Search Our Essay Database

The Foreigner Essays and Research Papers

Instructions for The Foreigner College Essay Examples

Title: poetry

Total Pages: 3 Words: 812 Bibliography: 0 Citation Style: APA Document Type: Essay

Essay Instructions: Your poetry essay should be double spaced and be at least 750 words. You are to choose only ONE of the following topics. In writing on your topic, you must use specific and correctly cited support from the poem/s you are addressing. No matter which topic you choose, you may write on only ONE or TWO poems. Failure to follow these very basic instructions will lead directly to a failed essay.

Write a detailed explication of the poem of your choice from the reading list. Be sure to discuss the relationship between the content and the form: both what is said and how it is said. Also, analyze as many of the elements of poetry we have studied that are appropriate for your poem--tone, word choice, irony, image patterns, figures of speech, etc.

I expect your final essay to be a finished project. You should have spent time not just writing, but also editing your sentences and revising your drafts. Lastly, you should do a careful proofreading, expecially looking for the type of errors I marked in the first essay and eliminating them. Do not keep making the same mistakes. Make new mistakes! It is your job to proofread for and correct grammatical and technical errors via your Handbook or the Writing Lab. In ENC 1102 you are supposed to know what sentence fragements, comma splices, pronoun agreement, etc. are and be able to use them correctly. The baseline is that at this point in your college career, you should be able, at minimum, to write correctly and clearly. Then, you can be evaluated on the basis of your ideas and your style.

I will be faxing further information to you in the morning; to include the poem that the essay is to be written from. as well as some more expectations of the finished paper. Thank you.

Here is my Thesis paragraph that the esay NEEDS to be formatted from;

The Melting Pot
As a young foreigner to America, the speaker of Julia Alvarez’s poem, “Queens, 1963”, observes the freedom that America was to provide. The foreigners of the city are not truly “free”, but are confined into a corner of the world that was a melting pot of society. A certain sense of freedom is felt yet the people of Queens are not truly accepted by mainstream Americans. Acceptance into this country, as well as their neighborhood was a slow feat that they managed to conquer. Instead of accepting their new neighbors, the people of Queens decide to turn the tables and discriminate as they had once been discriminated against.

There are faxes for this order.

Excerpt From Essay:

Title: Late Tokugawa reform and foreign policy

Total Pages: 4 Words: 1718 Sources: 0 Citation Style: MLA Document Type: Research Paper

Essay Instructions: Late Tokugawa reform & foreign policy, or, What to do about those barbarians?

Faced with an impasse over how to respond to the American demands that Japan open its borders, the bakufu took the unusual step of asking the court and the daimyo what to do. The result was a series of memorials (position papers) advising the bakufu how to respond to the crisis. In this assignment, I?d like you to pose as one of these daimyo and write an essay advising the bakufu (i.e., me) how to deal with the ?barbarians.?

First, though, some background. The focus of our study this week has been the Japanese response to the appearance of two sets of threats to the political and social order. The spread of a money economy and the growth of commerce put an increasing share of the wealth of the nation into the hands of the officially despised merchant class. At the same time, new relations in the production, distribution, and the consumption of goods and services in burgeoning markets of the urban centers wreaked havoc with the social order envisioned in the bakufu?s basic ideology, not to mention the finances of the struggling middle and lower ranks of the samurai class. During the 1830s, a string of manmade and natural disasters strained the Tokugawa government?s coffers and worsened the plight the peasantry. In short, from the early nineteenth century, the Tokugawa regime faced a series of increasingly acute crises that challenged the social and political order it had built over the preceding 200 years.

Into this sea of troubles sailed the Western ?barbarians.? Russian explorers, fishermen, and fur traders began to appear on the northern borders of the realm from the 1770s on. a number of English and American ships showed up uninvited?and were curtly asked to leave. Eventually, of course, Commodore Perry arrived at the head of fleet that refused to leave (metaphorically, at least) until Japan had acceded to demands for trade. The foreign pressure sparked a debate over Japan?s relations with the outside world?and catalyzed, more generally, a debate about the Tokugawa order. We can identify four schools of thought, generally aligned along an axis extending from those who advocated ?expelling the barbarians? (j?i) to those who advocated ?opening the country? (kaikoku).

In the j?i camp, we have 1) Mito Scholars such as Aizawa Seishisai and Fujita T?ko and 2) ?imperial loyalists? such as Yoshida Sh?in and Tokugawa Nariaki. On the kaikoku side are 3) scholars of ?Dutch learning? (Rangaku) such as Sakuma Sh?zan; and 4) Bakufu supporters, such as Ii Naosuke.

Your task will be to become familiar with these arguments, so as to be able to write an essay advising the Bakufu how to deal with the foreigners. You can adopt the stance of one of the groups, or you can try to find a middle path between the various positions. You should strive to avoid anachronism?try to see the situation as Japanese of the time saw it: they didn?t know that the US was destined to become a superpower, and you shouldn?t either.

Excerpt From Essay:

Title: The Analyses for my classmate discussion post

Total Pages: 6 Words: 1740 References: 0 Citation Style: APA Document Type: Essay

Essay Instructions: General Directions

You are to select an existent discussion board post (I provided it below) of one of your classmates and for analysis. Your job is to shed light on of the line of argumentation put forth by the author provide your own perspective on the issue(s) under examination.

You can select any post that is in place at the time you are putting your essay together. However, you are urged to select one that contains subject matter of interest to you. Also, please make sure the post contains argumentation of a depth sufficient to comment upon at some length. While it is not necessary that you actually disagree with the thesis of your chosen post (although it is fine if you do), your assessment must present a counterargument/challenge to the main thesis put forward in the post under analysis.


(i) Post under analysis: Please copy and paste the post you are analyzing in the beginning of your essay. The student whose post you chose will never be aware of this fact.
(ii) Inductive argument reconstruction: The central way you will analyze your chosen post is to reconstruct the author’s argument by reconstructing it in standard form (i.e., numbered premises and conclusion) as an inductive argument (Note: Please do not select a post that already contains an argument in standard form!). Essays omitting this component will receive low scores. This reconstruction must be faithful to the intentions of the author. It should include the key premises that are used as support as well as a clear restatement of the conclusion the author is urging as true. It is not necessary to include every premise the author asserts, or to use the exact words of the original post (though you can, if they are stated in a manner that is conducive to analysis). In your reconstruction, you should strive to exceed the original passages in clarity and precision (while remaining faithful to the content) whenever possible. If what the author means to say can be stated differently to get her point across clearer, by all means do so. Also, make sure that you include any key unstated premises and/or conclusion (if there are any that are important to making the line of argumentation explicit) and if you add such premises, make sure to label them as such. Strive to make your reconstructions simple and to the point, and always make sure that all your premises are in fact claims (remember that questions, exclamations, and some other types of sentences do not qualify as claims). If the line of argumentation contained in the essay is complex, then you should reconstruct it as a complex argument. If the argument is simple (e.g., a number of premises leading up to just one conclusion), then reconstruct a simple argument. Note: In the case of complex argument reconstructions, please label the claim that you take to be a sub-conclusion.
(iii) A critical analysis of the argument reconstruction: The bulk of your essay will consist of a critique of the author’s argument (as reconstructed by you). Each and every critique will be different, and the differences will be a function of the specific type of argument under analysis, as well as the content of each premise. Generally speaking, your critique will focus on either one or (preferably) both of the following:

(a) The “truth value” of the premises under consideration. Here you will provide various reasons why a given premise is false, implausible, unacceptable, misleading, unsupported, improbable, etc. You may discuss each premise successively, focus on just the key premises, and/or opt to critique just the premises that are most vulnerable to falsification. Regardless of the tactic you adopt, your job is to provide sufficient counterargument to persuade the reader that there is something wrong with the premises of the argument.

(b) The support the premises confer on the conclusion. This type of critique focuses on problems concerning the relation of the premises to the conclusion. As in (a), the specific details of your critique of the structure will vary, dependant upon the nature of your argument reconstruction. Generally speaking, you should point to factors such as premises that are not related to the conclusion, premises that are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the conclusion, premises that contradict the conclusion, and premises that taken collectively, for some reason or other, do not make it probable that the conclusion is in fact true.

In both (a) and (b), be certain to use the appropriate terms for the specific type of argument you are analyzing (i.e., inductive arguments). Keep in mind that the terms of analysis of deductive arguments (e.g., “valid,” “sound,” etc.) are reserve solely for this type of inference and are not appropriate for this assignment.

The Discussion broad post I chosen:

Author: Matthew Dentice(My classmate) Topic: To Make Men Free

The question was: Abraham Lincoln ( 1809 - 1865 ) was the sixteenth president of the United States. Self-educated, Lincoln had a knack for asking the right questions about important issues, such as slavery and war, and then examining all sides of the arguments before coming to a conclusion.
Lincoln's election as president in 1860 led to the secession in 1861 of southern slave-owning states and to a 4-year civil war that cost 600,000 American lives, North and South. Although Lincoln had long agreed that slavery should be permitted in states where it was already legal, in the course of the Civil War he concluded that if slavery is immoral, then it should not be legal at all in the United States. Lincoln also realized that taking a position on issues was not simply an intellectual exercise but should have real- life consequences. A man of action as well as strong principles, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, freeing slaves in the rebellious states.

Then he answer:

The Civil War was arguably America’s most important conflict; only the Revolution compares in terms of long-lasting significance and change. It was also the bloodiest and most tragic; 600,000 lives lost in battles not with any foreign foe (excepting the foreigners who came over to fight for one side or another), but with countrymen. Yet, at the same time, the Civil War brought several important improvements to America. Slavery was crushed and the period of Reconstruction, which began the process of ensuring political and social equality for African-Americans one hundred years before the Civil Rights Act, began. The last major challenge to the security and unity of the nation was brought to an end and it was thus determined that no state could ever threaten that unity again. The country emerged united in more ways than one, however, as Westerners, Northerners, Midwesterners, and yes, even a few Southerners put aside regional differences to save and restore the Union, creating for the first time a true sense of national, rather than regional, patriotism; it is no exaggeration to say that America’s unique brand of fervent patriotism was forged in the battlefields of the Civil War. The Union victory secured the industrialization of the country and allowed America to emerge as a world-power for the first time in history, setting it on track to eventually become the world’s only superpower. Finally, the Civil War gave the American nation a true national myth; names such as those of U. S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, Sheridan, Beauregard, Meade, Longstreet, and above all Abraham Lincoln would be made truly immortal by the conflict.

The question assigned to be answered here is: Should Abraham Lincoln have held to his anti-slavery stance despite its causing the secession of the South? To answer this, let us look first at the institution of slavery. Slavery is by its very nature a cruel and dehumanizing thing, and thus it does not need to be said that it is immoral. Slavery was, since before the founding, a blight on the American nation and character. How could a country founded on the ideal that “All men are created equal” allow and even praise the existence of slavery? Of course, this being the 1800s, a slave-trade or slave-holder would merely argue that Africans are not mentally or humanly equal to Europeans, slavery benefits slaves by making them more civilized, the European race is destined to take over the world, etc., all of which were clearly then to those willing to give due consideration and are clearly now completely incorrect, unsupported, and ignorantly mistaken to say the least. Thus, to save the oppressed and bring the American nation back in line with its rightful path, Lincoln was right to oppose slavery.

Let us not suppose, however, that, as the wording of the question may make it seem, Lincoln was saber-rattling or attempting to force the Southern states into insurrection. He tried repeatedly before, during, and after his candidacy to reassure the South and convince them that fighting would be in neither side’s best interests. He said to them that he would not threaten their slave-holding, but would only prohibit it in new states. In Lincoln’s opinion, this would allow slavery to wither and die with no new markets while also allowing the South to modernize and remove the institution in a way that would be peaceable and would not inconvenience the slave-holders. Even the famous Emancipation Proclamation exempts the four loyal slave states (the so-called “border states”) from losing their slaves (the Thirteenth Amendment, another Lincolnian achievement, abolished slavery there at the war’s close). Such was a practical position given the circumstances of the era, and the end was the same, but still it caused many of the Anti-Slavery Societies to turn against him, as they would turn against others who attempted to fit the abolition of slavery to the realities of its existence. Surely they never would have done this if Lincoln was a maniacal abolitionist of the John Brown sort.

This was, of course, not enough for the South. Southern suspicions of abolitionists and the regions of the country which supported them went back almost to the Revolution itself, certainly to the framing of the Constitution. Decades after South Carolina had first seemed on the verge of seceding, it finally did so, and most of the other slave states made good on the long-standing threat. Can Lincoln be blamed for this? Certainly, he did everything he could to prevent it short of compromising on his principles, which would have made his candidacy useless and would have failed to reassure the South in any case. Ultimately, Lincoln did what was right in opposing slavery and was even willing to compromise, but the South took the initiative of seceding. A person cannot be blamed if others take actions, for whatever reason, outside of their control; a person can only be blamed for what they themselves do. The southern states had the power to control their own actions, and Lincoln cannot be blamed for their actions, as they were beyond his control. It was their own choice to secede and their own blame if that was deemed the cause of the devastation.

Yet, the great devastation of the war was not the work of one man and if several other individuals had acted differently, there could have been far less bloodshed. President Buchanan, under whose watch the states began seceding, had the opportunity to quell the insurrection immediately with almost no bloodshed, but due to his own beliefs and the unpopularity of his recent military operations in Utah, chose to do nothing. Surely, the blame rests more clearly on him who had the opportunity to avert the bloodshed completely but did nothing than on him who as of yet had no personal ability to avert the conflict but still made the attempt. Also, it cannot be forgotten that one of the reasons for the war’s length and the great amount of bloodshed was that the conflict was a back-and-forth one without a likely winner for the first three years. Certainly, much of the blame for this must fall on the shoulders of General McClellan and the others whose arrogance, narrow-mindedness, and incompetence nearly destroyed the Union cause. It could also be said, and it has been said, that if Robert E. Lee had not fought such a brilliant defense of the eastern Confederacy, the war should have ended within a year and most of the bloodshed averted. Yet, should Lee, a man considered even by those who hate the Confederate cause as a great and valiant hero, be blamed for the 600,000 deaths which resulted from the conflict?

In the end, however, Lincoln’s election ultimately had less to do with causing the Civil War than may be initially supposed. It cannot be denied that the election did move the southern states to secede; it gave them the opportunity, but that is the extent of it. Tensions between the South and the rest of the country over slavery had existed since at least the Constitutional Convention of 1787; the “three-fifths” compromise over slavery is a proof of this. The prospect of Civil War was already looming long before 1861. In Jackson’s tenure, the Nullification Crisis of 1832 first gave credence to the idea that the Southern states might secede and that the federal government would oppose them with all its might. Since then, every compromise, such as that infamous one of 1850, had only served to put off rather than avert the coming conflict. Besides, these compromises, perhaps inevitably, were always dissatisfying to one or both sides, and thus did more to enflame passions than extinguish them. The country by 1860 was already on the brink of civil war and all that was needed was the opportunity. Had Lincoln not provided that opportunity, someone or something else would have. The actions of John Brown in 1859, and the opposing movements to canonize him in the North and demonize him in the South, quite possibly ensured that civil war would have broken out anyway by the end of the next decade.

It might be said that, had Lincoln not been elected, the war might have been put off by a few years, and then a solution might perhaps have been reached. However, as has been demonstrated, the country was moving inexorably toward war and no other solution would work. If the war had been put off by a few years, the result would more than likely have been even more terrible and bloody than it was. General Grant was of the opinion that the war was inevitable. “The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war,” he wrote in his Personal Memoirs, in accord with his belief that the Mexican-American War was the result of the South’s attempts to extend slavery into Mexican-controlled Texas, “Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war in modern times.” Grant would then write in the conclusion of his memoirs, “It is probably well that we had the war when we did. We are better off now than we would have been without it, and have made more rapid progress than we otherwise should have made.” Had the war not been fought when it was, it is likely that both sides would have become more industrially and militarily powerful and the brutal trench warfare which dominated Grant and Lee’s conflict at Petersburg (and the later World Wars) would likely have become the norm. The South could have resisted better, the Union could have fought better, and overall the conflict would have escalated to unfathomable heights. Also, as Grant observed, had the nation fought the war at the height of its’ prosperity in the 1870s, it could have in effect reversed America’s rise as a great power and left it a political backwater, while the war as it was fought served to ignite the nation’s ascent to prominence. Clearly then, no good could have come from putting the unavoidable war off by another decade.

From all of this, it is quite clear that Abraham Lincoln is not to be blamed for the great and terrible Civil War; it would have come eventually and was started not by his actions but by those of others which he did as best as was humanly possible to prevent. Lincoln’s stand on slavery was right and good and it brought good to the nation rather than harm It was ultimately right for him to do as he did; had he not, the inevitable great war would perhaps have not been fought with that clear sense of moral legitimacy that Lincoln and his vision of America could provide. If that was so, Lincoln’s stepping down from his principles would only serve to destroy, not save, his nation. His standing up for his principles, on the other hand, ensured that the great American experiment would indeed, as he himself famously said at Gettysburg, “have a new birth of freedom.”

Excerpt From Essay:

Request A Custom Essay On This Topic


I really do appreciate I'm not a good writer and the service really gets me going in the right direction. The staff gets back to me quickly with any concerns that I might have and they are always on time.

Tiffany R

I have had all positive experiences with I will recommend your service to everyone I know. Thank you!

Charlotte H

I am finished with school thanks to They really did help me graduate college..

Bill K