The Big Paper

Download the_big_paper_web_version.mht  Here is the First Draft of 'The Big Paper'

Comments

[Michael Ramirez]

The introduction to your paper is very effective. You do a good job of introducing the three major factors relating to the success of the Navajo. These factor are then well reiterated throughout the rest of the paper. Overall, I think you have a solid start to your paper.

[Zeke Clayson]

Your intro is very clear and concise, leaving little room for doubt about where your paper is headed. You follow your intro very well throughout the paper, progressing from theme to theme and event to event very smoothly. One of the most difficult things I found in writing my paper, was progressing along a continuous timeline in a fluid way; yours does so with ease.

When your paper used examples to back up your thoughts, it is very good, like when you discussed the "cosmopolitan" nature of Dine culture. I thought your quote from COL Gregg was perfect, in how it illustrated the local military's position on the tribe. This worked well because you built up the theme of the Army's favorable predisposition toward the Navajo from the beginning, then gave a timely example of such favor.

I think that you could apply that rule to more aspects of your paper, however. For example, you name Keam as a "good example" of a "friendly Anglo Trader" that helped the Navajo succeed through this difficult period. However, you don't really give solid examples of what he actually did. You made it clear that Keam and the tribe liked eachother, and they wanted him to be their permanent agent; but liking eachother doesn't imply what your thesis is saying: that "friendly Anglo traders helped the Navajo." If you use Keam as your example of said trader, as you do, then concrete evidence is needed to prove your point. There are a couple of other instances where specifics would be useful as well.

You say that the Navajo showed an "unwillingness" to use deadly force against the settlers that they kidnapped, but, and this is just a technical point, nothing in your description shows such an unwillingness. From what I gathered, they simply threatened to use deadly force if the hostages did something that they didn't like (fight back, attempt escape, whatever) and their threat of death kept the settlers in check. They seem to have been perfectly willing to use deadly force, but the settlers' behavior didn't necessitate it. I don't know how anal Prof P is on precision, but things like that can T-off some professors.

Also, what is Dine? I mean I figured it out, I think, but I'm sure (I hope...) I'm not the only one who has never heard that term before.

But these are mostly just details that get worked out after the first draft, like grammar/sentence structure issues (there/their). Overall, you clearly show a command of the research/knowledge portion, and the rest gets ironed out with re-drafts.