Look at Your Fish - Assignment Example

Professor Agassiz kept telling Scudder to look at the fish because he was after teaching Scudder to be observant and even be able to see beyond what the ordinary eye could see. The professor wanted Scudder to think about the facts apart from just knowing them also. Another thing that the professor was trying to teach Scudder was how to be patient and persistent in learning. He was also teaching him/her to be confident in expressing his/her facts: this evident where he affirmatively exclaims “Of course! Of course!” happily after he had realized that Scudder was right. The professor was also trying to teach Scudder to refer to the facts because whatever he/she would say, he would still tell him/her to look at the fish as a point of reference even when I in my opinion I believe the learner was correct. At first, Scudder took a very short time to look at the fish and with an idea of a fish at the back of the mind, concluded that he/she had seen everything that was required of him/her. This was from the general knowledge he/she had about a fish and with that, he/she thought it was all about a fish. Scudder again after lunch came and when he/she tried out drawing the fish, it dawned to him/her that there were new features that he/she was discovering then. After another serious look in the afternoon, he/she even noticed how shallow he/she had been with his/her previous observations. The following morning, he/she was even able to explain what he/she had seen but in a new way, which was actually what the professor was trying to teach him/her. As time passed by with constant observation and of course with concentration, Scudder learnt more and more. We can conclude that he/she actually would learn everything about the fish if he/she were given more time. Scudder changed from just seeing what the ordinary eye could see to now seeing beyond and even being able to explain the observations. He/she also changed and learnt to be patient and persistent in his/her learning. Scudder also changed from just being a mere learner into an expert about the field of study. Scudder developed a lot of interest and gained a lot of knowledge in that field of study, something he/she could not do before and would now do more than what was expected of a learner. Professor Agassiz’s method of teaching was very effective from my point of view. This is due to the positive effects it has caused to Scudder as a leaner. Firstly, it gives the learner an ample time to be able to learn by them; like what he did to Scudder when he always assigned him/her and went out for long hours leaving him/her to work by him/her. Secondly, it enhances the spirit of research and innovation in the learner. This is manifest when we see Scudder discover new features that without the aid of anybody else. Thirdly, the method is effective since it aims at making the learner gain interest in the field of study. This is fundamental to a learner first before he/she begins the lessons. The repetitive work of observing the specimen for many hours familiarizes the learner with whatever he/she is studying. This helps the leaner to grasp the concept properly rather than just rushing in introducing very many ideas at once. Building arguments The author claims that Indians do not have a right their land. This follows his argument where he begins by portraying them as animals rather than human. He goes further to say that, the right to have land is only for human. This “fact” therefore shows that Indians have no right to their land. He defines the Indians as animals who are vulgarly called Indians. This helps him to convince the reader that these so-called Indians are not actually human but are more of animals. Now that he proposes that land is only for human, the above definition helps him to prove that the Indians do not have a right to their land since they are not human. He first refers to the Indians as animals and goes further to say that revelation told man to till land and yet the Indians never till it; an enough proof that they are not human. He even says that long ago he had published a dissertation denying them to have a right in the soil. Primogeniture is the right by custom of the firstborn male child to inherit the family estate in preference to siblings. In case there are no children, inheritance passed to collateral relatives, usually males, in order of seniority of their lines of descent. The eligible descendants of deceased elder siblings take precedence over living younger siblings, such that inheritance is settled in the manner of a depth-first search. The argument however seems unfair. This is because Indians are actually human and not animal as the author is putting it. It actually disparages the Indian race, which is not a good thing as such. I attribute some interpretations with respect to the servants, indecently referred to as donkeys. A servant simply helps you to do what you otherwise would not be able to do due to maybe other commitments or other reasons. He/she is expected to be obedient and friendly at the same time. In addition, he/she should be reliable. How many times have these servants performed their duties as expected? If anything, they should be treated in a more special way than cats and dogs in terms of housing and feeding because they are not of value as compared to this servant. References Mayfield, Marlys. Thinking for Yourself, 9e, 9th Edition. Cengage Learning, 01/2013. Vital Book file. Read More