When I met with you in your office hours to review my draft for Fitzgerald’s Reading Response, the loudest feedback I heard was for me to include more nuance in my arguments. In my reading response, I was essentially trying to make the case that the centuries-long mistreatment of Native cultures by Western cultures was due to a critical lack of understanding of Native culture and how to study it. The polarities of dualism vs. nondualism, capitalism vs. natural resources, individuality vs. community, and notions of ‘advanced’ vs. ‘primitive’ serve to underline this chasm between Western and Native values.
However, in trying to illustrate this gap and increase the validity of my argument, I tended to paint with a broad brush, turning all Westerners into greedy, money hungry, cutthroat capitalists, ad all Native Americans into stoic, noble, protectors of the Earth. Obviously, in reality not all Westerners or Natives are like this. You encouraged me to introduce a little more nuance and difference of opinion into my responses and encouraged me to take a look at how Fitzgerald addressed counterarguments and then presented her own take of the basket. I definitely thought that this improved the overall ethos of my reading response. This manifested itself in sometimes little ways, like changing “Westerners view land and resources as….” to “Many Westerners view the land and resources as….”. This little change accounts for many Americans how actively fight for environmental protection and climate change research. Hopefully these changes are evident in the overall rhetorical tone of my annotations.