Neat People Vs Sloppy People Analysis
Neat People vs. Sloppy People meaning questions
1. I don’t know if I would agree on some of those things. It seems to me that neat people would be more productive.
2. Suzanne uses the word to amuse and entertain as a way to view our own self.
3. Yes, that all distinction between people are moral.
Grant and Lee meaning questions
1. Catton’s central purpose is to explain how Grant and Lee stood for
Opposing social forces. Though his remarks in paragraph 13 that the two generals differed in personality, he doesn’t expand on this observation.
The qualities he cites (daring, resourcefulness, and so on) seem traits
Not of personality but of character.
2. Lee an aristocrat from tidewater Virginia, believed in a leisure class of
Land owner responsible to their community and obliged to be models of virtue. Grant, son of a frontier tanner, held with self reliance, competition and a society in which the most resourceful will rise. Lee’s first loyalty was to his native soil; Grant’s was to the nation.
Lee’s commitment was to the agrarian society of the past; Grant’s, to an urban industrial future.
3.Both had “utter tenacity and fidelity,” “daring and resourcefulness.”
Most important, both possessed the ability to turn quickly from war to peace. They made possible a reconciliation of North and South, for which all later Americans are indebted to them.
4. Each by nature was a warrior of “utter tenacity and fidelity” (par. 14),
Who fought for the ideals of his people (10–11).
1. I don’t know if I would agree on some of those things. It seems to me that neat people would be more productive.
2. Suzanne uses the word to amuse and entertain as a way to view our own self.
3. Yes, that all distinction between people are moral.
Grant and Lee meaning questions
1. Catton’s central purpose is to explain how Grant and Lee stood for
Opposing social forces. Though his remarks in paragraph 13 that the two generals differed in personality, he doesn’t expand on this observation.
The qualities he cites (daring, resourcefulness, and so on) seem traits
Not of personality but of character.
2. Lee an aristocrat from tidewater Virginia, believed in a leisure class of
Land owner responsible to their community and obliged to be models of virtue. Grant, son of a frontier tanner, held with self reliance, competition and a society in which the most resourceful will rise. Lee’s first loyalty was to his native soil; Grant’s was to the nation.
Lee’s commitment was to the agrarian society of the past; Grant’s, to an urban industrial future.
3.Both had “utter tenacity and fidelity,” “daring and resourcefulness.”
Most important, both possessed the ability to turn quickly from war to peace. They made possible a reconciliation of North and South, for which all later Americans are indebted to them.
4. Each by nature was a warrior of “utter tenacity and fidelity” (par. 14),
Who fought for the ideals of his people (10–11).