it found a way to run around and play, while still being in the curriculum. I love it when you can have fun and learn at the same time. I think it also helps you learn. I learned a lot from these games about the food chain and overpopulation/over consumption. 

M13C Chapter 4

Name: Elijah Meltzer                                                                                    September 2016

Seventh Grade Humanities                                                               M13C Ch. 4                                                                          

                                                           Homework

Read chapter 4 in Making Thirteen Colonies and answer the following questions using complete sentences. Be sure to use textual evidence and analysis for each question.  Each answer should be a full TEEAC paragraph.

  1. Describe the significance of the year 1607, using the following terms: The London Company, King James, and the name of the 3 boats. Be sure to clearly explain each of these terms within your paragraph.

1607 was significant for a lot of different reasons. It affected the London Company, King James, and the Susan Constant, the Discovery, and the Godspeed (Three ships that were launched to the New World). “It was thus in April, 1607, three ships landed in the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay.” Pg. 25 This quote shows that the ships landed in 1607. The ships were sponsored by the London Company. Also in that year, King James was named King, and the group of colonists named many things they passed after him. Hence Jamestown, and James River. 1607 was a really big year for the colonization of the New World, and just in general for England back in Europe.

  1. Describe the the terrain and the geography of the English fort.

The English fort was not built on good land. It was swampy, and only connected to the mainland by a sandbar. Also, the only water it was near was brackish. “As it turned out, they couldn’t have picked a worse spot. The land was swampy, the drinking water was bad, it was hot in the summer, and bone chilling in the winter.” Pg 28. This quote shows how terrible the land which the fort stood was. The mosquitos from the swamp gave them Malaria, the brackish water gave them dysentery, and when John Smith went back to England, the Native Americans cut off the sandbar which connected them to the mainland. When this happened, they had no resources and eventually had to resort to cannibalism. The area which the fort was built, was about as bad as it could possibly be.

  1. Was the initial settlement successful? Why or why not?

The initial settlement was unsuccessful. The fort was cut off from the mainland, when the Native Americans cut off the sandbar connecting them. There was also the constant threat of Malaria or dysentery lingering. “Virginia had other germs (especially dysentery germs) that made some sicken and die. The Indians kill still others. Some starve. What happened to those eager men and boys who had stood on London’s docks in December? Fewer than half of them would see another December.” This quote shows how many people died from different causes, and there were still more bad things to come. Although, some of them survived, I wouldn’t call it successful because you would need a pretty substantial amount of people to actually start a colony or settlement. People rely on one another, but what would happen when there’s nobody else to rely on? England would have to send more people to help out, and that could take a really long time. So I don’t actually think it was very successful.

NoodleTools Notecard

Notecards

Native American Government

Source:

Asselin, Kristine Caarlson. The Real Story About Government and Politics in Colonial America . Fact Finders, 2012.

Quote:

“Long before colonists arrived, American Indian tribes had established different forms of government. These ruling systems served tribes in war and peace. Colonists did not always understand how tribal leadership worked. The Iroquois people lived what is now New York. In Iroquois society, the sachem led only during war. During peacetime, Iroquois women were in charge, The women elected the sachem and decided when the community went to war. This idea was new for the colonists. The British colonists assumed men were the rulers. Speaking to the wrong Iroquois leader could be embarrassing or even deadly. The Powhatan Indians lived near the colonial settlement of Jamestown Virginia. A sachem named Powhatan ruled about 30 tribes and almost 15,000 people. This tribal organization came to be known as the Powhatan Confederacy. A council of advisors and village leaders helped Chief Powhatan make decisions. 

Paraphrase:

  • Native Americans had a system of government before the colonists even got there. 
  • There were different tribes who had different forms of government.
  • The Iroquois tribe was run by women. 
  • In times of war, the women in charge would elect a sachem (leader), to lead during the war, and then the women would lead again in peace.
  • The colonists assumed the leaders would be men. 
  • With the Powhatan Native Americans, they had one sachem at a time. 
  • For the time of the Jamestown Fort, Powhatan was the sachem.
  • Powhatan ruled 30 tribes and almost 15,000 people.
  • It was known as the Powhatan Confederacy.

My Ideas:

I was surprised to hear that the Iroquois tribe had women as leaders. I thought that back in the colonial period, it was even more sexist than it is now. The Native Americans must have been very unprejudiced. The colonists must have been really surprised to hear this too. They probably didn’t even consider the fact that women could lead. It’s cool to compare these two very different tribes. Powhatan controlled pretty much everything. Today in our society, our government is set up very carefully so that no single person could have too much power to themselves. The president often needs approval from congress. The congress often needs approval from the president. This way, if you get stuck with a terrible leader, they can’t do too much damage. But this is not the case with the Powhatans. If Powhatan was a terrible leader, there would be no way to stop him, unless somebody killed him. I know John Smith made friends with Powhatan, but I wonder whether the Africans ever made contact, or attempted to make contact with Powhatan, or any other Native American leaders. How would the Native Americans react to the slaves. I can infer that they probably wouldn’t treat them any differently. They might not have known that they were treated differently by the English because of the color of their skin. The only way they might notice is by the clothes they were wearing. This also might be a way for them to distinguish between the gentry, the middling, and the working classes. I wonder how John Smith would have dressed. He was only a yeoman, but he was still their leader. He probably would have dressed like a person in the middling class.

History:

Created: 10/14/2016 10:43 AM

Giver Essay Template

Name: Elijah                                        Humanities

7th Grade                                                                         The Giver

Outline for GIVER LITERARY ESSAY

Theme: Perfection (equality) Vs Imperfection (releasement)

Paragraph #1: Introductory Paragraph (GIT)

Grabber Statement (G): Imagine a world where everyone has been mislead. This is the Giver, by Lois Lowry.

Introduce Plot Summary (I): Jonas lived a normal life, until his twelfth birthday. He receives an assignment that opens his eyes to the truths of his society. He has to work with his new teacher, to fix what the people in power have ruined.

Thesis Statement (T):

This society is a dystopia because they are murdering innocent people, there is no love, or color, and nobody has any choice or freedom.

_________________________________________________________________________

Paragraph #2: Thematic Analysis

Topic Sentence (T): The people in Jonas’s community in The Giver believe they live in a perfect world.

Explanatory Sentence (E): There are many different things that this community does to keep their world a utopia. One thing that they do is to create sameness so nobody stands apart.

Evidence (E): For example, the society eliminates both color and weather. On page 82 of The Giver, Lois Lowry writes, “We relinquished color when we relinquished sunshine and did away with differences.”

Analysis (A): This quote shows how equal all the people in this community are. The people of the community made a choice to go to sameness. This means no more color, many more rules, and having ceremonies like the ceremony of ages which celebrate everybody in the same way, rather than individually. Perfection is achieved by equality in this world.

Concluding/ Transition (C): Although, in their attempt to create a utopia, they fail, and create what becomes a dystopia.

__________________________________________________________________________

Paragraph #3: Thematic Analysis Continued

Topic Sentence (T): There are parts of Jonas’s community that are imperfect, making it a dystopia.

Explanatory Sentence (E): Things like release, and seeing no color, skew it off from a utopia.

Things like this could not be in a perfect world.

Evidence (E): The people of the society release individuals who are different from others and the community is kept unaware of the true meaning of release. Jonas, as the new Receiver, learns what release actually means and is shocked to discover that this ritual means certain death.  On page 150, Lowry says, “He killed it! My father killed it! Jonas said to himself stunned at what he was realizing.”

Analysis (A): How could murdering babies be part of a perfect world? Anything that wasn’t absolutely perfect would make it a dystopia, and murdering babies doesn’t seem like perfection. There is also the fact of seeing color. Color can be beautiful, but they don’t see it. Obviously not perfection. There are so many things that they believe is perfect, just because they don’t know any better. Jonas’s father doesn’t know the true concept of death. The people don’t know what they’re missing, like sunshine and snow. If they knew of these things, they would realize that they live in a dystopia. Love isn’t even a part of their world. When Jonas asked his own parents if they loved him, they wouldn’t give him a clear answer. Another thing that is imperfect is the fact that instead of owning up to the people and telling them what release means, they make a lame attempt to cover the truth up, only making it worse for people when they find out. Jonas was shocked, and he had an even bigger reason given that his father was one of the people doing this.

Concluding/ Transition (C): There are two polar opposite thoughts: the people of the community thinking it’s perfect, and reality saying different.

__________________________________________________________________________

Paragraph #4: Concluding Paragraph (ROC)

Reflection of Thesis (R): The people in this society believe that they live in a utopia, but they fail in creating it, and now live in a dystopia. This is because they have gotten rid of many things like color, which would be in a perfect world. They also have to murder many innocent people to maintain their “utopia.”

Concluding Sentence– Comparisons and Connections (C): None of these things could be in a perfect world. But every good thing comes with bad. With color, there might be envy, or racism. With sameness there isn’t. There has to be a balance. So is perfection even possible? Does Jonas realize this, or will he make the same mistakes that the Elders made?