Out of the two articles presented the first one was much more interesting, and believe me that doesn’t say much. The first article was more interesting, yet still boring, because it broke down one word into different meanings. The comparison of the meanings and it’s exceptions to the meanings were a bit amusing. The main problem I had with that article was that after a while it seemed to ramble and I forgot why they were defining and breaking down the word “terrorist”. Lucky for me there was an analysis that reminded me I guess. I was happy to acknowledge that this passage was made before the September 11 attack. That is because it would seem like more of a bias and snobby article if it had been made after that time. Not only that but it makes it even funnier.
The second article was extremely repetitive and a bit pointless. I don’t even know why they would bother writing such an article. It seemed like something everyone already is aware of in a way. Also, their example of Miami was a bad one because it is basically the home to Cubans who have fled their home country. It is a bad city to use as a sample for racial statistics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I didn't think ether article was too excruciating to read because they both involved current issues. However i thought that the second article involving race was actually more intriguing than the first article. This is because the later article involved an issue i am more familiar with. I didn't even realize that there was an issue or controversy about the definition of terrorism. Like you, I thought that article rambled on and was not that well organized. I finished the first article thinking of the same definition of terrorism that i started reading it with. A vague but concrete interpretation of the word.
ReplyDelete