For this Task I choose an excerpt from “Ordeal by Hunger the Story of the Donner Party”. I feel this particular piece of Non-Fiction gives us an eyewitness account of the tragic events suffered by the participants of the 1846 expedition to California by the Donner Party. The book is written by George Stewart who was a novelist and a professor of English at the University of California Berkeley campus. Stewart wrote mostly fiction but ventured into some non-fiction historical work on occasion. Mr. Stewart paints a very descriptive picture of the events as the search party reached the camp. He tells us that as Mr. Cody and Clark reached the first camp, they witnessed sighting Jean Baptiste who was carrying a severed human leg. (Stewart, 1936) Mr. Baptiste, upon sighting Cody and Clark, threw the leg back in the hole that contained the body of Jacob Donner. (Stewart, 1936) Stewart give’s a description of the condition of the body like that of a modern day police report. He describes facts like, the arms and legs are severed, the trunk is sliced open, and the heart and liver are missing. (Stewart, 1936) The book was written in 1936 when writers did not use strong descriptive language like that. I feel Stewart overtly described the scene to draw more attention to the story and sell more books. The descriptions didn’t need to be detailed to the point they were for the reader to understand the story.
Stewart’s subjectivity was that of an author describing the story to sell books. In another paragraph Mr. Stewart describes the words of the (housewife) who had claimed Mr. Baptiste was sent to borrow the food referring to the leg like it was a piece of meat purchased at a modern day grocery store. (Stewart, 1936) He could have communicated the story with less gore but he didn’t. In those few paragraphs I felt like I was listening to a carnival barter trying to sell me a ticket into the tent behind him to see the bearded lady.

My approach to a student who held a different subjectivity to that of my own would be to let them have their say on a matter. I would not let them know what my opinions are on the subject but, I would let them know that there are differences in opinions on most any subject. Most importantly I teach to form your own opinions not rely on what you hear from others. Research topics; know your source and, who are what they represent. As a critical thinker I believe we should take in as much information on a subject as we can get.

An example of my approach would be say we are talking in a US History class about Supreme Court decisions. The topic of Roe VS Wade and abortion legality comes up. I have a student who is visually upset and after raising his or her hand tells the class that their Father is a Baptist Minister and he teaches his congregation and family that taking any life is wrong and Doctors who perform them are going to hell. I grew up in a fairly liberal family. I had an Aunt who was raped as a teenager and was able to abort a pregnancy caused by the crime. I have always been a supporter of abortion because of this. Instead of letting my opinion on the subject get the best of me I would turn the matter into a learning experience. I have the particular student and, anyone else who was opposed give me reasons why abortion is bad. On the other side of my whiteboard I have students who are in favor give reasons why abortion is good. I would not tell those opposed or in favor that they are wrong but show the entire class that everyone has opinions on subjects and the best way to understand each other is to talk about our differences and how we arrive at the opinions we have on subjects.

In closing, I never tell a student they are wrong. I give them critical thinking tools that I have learned over the years. I tell them prior to having an opinion on a subject look at all the facts and, above all keep an open mind.

George Stewart, GS. (1936). Ordeal by hunger. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Page 215-216
(Stewart, 1936)