Explanation:
The visitor of the Indian graveyard meditates upon the burying rites of the native Indian peoples; the primitivistic speaker is in the guise of a common man but he is challenging civilized burial customs of the Europeans. He says: "In spite of all that the learned have said / I still my opinion keep". This suggests that the speaker is refusing to accept what the so-called learned people say; he rejects rationalism in favor of mysticism. When civilized culture demands burying a corpse in a prone (sleeping) position, death is seen as an eternal 'sleep' for the soul. The speaker goes on to argue, his imagination becoming more active.
If readers consider antiquity of the American world, they contemplate America's primordial race of Indians, whose sitting posture in their graves suggests that their soul actively continues the simple pursuit of their former mortal lives as also depicted on their pottery and as indicated by their weapons. For example, an Indian arrow head or "head of stone", symbolizes the opposite of a European headstone (tombstone), namely, the enduring vitality of the dead person's spirit unlike the cold, engraved memorial for a dead white man.
The title of the poem "The Indian Burying Ground" is American in the sense it describes the American Indians tradition in burying a dead body. When Indians die they bury them in sitting position; they think that the dead are with life, in their own world. The poem is in ten regular stanzas with the rhyming scheme abab. The first half of the poem describes what happens in the burial ground and second half of the poem describes how to treat on burial ground. Poet, here, in fact is suggesting Americans not to ignore Indian burial. The learned Christian is more pedantic, and the learned Indian is more open. Poet sides with the Indians from the outset of the poem.
A new dimension of looking at life is introduced here. The posture we keep to our dead determines how we look at life after death. Death is not end but it is a release for life is seen as bondage. Choosing a typical American topic here Freneau is successful to create American flavor. American Indians believe in life as lasting or existing forever it is an ad infinitum process. The activities of man, in Indian concept, continue even after death. So dead are buried in a sitting posture and they are supposed to share "joyous feast' with the friends. The Indian concept of life after death is quite different from Christian concept that believes in an annual of earthly activities after death. The image of bird and painted bowl in the third stanza suggest the restless life of Indians after death; whereas, image of the bow and arrow shows remain of ideas after death. The poet has requested Americans who are quite unknown to the tradition to remain quiet and commit "no fraud upon the death".
Last few stanzas of the poem give a glimpse of the hunting nature of Indians. The attachment of the Indians with the forest is still the same as it was earlier. Poet, here, has tried to convey a message that the culture of American Indians is as significant as the culture of Christians. All the cultures do have significance in the world. And instead of frowning at something different, we should acknowledge the diversity- in people, in customs, in language, religion and culture.
Click again to see term
I gave it a shot.
The argument presented is extremely ineffective because it’s written as if it’s from the perspective of a child. The argument doesn’t even seem to state a claim, instead it poses a question “why do people want to ban the ownership of pets?” The writer could have easily improved their introduction by making a statement such as “the banning of pet ownership would be a violation of our free will” even something simple like “banning pet ownership would be bad” would be a better introduction then this. The writer follows up with an insufficient and frankly irrelevant list of supporting evidence, all of which is completely opinion based with some emotional appeal and small anecdotes sprinkled through out. Their first piece of supporting evidence is they love animals “the first reason I should be able to own a pet is that I love animals” the writer fails to bring a relevant and credible reason to back up their “claim” or rather their argument, they follow up with a personal anecdote as well as a quote from the writers mother stating the following “I don’t know what I would do without my little Josie!”. All of the writers supporting evidence is useless and irrelevant, an improvement that can be made while rather obvious is actually bringing credible evidence and reasons to the argument for example, the writer could have brought up that some people need to have service animals, people such as veterans and those with anxiety problems they also could’ve found articles on this very topic and used the evidence/reasoning found inside. As for the paragraph it self it seems to be very poorly put together, there’s essentially no transitions whatsoever letting the paragraph go from one point to the other without any notice for example as the writer finished their quote from their mother they simply cut off the sentence and move on with a brand new point. One way they could’ve improved is by filling any awkward spaces that leave out a clear ending to a point, for example instead of ending on a quote and moving on they could have ended the quote and wrote something to end it off such as a rhetorical question here’s an example of that “as you can see, my mother knows better than anyone how important animals are to me so I suppose the question is how important are they to you?” This leaves the reader to ponder and consider the argument presented. The over perspective of the writer is strange, they present everything from in an emotional light, most likely in an effort to appeal to the readers feelings, they could have done a better job at presenting it however, if they had just balanced logic and emotion or relied on solely logic the paragraph could’ve been effective. To end it off, let’s review the conclusion clincher, “honestly, what we do without our pets?” Now this conclusion clincher isn’t necessarily bad, in fact it’s a pretty good ending question for the argument, the problem lies in, once again the paragraph it self. If the reader had been given relevant reliable info then the conclusion clincher could’ve been effective they also could’ve extended it a short amount, like leading in with a sentence such as “in conclusion pets can be practical, low maintenance companions, showing traits of intelligence and care, both of which some people could use, so ask your self, honestly what we do without our pets”. To end it off, the writer presented a horrible argument with ineffective evidence and reasoning that down played the only good aspects it had.
How do you convey a formal tone?
Formal Writing Voice
Do not use first-person pronouns ("I," "me," "my," "we," "us," etc.). ...
Avoid addressing readers as "you." ...
Avoid the use of contractions. ...
Avoid colloquialism and slang expressions. ...
Avoid nonstandard diction. ...
Avoid abbreviated versions of words. ...
Avoid the overuse of short and simple sentences.
Yu Tsun killed Stephen Albert just to send a message to The Chief that the English weapons were stored in the town of Albert.
Answer:
hippos capsize boats. They trample people. They bite to protect their young
Explanation:
main fact two says hippos are known to be the cause of death in many ways and capsizing boats can lead to death, trampling can lead to death, biting can lead to death.
