Hi, everyone.
For Tuesday's in-class analysis, here are your concepts and questions. On Tuesday, I will ask you to spend a few minutes with your partner discussing the "general concepts" that are relevant for the genre you have chosen to analyze, and finding explicit examples in the text. However, please spend most of your time talking through and composing your post. We will break for discussion after the "synthesis" questions.
General concepts:
- the writer's main claim and supporting evidence
- Kaufer conflict levels (or value pairs) (58-60)
- use of analogies (Kaufer 62) or possible competing analogies (Kaufer 63-66)
- examples of stylistic objectivism, equal-time, or person-as-function (K/S 158-160, 163-164)
- relationship of human to the environment on the continuum of perspectives (K/S 171)
- important terms or definitions that carry value in the argument
- forwarding -- illustrating, authorizing, borrowing, or extending (Harris 39-48)
Synthesis questions:
Wells-Barnett's "Lynch Law in America": How does Wells-Barnett push the limits of journalism by drawing so much on the history of lynching to make her argument? Based on how she uses historical evidence, on what stasis level is most of her argument constructed, and how does this support her whole aim? What are one or two key terms whose definitions you think she means to challenge? To help you develop your response, use 1-2 passages that demonstrate the relevant concepts above.
Savio's “Free Speech Movement”: Savio references names and makes allusions to places, book titles, and current events. What role could these references and allusions play in his argument? How do they help him argue, or achieve his whole aim? (Please answer specifically, and look up any references that are unfamiliar to you.) To help you develop your response, use 1-2 passages that demonstrate the relevant concepts above.
Bullard's "Race Response": How does Bullard's lecture present other possibilities for response than just agree/disagree? Based on how he uses historical evidence, on what stasis level is most of his argument constructed, and how could this support his whole aim? What are one or two key terms whose definitions you think he means to challenge? To help you develop your response, use 1-2 passages that demonstrate the relevant concepts above.
Kellin, Tak, and Rebekah: Lynch Law in America
ReplyDeleteWells moves beyond the idea that journalism primarily uses specific, very current events and the "who what where when why" sort of approach. She uses extensive historical records to build a complex social argument against lynching. (Lynching is certainly a key term of which she challenges the definition.) She complicates the definition of lynching by demonstrating that it is not simply a Southern US racial issue. It permeates Westward expansion, social and cultural values, law, justice, economy, and politics.
Wells argues in the stases of definition and fact (statistics, history) and then builds the higher stases (cause, ethics and proposal) once the previous two have been established. Her aim is to convince her audience that this issue is far graver and far more complex than originally thought - she must argue in the definition and fact stases so she can establish a common understanding with the audience, and so that she can then she can go on to higher stases to provide a way to solve this issue. She also appeals to shared cultural values (like bravery).
Wells also challenges the ideas of a "fair trial" and "justice," as they are defined by Southern white culture. "No matter what our laws presume, every man is innocent until proven guilty; no matter that it leaves a certain class of individuals completely at the mercy of the other class..."
This passage paired with "If a white woman declared herself insulted or assaulted, some life must pay the penalty, with all the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition." She makes the assertion that the status quo does not follow the basic principles of US justice and law. "All the negro asks is justice -a fair and impartial trial in the courts of the country." She asserts that this issue effects the entire American nation.
According to Wells, the issue of lynching is neither easily explained nor easily solved, however, it is imperative that it be solved. It is not a cultural or regional issue; rather it is one that is a shame for all Americans.
Kimberly/Jeff/Megan
ReplyDeleteOctober 12, 2010
Lynch Law in America
Wells-Barnett “pushes the limits of journalism” by backing up her claims with statistical trends in a historical context, as facts/solid data are crucial to the audience’s validation of the journalist. She is able to imply that states which were considered slave states during the Civil War lynches more often than “free states” by using a table/list of lynchings by state. States with double-digit totals (Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, etc.) have a distinct history of slavery in their states within 35 years of the date of the article’s publication.
We would say that Wells-Barnett is functioning on a high stasis level because of the liberal use of historical context, information, and statistics. The article is hardly anything else, save for choice lines of opinion. The piece seemed very much like an encyclopedic history of lynching, which definitely helped her support her whole aim. Lynching, as an act, will ultimately come down to individual opinions that will vary (the performer, the “judge,” the convicted), so having a large dose of factual context and explanation helps the reader place trust in her work.
Wells-Barnett means to challenge the definition of “lynch,” not surprisingly. She does not see a “lynching” as proper execution for a serious crime through the legal system, but instead, a calculated and deliberate ignorance of the law meant to be used unjustly. Lynchings are immediate and often unjustified at the satisfaction of the person(s) carrying them out:
“Our country's national crime is lynching. It is not the creature of an hour, the sudden outburst of uncontrolled fury, or the unspeakable brutality of an insane mob. It represents the cool, calculating deliberation of intelligent people who openly avow that there is an "unwritten law" that justifies them in putting human beings to death without complaint under oath, without trial by jury, without opportunity to make defense, and without right of appeal.”
Another definition she is likely to challenge is the word “brave.” She mentions its importance in the national anthem, yet how men of the time period forfeited that honor with their lynching actions:
“Brave men do not gather by thousands to torture and murder a single individual, so gagged and bound he cannot make even feeble resistance or defense. Neither do brave men or women stand by and see such things done without compunction of conscience, nor read of them without protest.”
Wells-Barnett's article "Lynch Law in America" pushes the limits of journalism by taking an investigative approach in talking about an "unwritten law" that probably was not discussed openly before. She not only reveals the lynchings and forces the public to acknowledge them, but she even quotes statistics and not only concentrates on the horrible violence and injustice of them, but compares them to international incidents that were treated much differently because they involved foreigners.
ReplyDeleteWells-Barnett uses almost all the stasis levels in discussing lynching, but she does go from low to high, from talking about what lynching is and why it started and who started it to the repercussions and the ethics of lynching roughly fifty years after it had become an "acceptable" form of execution. This supports her aim, which is to reveal lynching as an unjust and abused form of execution for fabricated crimes or as a punishment doesn't fit the crimes and only helps to further racial prejudices. The gradual change in her level of stases helps her further explain this aim and also ensure to persuade the reader.
The terms that she redefines are lynching and the idea of the North being a refuge for African Americans. She begins her article by saying "Our country's national crime is lynching" and this indicates that not only is lynching not seen as justice, but it is widespread. She says the "unwritten law" began with the gold rush in the wilds of the "far West" where there was no law for "rough, rugged, and determined men" and was a fit crime for "[emergencies]" and it continued when "the spirit of mob procedure seemed to have fastened itself upon the lawless classes". She redefines lynching and the North and West as "safe" territory for African Americans by pointing out that not even the North or West is free from mob lynches and then continues by listing all the statistics and the stories of the victims.
The date during the publishing of Savio's article is 1964, right in the middle of the civil rights movement. Savio allures to his experiences from the civil rights struggles in both Mississippi and UC Berkley. He draws on these experiences and other examples to achieve his aim that American society must continue to progress from the continuing thought that we are static in our ways now. He uses the civil rights struglles, job loss to show that society is not perfect and that there are still people "coming to the front today showing that they will rather die than become standardized, replaceable, and irrelevant." Kreigh and John
ReplyDeleteLacey, Dipti
ReplyDeleteWe definitely think that he is polarizing in the beginning but at the end when he switches his moves to political rhetoric not involving himself whereas in the beginning he’s trying to persuade that he’s part of the community. For example, “and we know who works at the post office, mostly people who look like me, was not notified until several days later”.
We think that Bullard is moving from lower stasis of fact to the higher stasis of procedure and value by giving example of different disaster that has occurred and the steps that were taken toward rescue. We think that his aim is to let the readers realize the need for equality between different race and socio-economic status.
More often, he uses words like “racism”, and “discrimination” and by emphasizing this language; he is trying to challenge the government and their choices. We have chosen the last paragraph on page 3 where he talks how not helping the poor and people of color affects the “political strength and political power.”
Elizabeth & Aaron
ReplyDeleteBullard works toward a larger understanding in regards to government corruption and how these small examples of inequality have collective impacts in our trust of government and our trust of one another. The stasis of cause is addressed through Bullard's questioning of why the debris of Hurricane Alicia was moved from one neighborhood to another, how is the problem solved? Bullard uses an example like this to further his argument about how black citizens are treated unequally in regards to these natural disasters and the response by the federal government to the black citizens.
"It means that the disasters that hit communities oftentimes are less than, in terms of their damage, than the post-disaster kind activities."
The point that the government organizations want to help one wealthier group first demonstrates the inequality and more importantly, the man made problems that become far more complex and destructive than the actual natural disaster itself. In other words failure of the government to respond properly not only destroys the people's trust in the government, but the trust communities have in one another as each sub-community and person is further pressured into an 'every man for himself' or ultra capitalist mentality.
Professor Robert Bullard argues that history has proven that the American government discriminates and undervalues the African American population. He uses examples of natural disasters and the governmental response as a means of conveying the extent of the racism within the government. He utilizes the stasis of value in making this claim by providing evidence that the government responds differently to the needs of African Americans and whites. He mentions a lawsuit that black farmers filed against the USDA for being "mistreated and discriminated against" in receiving loans and hurricane relief money. Bullard states that the farmers won the case because the discrimination was undeniable and obvious. He argues that most people expect the government to treat all citizens fairly, but the sad, harsh reality is that racism is still largely present. This realization that he creates for his audience works to also push the audience to demand that the government live up to the ideology that it is compared to. Although he does not outright make this statement, he is not arguing whether or not the racism is present in the government, but rather that "this is not some entity. This is not a corporation. This is the U.S. government," and the American people need to step up and hold the government to this ideal.
ReplyDeleteKyla Tosti & Tim Mattingly
ReplyDeleteProfessor Bullard presents his argument by exposing the problem communities face after environmental disasters. He methods of conveying information allow for audiences to consider the reality of the devastation and pushes the limits of arguing racial prejudices. His argument is not meant for the audience to agree/disagree rather it is meant to convey an emotional appeal that will cause the audience to understand rather than pass racial judgements
.Bullard challenges the definition of government, arguing against the preconceived notions that many Americans have that it is an all-powerful entity, always doing good, never faltering. He proposes the idea to his assumedly uninformed audience that the government is not what they think it is. He lumps the Red Cross into this category, saying, “In many of our communities in Mississippi, the Red Cross was not the Red Cross, it was the White Cross.” What more of a challenge of definition than to literally change the name, and change the name to something implying that something that is seemingly very helpful is actually a racist organization.
Ben and Lily
ReplyDeleteSavio uses literary and event references throughout his speech in order to help audience members identify with the gravity and type of problems he felt he was facing at the University of California, Berkley. He uses the literary references to the Novel, A Brave New World and to the Austro-Hungarian writer Franz Kafka to shed light on the nature of the impersonal and needlessly complex bureaucracy in seen in the administration of the University. He also compares the problems he sees to those faced by the civil rights movement in Missisippi happening at the same time.
He argues that the problems faced by the civil rights protesters in Mississippi is not so different from the problems faced by members of the student body. He feels that their "political expression" was being suppressed just as the political rights of blacks in Mississippi were being stifled. This serves to further his aim because an onlooker might not believe his case to be anywhere near the level of injustice as the civil rights movement. By equating the two, he brings relevance and interest to his cause.
Kafkaesque refers to a situation which is needlessly complicated and bizarre. Savio uses this term to describe the difficulty he faced in attempting to communicate with the administration of the university. He specifically relates to a meeting with the Dean of Students in which he was unable to have a meaningful conversation. He writes, "It is very hard to make any contact with the human being who is behind these organizations.
A Brave New World was a novel written in the early part of the 20th century that depicts a future in which an impersonal bureaucracy molds the members of the society into cookie cutter citizens indistinguishable from one another. He sees this same process happening to the students at his university with the university administration taking the place of the impersonal bureaucracy. He writes, "The must suppress the most creative impulses that they have... turn out people with all the sharp edges worn off.