Summarization of Spanish Texts and My Personal Opinion of Them (3)

The first document I will be summarizing is a speech given by a Dominican monk,Anton Montecino. In his speech he protests that everything the Spanish are doing is wrong and sinful compared to what they should be doing to the natives. He says they are all giving way to the deadly sins and that the cannot see the outcomes of their actions. This causes them to just keep torturing, killing, and pillaging the natives. The second document is The Requerimiento made by King Ferdinand of Spain and philosophers he hired to help him make it. This document was to be read to any natives found in the New World to determine if they should be killed or spared. The document states that the Indians should comply to the will of God that has come through the pope, to the king, like all good savants should do, and if they decide to do so immediately, they will be saved from annihilation. The third and last document is written by Bartolome de Las Casas. This document on the treatment of natives in the New World by the Spanish shows his obvious disbelief and even disgust of the way natives are treated. He lists off the horrible things being done to the native peoples, such as burning, mutilation, baby genocide, and physically permanent torture. He exclaims that the Spanish army places bets on the ways they can kill the natives, create new and terrible forms of murder, and take advantage of their lacking technology to mutilate them further when the attempt to rise up against their Spanish oppressors. He also identifies a reason he believes the Spanish are so cruel to the natives, and that reason is their blind lust for gold and fame.

In the first document, Anton brings up a good point that almost any person should be able to identify, that the Spanish are giving into greed, lust, and cruel treatment of more innocent races that don't know what's going on other than a powerful nation is destroying them brutally tribe by tribe. I agree with Anton's statements that the actions being done by the Spanish troops are sinful, unjust, and don't agree with the Christian religion. In the second document, The Requerimiento, King Ferdinand's points make no sense. He states that by the word of God through the pope command all native people in the New World to kneel to the kings will immediately because since the king is following God, and God commands all the world, the Indians shouldn't try to protect their land. Then the document extends a grave warning, that if the Indians don't give in to the kings will, they will all be brutally slaughtered, even if they just think about it for a while, if it's not immediate, their dead. The interesting thing about this is that the text was read in Spanish, not Native American, so the Indians didn't know what was being said anyways. In any bible story I've read, where the Israeli people completely killed a foe, they at least extended a warning intelligible by the enemy or gave them a chance. Also, the killing of the enemy was in defense of their lives or their land, whereas the land of the Indians was not Spanish land. The third document by Bartolome, displays a disgust of the Spanish actions which seems somewhat similar to that of the speech by Anton. I agree with his view of the Spanish soldiers because it's true what they did and they deserve hate. Murdering and torturing innocent people isn't what a nation should start doing right off the bat, without trying to communicate with the victims. If the situation was that the natives were extremely hostile and needed some way of taming, it would be perfectly ok for the Spanish to kill, torture, and maim. Since the natives were completely vunreable to the Spanish weapons and tactics, killing them in mass genocides was not neccesary at all, even if the goal in the end was mass wealth.

Types of and Approaches to Writing (2)

I use many different forms of writing all of the time. Usually, I just write on paper at school or at home, although with the growing advance of computers, I find myself typing more often than writing now. I also dabble in programming, in hopes I can work my way up to a game I hope to make eventually. I also e-mail a bit and I'm starting to text message somewhat, but very, very little.
I usually start paper and computer writing by just sitting down and figuring out what's necessary to finish what I'm starting. For school, I follow the assignment or my own guidelines to receive information from the text. For my own purposes, usually for writing down information concerning my games, I start until the urge to keep writing is gone, then I leave the writing piece until I feel like continuing it again. For programming, I attempt to write out some combinations and codes, but usually give up when I become repeatedly frustrated. For e-mails, I start by identifying what needs to be said, then I type it out. I only tart a text when I don't feel like talking on the phone, but have to give information to someone.
Templates don't affect much of my writing types, like e-mails, programming, or texts, but they do affect my regular writing or typing. In school writing (such as essays, where I will actually use specific templates mentioned in the previous text read) I use the "they say / I say" template and the "flip / flop" template. As previously explained in my first post, I use them together to create a paper that mostly uses the " they say / I say" template, facts to hit the points hard, and the "flip / flop" template to cover mistakes and soften the harshness of my usual way of writing and giving out facts.

They Say / I Say (1)

The author seemed to be focused on the fact that average writers can be formed from the illiterate and un-experienced writers by following and learning certain writing templates. His main point in the first half was his "they say / I say" template, where the writer divulges what his opponent or even ally says in the argument and then writes what he has to say himself on the subject. Sadly (at least for me) he started into the second half, where I received the notion that he supported the "on one hand / on the other hand" template more so than the previously stated one. This template is where one states both that one agrees and disagrees with both sides, diffusing the need to say yes or no; technically a flip-flop. When finished with the reading, it looked as though his writing style was mostly in those two templates, mostly the last one. This is proven by the use of his words and phrases, which obviously showed the use of both templates and more of the last one near the end.
I found the pages very intellectual in the first pages (aside from the drawings) in a way that taught me a different way of looking at not only writing, but general speech itself. I had seen writing as a way to propose your argument in such a way that your opponent would have a hard time combating it, whether it be due to facts, ferocity, or non-commitment to any side particularly. I was very disappointed by the second half because his new, and obviously favorite, template seemed almost like a way of writing pure dribble while seeming intellectual. My personal nature prohibits me (usually) from being passive in an argument, and the thought of writing, say, an essay where you take no sides and just bounce around, just makes the person writing a pansy (no offense to you pansies out there). Other than that, the pages in general were informative and intellectual, but some parts were hard to stomach.
Now, after reading that, I currently think that writing is a way to present your argument by following certain grammatical rules and a few templates (not all, just a little) while seeming intellectual, sophisticated, and (hopefully) correct. The templates I would follow would be the "they say / I say" and a combination of forceful facts and non-commitment. Even though I said that I hated that template (on one hand / on the other hand), it is useful in certain situations. The forceful part I said consist or using facts to your full advantage in order to slaughter your opponent (verbally of course). Using these two template types together might seem strange, but actually can create a strong style of writing. The first template (they say / I say) is the bulk of the written work, the flip-flop template helps to cover mistakes and the overwhelming force of "fact attacks", which give the power to you, instead of the opponent.