Author's
Note: After reading "The Monster of
Monticello", I was asked to critique the piece and discuss whether the
author's claims were supported enough to be considered true. I will try to support my decision as much as
possible. I will try to keep a formal
voice, but at the same time, use syntax patterns that make the piece flow. If you would like to read the "Monster of Monticello, click here.
People are perceived
differently through different eyes. Paul
Finkelman, writer of the" Monster
of Monticello" has a very strong opinion about Thomas
Jefferson. He believes that "the
third president was a creepy, brutal hypocrite". I don't believe this entirely. His biased opinion was blind to the many
things that made Thomas Jefferson a good person. An opinion is an opinion. There is never a right or wrong.
For argument sake, I
would have to say that there was some reason why Thomas Jefferson was elected
president in 1801. No one would vote for
him if he really was an awful person.
Even though he owned about 175 slaves he was still a person that
supported religious and political freedom.
Along with his support for our rights by writing the Declaration of
Independence, he also helped the state of Virginia in the last few years of the
American Revolution.
Besides his
presidency, he accomplished many other things too. He was known as one of the designers of our
capital, Washington D.C., Virginia's capital, his home, Monticello, and the
University of Virginia. Jefferson
founded this university too; he had a strong passion for education. Thomas was also a writer who wrote several
documents that make the United States free: the Declaration of Independence as
I stated before, Virginia's Statute of Religious Freedom, and the Manual of
Parliamentary Practice were some of the many.
Paul Finkelman can
argue that Jefferson was evil, racist, and unfair. Although you cannot judge someone by the one
thing that they did wrong, but by the many things they did right. I disagree with Finkelman, because as you now
know, Jefferson was an important and helpful being in the creation of our
nation.
If I had to be critical of this piece, I would say that the one thing lacking is more specific evidence of the writer's opinion, and which ones you take issue with. You write in generalities, and part of the task for you is to ensure the reader that you have done a thorough analysis of the piece you are criticizing. The only specific I can see you cite here is that he was a slave owner. Were there any other specific instances cited by the writer to which you could react? To do a thorough job of analyzing the writing, the specifics need to be bore out.
ReplyDelete