Introduction: The celebration of independence on the Fourth of July fails to address the lack of independence for the black community, as Frederick Douglass explained from the point of view as a slave.
Narration: While the Fourth of July recognizes the independence earned by the United States in 1776, Douglass claims that this “independence” was far from equal; as it only really applied to those who were white. Slavery remained for another 100 years, and at the time of Douiglass’ speech, was still prevalent, and he focused on this injustice rather than the achievements held a century before. Division: Some may say that the Fourth of July does not directly oppress the black or slave community, but the ignorance behind the unsolved wrongdoings of slave owners or those who turned their heads, does account for blatant racism and insensitivity. Because the entirety of America was not “free”, it was wrong to celebrate this holiday for liberty. Proof: Douglass acknowledges the significance of this day, but explains how he, along with the rest of the black community, is not included in this anniversary. They did not gain independence that day, and it was wrong to celebrate this day for such. Refutation: The only other side of this debate is the outright ignorance of the injustices held during the United States’ victory in 1776, and in the following years. Conclusion: Overall, Douglass is exemplary in defining the ignorance behind the Fourth of July in America, as slaves were still not free.
1 Comment
In the private conversation between John Proctor and Abigail in Betty’s bedroom,
Abigail's desired outcome is to convince John Proctor she is innocent from witchcraft. John: I have heard rumors among the townspeople of witchcraft happening in the woods late last night, which is where you and Betty were, were you not? Abigail, defensively: We were in the woods last night, but that accusation is far from the truth, we were only dancing. When our uncle saw, Betty was spooked, that is all. She is not right in the head at the moment, but that does not mean witchcraft is to blame for her poor health. Flirtatiously, Don’t you believe me, John? (seduction) John: No, Abby, that is done with. Abigail: I stay up for you every night, waiting for you to come and give me affection and love like we have done before. John: You should not stay up waiting, I will not come around. Abigail, angry and hurt: Why not? Have you not taken interest in me? John: I have. With this, Abigail embraces John. No, Abby. I have a wife. We cannot go there, nor do I desire to. Abigail: Your wife spreads awful lies about me! You, as good of a man as you are (values), should not be married to someone so deceitful. You and I have been together before. John: We have done no such thing, Abby, and how dare you speak about my wife in that manner? Abigail: Yes, we have done such intimate things! You love me John, admit it. Your wife does not deserve you. You should not believe her or obey her any longer. John, fed up: Enough, Abby. Abigail, pleading: Please, John, believe me. These rumors are all simply lies. I have not been involved in witchcraft of any kind, nor has Betty. You still love me (present tense), as you did before, whether you believed it was right or wrong. Take pity on me, John, please! 1. Camille A. Langston’s main claim is that the way to accomplishing change is through symbouleutikon, or deliberative rhetoric with the subcategories being ethos, logos, and pathos. 2. I think the author chose this claim to distinguish between the different types of rhetoric, including epideictic and judicial, and to emphasize which one is effective in persuasion. 3. The tone of the video is encouraging and animated. Langston speaks positively about her topic, and is encouraging in sharing and proving her claim.4. The intended audience is writers or speech givers that have an argument they need to talk about. Langston gives many pieces of advice for utilizing rhetoric skills in persuasive writing and speech to get one's intended response. 5. The author arranges her ideas by first giving an overview of the topic, and then diving into three different categories of rhetoric and the subcategories of one of those types. Langston briefly explains the usage of these three persuasive techniques, listing real life, often historic, examples as she goes. 6. She establishes her credibility by listing several real life public figures who were successful in using these rhetoric techniques, including Martin Luther King Jr. and Ronald Reagan. Because she proves her claim with a variety of examples from all points in history, it is almost impossible not to trust what she is saying. 7. The writer wants to invoke inspiration among the reader. This is shown by the advice she gives in hopefully inspiring and teaching writers how to persuade others better. 8. Langston arranges her argument by giving facts and informing the audience about her topic first, then using real world examples to prove why the strategies she listed are most effective. Also, she discusses in depth how to use each one, so there are no questions the audience may have when the video is over. 9. The author discussed a multitude of rhetorical strategies, two of those being as listed. Langston herself uses ethos flawlessly, mentioning example on top of example that has happened in the real world. She uses big name historical figures like MLK and Aristotle so that it is illogical to not believe her claims. The author also goes into detail about how to use pathos, or emotion, to evoke the intended response out of one's argument. She explains how today it is often the most effective mood because of mass media. 10. Depending on the situation or audience, I can focus my deliberative rhetoric on one of the three subcategories, ethos, logos, or pathos, to persuade my audience into the ideal response. By analyzing the people I am trying to convince as well as the purpose of my claim, I can use these different rhetoric strategies to my specific advantage.
|