Was it just me that was shocked when we learned that personal pronouns were okay to use in college? Much like the infamous early 2000s internet challenge, it was like a face-full of ice water. For so long, high school students left and right were taught to never use personal pronouns in essays for fear of seeming unprofessional. Streaks of red across white paper, much like marks on our souls when we got our papers back.

Dramatics aside, “They Say, I Say” (TSIS, pronounced like the word ‘thesis’ because I’m funny) by Gerald Graff and Cathy Birkenstein was a breath of fresh air. Acknowledging the use of personal pronouns in academic papers? Yes please! A semi-short composition book setting out to de-mystify academic writing, TSIS told me both the obvious and not-so obvious; academic writing isn’t hard, if you word your sentences correctly. Specifically, my favorite learning moment came in Chapter 10, “The Art of Metacommentary”.

Graff and Birkenstein define metacommentary as a form of elaboration for the main text, clearing up any misconceptions and misinterpretations that may form as a result of the main text, and processing/interpreting the ideas formed in your work for your audience. TSIS provides examples of introducing metacommentary, and my favorite of them is on entertaining objections: “Although some readers may object that _____, I would answer that ____.” Though the nature of most our work as college students is argumentative, a point that Christopher Gillen makes in Chapter 17, phrasing your words in a less argumentative manner tends to do wonders for your work. Indeed, your work should not be so easily disproven if you find what’s wrong, then fix it first.

However, it can be hard sometimes, looking for places to criticism yourself. Some take it as a matter of pride, while others take it as a matter of proximity, where we cannot find the metaphorical holes in our argumentative wall because we are so close to the bricks to see said wall in its entirety. TSIS’s Chapter 11, “Revising Substantially”, recommends 10 different ways of looking back at your work in order to do just that.

Though the list warrants a blog post all on its own, the method I use the most is that of bringing others into reading your work. This could be anyone from your family, friends, educators, or peers. Specifically, peer review (as much as we all may groan and gripe about group work) is an invaluable source of feedback and information, given that they tend to have a similar grasp on the topic as you do. A great tactic, given that many hands makes light work.

In the words of brilliant mastermind Sun Tzu, in The Art of War; “Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril”. Though ‘knowing’ your “enemy” (whether this is the person grading your work or just the world in general, I’ll leave it up to you) doesn’t stop people from finding holes in your argument, it certainly makes it harder, doesn’t it? Knowing yourself and your essays does not stop with your initial work, but is built up with revision and feedback from those around you. There is always room for improvement, for correcting yourself, it’s just that you haven’t seen the forest yet.

When we initially were taught the concept of a black box, I was very confused.

A thing that goes into a thing to give you something. That’s what I wrote in my notes. Totally not confusing.

My previous posts may make it obvious; I am chronically online. A consequence of being so attached to the internet is that I know at least somewhat about a whole lot of things. Perhaps that’s why I was so confused by the idea of a system of only inputs and outputs. I’ve taken it upon myself to know at least a little of most topics, leading my friends to give me my second unofficial middle name of “Wikipedia”.

It thus leads me to my question; can anything truly be a black box on the internet? In an increasingly aware world, can someone afford to be ignorant? See the trees and not the forest, per se.

Langdon Winner disagrees, at least with the idea that someone can leave the wider picture out of academic studies. In his paper “Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology”, Winner argues that most social constructionist writing leaves out precisely that. Where social constructionists are so focused on the contents of the box, the box itself is just that; an empty box. The narrowness and focus of a social constructionist’s work leaves out the rich world of people, of those that use the very technology they speak of. While they speak of the wonders of what lies within the black box of technological philosophy, this  technology evolved, and people gained the convenience of cars and fast communication, but lost a sense of community. As Winner quotes theologian Pennimann, “They got what they wanted, but they lost what they had”.

Perhaps that is the answer to my question, or another question altogether. In my pursuit of knowledge, of curing my own ignorance, what have I lost? I wonder what else I have missed in seeing the tree for the forest. Who knows? If I had looked a little further out, I may have seen something there that wasn’t there before.

We can all use a little more consideration for others in our life.

My friends can attest, but I am chronically online. My daily screen time, when looking at the statistics, shows that I spend at least 40% of my phone-time on Youtube.

One of my favorite series to watch while relaxing is ‘So Expensive’ by Business Insider. Specifically, the ones that focus on people in rural communities creating items unique out of local materials. I admire the tenacity and preservation that the people in the videos present, and often find myself wondering how exactly these people come up with their ideas.

It was a pleasant surprise then, when I read through Winona LaDuke’s ‘Tribes Revive Traditional Hemp Economies (A post-petroleum transition plan)’. I had an idea of what hemp was going into the paper; middle school me was very confused when my history professor specified that hemp and weed (the drug) were not the same plant, despite looking very similar. I was also happy to note that the article was written about reviving the economic growth of Native American tribes, which reminded me of the ‘So Expensive’ videos.

LaDuke writes about the benefits of hemp as a raw material, a push towards a more carbohydrate-based economy based on plant matter (“a New Green Revolution”), and touches a bit on the history of how hemp was grown in the United States. However, it was while reading through the paper that I came to a stray thought in the recesses of my mind; do groups of people, separated from larger society, require economic growth in the way that LaDuke describes and is shown in the Business Insider videos? Is it truly beneficial for the environment to turn away from an economy fueled by petroleum, coal, and natural gas (a hydrocarbon economy), and instead embrace a carbohydrate economy?

Logic built from an eco-conscious education tells me. However, the question is complicated, far too much so to answer in a simple blog post, but it’s something I (and I hope people that may read this post) want to keep in mind going forward. Labor inequalities exist everywhere, with wealthy companies and first-world governments exploiting vulnerable communities. LaDuke admits so much within ‘Tribes Revive’; “in 2000, Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided the reservation and seized White Plume’s crop. Not surprisingly, White Plume feels a bit resentful of the profits being made in what’s now become a largely White-dominated industry, while his tribe had to sit on the sidelines.”

In order to properly maintain and implement a carbohydrate economy as LaDuke presents it, there must be guidelines and laws present to protect these more vulnerable groups of people participating in an industry, so that what happened with White Plume cannot happen on the whims of more powerful groups. If we truly want to help the economies of fringe groups such as the Native people of the Americas, there is much to be done. However, these laws must also have actual repercussions. After all, we already know about the multitude of injustices committed by several groups against land given to the Native people. How does that one saying go?

Oh yes.

”Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.”

When I was in Primary school, our class decided to plant a tree near the school’s playground area. A gaggle of 20 or so 7 year olds would crowd around a tiny palm sapling, watering it, telling it stories, and dropping by during recess, using our grubby baby hands to swat away the equally grubby, equally small hands of other kids. My brother included. I’m told it was quite the (adorable) spectacle by my mom, an English teacher at the Middle school division at the time.

Fast forward 13 years, that tree no longer exists. Someone had kicked a little too hard and snapped the developing trunk in half. While I had transferred to another school and was not there for that particular debacle, my old friends were, and recounted the story to me, leading me to wonder what the point of the tree was in the first place. Maybe it was a class pet, much easier to care for than a fish, hamster, fish, parrot, lizard, oh did I mention fish?

(Some fishes were harmed in the experiment known as ‘class pets’.)

It took looking through my old school graduation albums to remember why we had planted a tree in the first place; 2011 was when my child-brain had began learning in school about global warming, how scary it was, and how trees would help solve the issue by providing the skies with air!

A sentiment shared by many; back in 2019, behemoth Youtube personalities Mr. Beast (Jimmy Donaldson) and Mark Rober (an ex-NASA engineer) started an initiative called ‘Team Trees’, aimed at raising $20 million. For every $1, a tree would be planted. The project was said to be spurred by the 2019 Amazon rainforest fires. Currently, the initiative pulled together more than $24 million. Inspired by the major “success” of Team Trees, the duo further launched ‘Team Seas’, aimed at fundraising for beach-cleaning operations and removing 1 pound of marine debris for every $1. Similar to its sister project, Team Seas grew immensely popular, amassing almost $34 million.

However, were these initiatives truly all that successful? Are they the answer to bigger problems of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions? According to the Vox article from class, several horticultural authorities, and some other environmentalists, the answer is a “sort of, maybe not quite”.

Much like the tree my class planted all those years ago, these trees can only truly do their job of oxygen-generation and carbon dioxide-absorption if they are properly cared for. Much like how Rome wasn’t built in day, trees don’t grow overnight. Unless it’s bamboo, but even one of the fastest growing trees takes care and monitoring in order to fully grow. According to Eike Lüdeling, department head of horticultural sciences at the University of Bonn, “Sometimes it’s probably a better idea to plant fewer trees and really take care of them.” (https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/25/20932700/youtubers-climate-change-team-trees) Long-term survival is key for trees because for them to be able to offset the greenhouse gas emissions humans generate, they need to live for at least 100 years. Will the trees planted by Mr Beast and Mark Rober’s teams last that long? That remains to be seen.

Furthermore, planting trees will not solve the current issues of greenhouse gas emissions. What’s the point in planting more trees only to mow them down later to create farmland?

While many companies and private citizens like to think of planting trees as a way of reducing carbon footprints and “giving back” to the environment, initiatives such as Team Trees and the infamous Billion Tree Tsunami (another tree-planting project that was riddled with issues, here’s a link if you’re interested in the topic; https://pakistan.shafaqna.com/EN/90005) are not as effective as long-term solutions. While planting trees is a good thing, as the Vox article quotes Karen Holl, a professor of environmental studies and restoration expert at the University of California Santa Cruz; “we’re not going to plant our way out of climate change” (https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/22679378/tree-planting-forest-restoration-climate-solutions). Initiatives to plant trees in droves must also be committed to the protection, preservation, and maintenance of the trees they grow, not just as a project, but lives. As the cool kids say; “it’s not a phase, mom, it’s a lifestyle!” (my brother in his emo phase, probably, 2016)