The Charlie Hebdo attack is a clear example of how some individuals choose to harm others in order to protect a concept or belief that, in some way, is being disrespected, according to these individuals. We form negative stereotypes by threatening people who are not in agreement with our ideals, which prove our ignorance because whoever practices our beliefs will be affected. Groups like the Muslim, for example, are linked to the concept of being terrorist by the horrible actions of few individuals of their religion; however, not all Muslims are terrorist, yet the victims of the counter-progressive acts from some of their own members. In other words, those groups who are threatened or harmed by a few Muslims will stereotype all Muslims as terrorists.
I have a different reaction towards the image in the class blog subsequent to my research in the Charlie Hebdo massacre; I have the right to say what I believe, and even if I have hard times with others opinions, I should never stop believing in the right of expression. Of course there are impediments, countries with the idealism of communism, for instance, or under a dictatorship might punish any individual, or group, with concepts of opposition, with imprisonment or slaughter. Additionally, the right of speech is not protected everywhere, which facilitates institutions, with no respect for the ideas of others, to fire employees. Nonetheless, no one has the right to stop the spreading of what is thought as right, even if it isn’t. Indeed, my reaction is not directed to a specific group, political or religious, but to anyone how is willing to violate the freedom of expression.
The cartoonist who came up with the image of Charlie Brown with a facial expression full of anger and sadness intended, I assume, to leave the message that hard times are being experienced, but we shouldn’t give up like Charlie Brown who “is the lovable loser in the zig-zag t-shirt─ the kid who never gives up (even though he almost never wins).” That is why, I can interpret the decision from the designer of combining the phrase “Je Suis Charlie[I am Charlie]” with the image of Charlie Brown as a way of sending the message of not giving up; moreover, the designer also intended to tell the world that everyone who believe in the freedom of speech, with the phrase “ Je Suis Charlie,” is part of the Charlie Hebdo massacre because the citizens who were murdered were not the only victims, but the right of expression of the personnel and everyone who believe in freedom of speech. As a result, the slaughter conducted by the brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi has left an opposite effect in their attend to stop the word of the magazine because anyone who feels related to the massacre is united to avoid the violation of freedom of speech.
Therefore, the instructor, to remind the class that not everyone happy will be with our ideas, used the Charlie Brown’s image along with the phrase “Je Suis Charlie” as the header of the class blog because the right to write what we think can not be taken away from us.
Work Cited
“Charlie Brown « Peanuts.” Peanuts. N.p, 2014. Web. 25 Jan. 2015. <http://www.peanuts.com/characters/charlie-brown/#.VMRIrnDF8Yc>.
The Gamer 2.0
SleepyCat
Coffee Lover 03
doglover7025
Snowman10
excellentstudent27
Gymrat
hockeyfan
holistic25
ilovebeesss
ilovemydog
The Gamer
Naturechild101
BreakingBad45
ravensfan8
temporal111
thatpersonoverthere
toetio
username1132005
Calm&Patient
webbwrestler135
Counterintuitive Spring 2024 
Feedback requested.
Feedback provided. —DSH
LikeLike
Albert, I find your essay difficult to understand.
I’m going to break with my own tradition and begin with global comments (overall essay) first, then offer some local (paragraph and sentence level) feedback. My hope is that while revising to respond to the global critique you’ll make enough changes so that the smaller local blemishes will disappear. Once the post shapes up, we can concentrate on minor copy-editing matters of grammar and punctuation. I’ll still identify the paragraphs in my comments as P1, P2, etc., but in your case, those labels won’t help much since you wrote such a long and lonely paragraph for P2.
Global comments:
It’s instructive to know that you were unaware of the Charlie Hebdo story, and unfamiliar with Charlie Brown, albert, but for your second draft, please discard that information since it doesn’t contribute to a useful examination of what the header does mean to you now.
You can keep the material from your first paragraph that includes the excellent observation that attacks like those against the staff of Charlie Hebdo attempt to “protect a concept or belief.” Your further observation, which seems to indicate that such attacks are counterproductive, is also useful, and should be further developed.
The valuable part of P2 begins with: “If I believe something, I have the right to say it.” You haven’t yet make the overt claim that while you certainly have the right to say what you wish, you don’t have the right to kill those who disagree with you. You come close when you say that “no one can stop me from spreading the word of what I think is right.” Obviously, the killers who slaughtered the cartoonists believed they could do exactly that: stop the spread of the idea by killing the messenger. Did they succeed? Or does the message live on in the reaction of millions who have declared their solidarity with Charlie Hebdo?
The cartoonist who came up with the sad-faced Charlie Brown drew him long before the massacre. You can guess at his (or her) intentions, but you can’t relate them to the killings, which hadn’t happened when the drawing was made.
You could, however, attribute intentions to the designer who paired the Charlie drawing with the phrase “Je Suis Charlie.” Certainly that person had something in mind by asserting the combination.
I like your observation that Charlie Brown, the Peanuts character, “never gave up.” It seems appropriate to adopt him as a mascot for a movement devoted to standing strong against violence.
I’m not sure how Charlie tells the world “that everyone is part of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.” Would the use of any other cartoon character have had the same meaning, or do you think there’s something particular about Charlie Brown that makes him particularly appropriate as an “everyman”?
I want to caution you that the right to free expression doesn’t further provide proof against “impediments,” albert. Free expression can be met by violence, loss of jobs, social ostracization, and other costs. Only the government of certain countries guarantees the right to free speech. Citizens of those and other countries aren’t obligated to respect that right, and very often don’t.
Your first task in rewriting should be to identify your primary points and separate them into paragraphs of their own so that your support for those ideas doesn’t bleed from one paragraph to others, but instead transitions from one to the next.
Local comments:
The second sentence is completely unintelligible to me:
I’m not being facetious when I say I truly don’t know what that means.
Other material is almost as difficult to understand, mostly, I think, because of your attempt to “sound academic.” I hope, for the sake of clarity, you’ll be able to settle on a rhetoric that is less ambitious and more straightforward.
Grade Code 0y3
Critique the critique: If you appreciate receiving feedback, albert, please reply to indicate whether you found the critique helpful or not, and if so, how it was helpful.
LikeLike
This is not the grade you want, albert. Revisions highly recommended. Leave a feedback request when you’re ready.
LikeLike
The feedback you provide me initially helped me to decide what was important and what was not to send the message I am trying to send. Also, your clarification of freedom of speech around the world gave me a new perception towards the massacre.
LikeLike
Feedback requested: Do you find anything hard to understand or does not make sense in my new draft?
Feedback provided. —DSH
LikeLike
This is looking much better, albert.
P1. Global changes
Your overall message here is that individuals affiliated with a recognizable group (for example Muslims) harm the reputation of their entire group when they threaten and harm groups that disagree with them or disrespect them. That’s pretty clearly communicated on the global level. On the sentence level, things aren’t as clear.
P1. Sentence level
S1. There’s a that/which problem.
S2. —I think you must mean “threatening people”
—I think you must mean “prove their ignorance”
—I think you must mean “whoever practices”
—When you say “will be affected by our actions with negative stereotypes” you’re being vague twice. You must mean “will form negative stereotypes of us.” In other words, those groups who are threatened or harmed by a few Muslims will stereotype all Muslims as terrorists (which you go on to claim in Sentence 3).
S3. Your third sentence has too many dependent clauses (a but clause) and (a yet clause). Break it into two sentences.
P2. Global level
You start out with a bold proclamation of the NEED to proclaim whatever you believe to be right. Then you detour to a long description of the restrictions certain countries impose on freedom of speech. The overall impression is that you believe the restrictions to be more important. You need to organize this for the opposite outcome: despite the impediments, you believe in the obligation to speak the truth, whatever the risks.
P2. Sentence level
Your first sentence is extremely long. In fact, you might consider breaking it into two parts. Open with one part. Then describe impediments. Then return to the original thought with the second part of the sentence.
P3. Global level
This is a complex and sophisticated paragraph, albert. Its only flaws are idiomatic.
P3. Sentence level
S1. —I think you must mean “came up with”
—You can delete the citation for this sort of essay (Charlie Brown Peanuts)
—Delete “keep”
—You confuse readers when you say “the message of not giving up as the cartoonist did.” Readers will think you mean the cartoonist gave up.
—to tell the world that everyone who believes in the freedom of speech . . . .
—You mean “the personnel of the magazine.”
—You mean much more than “who was harm” since twelve people died, 9 of them at the magazine. You could say: the personnel who were murdered.
—I don’t know what to suggest for “but the right of expression with freedom of the personal.” It’s just confusing.
—To make your verb match your subject in number, you would say: “the slaughter . . . has left the opposite effect in their attempt to silence the magazine . . . .
—I don’t know what to suggest for “avoid.” It makes no sense.
P4. You might still want to make changes to this paragraph, albert, but I’ve made small changes throughout to make the idioms right. Compare them for yourself:
Therefore, I believe that using Charlie Brown’s image along with the phrase “Je Suis Charlie” as the header of the class blog is a message from the instructor to remind the class that not everyone will be happy with our ideas, but the right to write what we think cannot be taken from us. My declaration is not directed to a specific group, political or religious, but to anyone who attempts to violate my freedom of expression.
I hope you find these notes helpful as usual, albert.
Awaiting your reply.
Grade Code 6B5
Grades are decoded at Professor Conferences
Make an appointment at the Conferences page
LikeLike
Thank you! Your feedback on sentence structure was extremely helpful. Now I am having problems with my conclusion because my last sentence does not connect strongly to the topic; nevertheless, I would like to make that point, what do you recommend me?
LikeLike
Hey, Albert.
Ordinarily, the best way to connect your conclusion with your essay is to prepare readers for it before they arrive at the end of the essay. The paragraph before the conclusion begins with “The cartoonist who came up with the image.” So you’ve introduced the idea that you will be examining the motives of at least one person: the cartoonist. This would prepare your readers to expect that you might also be considering someone else’s motive: the instructor’s. So, if you provided readers with an “outline” earlier, to alert them to expect analysis about three characters: the cartoonist, the graphic designer, and the instructor, then they’ll be ready for your conclusion.
You don’t prepare your readers for that structure at all. You move from P1, which describes the stereotyping of groups based on the actions of a few; to P2, which insists on the validity of freedom of speech despite the efforts of some to repress it; to P3, which combines analysis of the cartoon and the header without clearly distinguishing the motives of the two.
The best approach for you would probably be to break your P3 into two paragraphs, devoting one to the artist and another to the designer. Then the paragraph about the instructor will be seen as the third of a series, and readers will recognize that you’re analyzing the motives of three different characters.
(I could have said all of that in fewer words, but hey!, it’s a lousy first draft. 🙂
Awaiting your reply.
LikeLike