Assertion Analysis #6

" I am tired of fighting. Our Chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead, Ta Hool Hool Shute is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are - perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my Chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever"- Chief Joseph

Chief Joseph is giving a speech about how he is tired of fighting, and wants to fight no more. Many of his people are dying, many are already gone. The old men have all died and only young are left. It is also winter in this time of war, and it has become so cold that they are not only dying of war but also of cold. He can no longer handle all the deaths that have happened and he wants to stop the fighting for all those who are still left can flee and attempt to avoid death. He no longer wants to be in war, he wishes for those who remain alive to stay alive, so there with be no more pain. The war has brought his heart to be sick and sad. He wants to end the fight and go on to find those who have run away before and see if they are still alive. Chief Joseph hopes for the tribe to back down of the fight and run away to be safe and out of harm's way. 

Chief Joseph seems to have a negative tone. He lacks hope, is depressed and continue to use the words death and dead. He uses colloquial speech, by being simple so that everyone understands what he is saying. He uses syntax by giving descriptions and then going to his main point. His syntax also includes exclamation, he yells for the people to here  what he has to say. Chief Joseph uses imagery when describing the things that are happening around him such as "freezing to death" and "among the dead." When using imagery Chief Joseph also uses pathos and draws out emotions from the crowds heart to convince them that a lot of damage has been done and that they should stop to fight to avoid more harm. He uses diction in repeating words like dead, tired, fighting, no, killed, and  freezing. He also uses diction by speaking in first person. His speech sets the readers/listeners mood to that of depression, sadness, and possibly sympathetic due to the diction he uses. He also uses logos by using reasoning to convince his audience, such as the freezing children. And lastly he uses ethos by taking ownership in the problem by using "my" and "I." Chief Joseph uses all 3 forms of persuasion for people to stop fighting. 

Assertion Analysis: #5

“Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we had no delinquents. Without a prison, there can be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys and therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.”- John Lame Deer (Lakota)

In Lakota's assertion he is talking about the value of people and how things were changing at the white mans arrival. The white man came to the land and brought their ideas of wealth. It was quite confusing to the natives, because they were used to sharing, and giving to others, the total opposite to the white civilization. Their idea of "civilized" was quite surprising to the natives because if such things were to be done in their society, it would be morally incorrect. The white man ideal causes for negative things, while the Native ways are quite positive. The white man civilization "cheats and swindles one another," and encourages ideas of "private property" and of everything's mine. On the other hand, natives had no prison, no lawyers, no politicians, no money, no wealth, no locks, nor keys, and would help the poor. He claims that according to white men they were "uncivilized" but to the natives the white form of civilization was quite horrific.  

Lakota also uses rhetorical and literary devices such as syntax, anaphora, tone, parallelism, connotation, imagery, logos, and pathos. He uses syntax by structuring his sentences by listing reasons and giving descriptions before he makes his point."No written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians," in this section of the quote Lakota uses anaphora when listing this, giving equal importance to everything he lists after the first term. He uses parallelism through the text by structuring his sentences and verbs in a way that gives great sound, and rhyme. He uses connotation when using the words "civilized and uncivilized," meaning he's being non-literal towards the matter. Lakota uses pathos at the beginning of his assertion when he talks about the poor man and how kind natives are, drawing emotion to the reader. At the same time Lakota uses Imagery, when he describes the whites natives ways of living. He uses logos in his assertion as well when he gives reasons why they wee said to be "uncivilized" and when he gives reason to why the white men where "civilized." One of the main rhetorical devices Lakota uses is tone. Throughout the whole assertion/quote Lakota uses a sarcastic tone when talking about the natives and how "uncivilized" they were. "We were really in bad shape before the white men arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.” In the last sentence of the assertion, one can tell Lakota is being sarcastic due to the diction he uses and as he had said before in previous context, it is quite obvious that the native way was far better than the white's civilization ideas. 

Argumentation #6 : Violence Isn't an Instinct

   In his novel Native Son, Richard Wright writes “Violence is a personal necessity for the oppressed...It is not a strategy consciously devised. It is the deep, instinctive expression of a human being denied individuality.”This is certainly true for Bigger Thomas, the main character of the novel who views whiteness as an aggressive and hostile force against him and many who find themselves stifled by oppression. But at the same time there are many in oppression who find non-violent ways to protest and fight against the social norms, laws, and bigotry that shackle them.   Write a response in which you support, refute, or qualify Wright's claim that violence is a personal necessity or an instinctive expression of humans being oppressed. Use examples from your readings, experiences, or knowledge to support your argument.

   Violence is the act of using physical force to potentially hurt, damage or kill someone or something. It is something that, unfortunately, many have had the chance to experience,  from the smallest acts to the greater ones.  Richard Wright claims that violence  is the reaction to people being oppressed, “Violence is a personal necessity for the oppressed...It is not a strategy consciously devised. It is the deep, instinctive expression of a human being denied individuality.”  However, that is not the case. There are thousands, millions, maybe even billions  of people who are being oppressed that do not result in violence. Sometimes there are those individuals that believe violence to be a form of expressing their oppression, but that is not the case for all mankind. 
   There are many ways in which people can respond to oppression, and violence is never the only way. Many people protest, and go with non-violent options. For example, Martin Luther King led a large group of African Americans in non-violent protests, and was successful. He, and many other African Americans were non-violent, although they were being really oppressed. Violence wasn't their first choice to their oppression, making Wright's claim incorrect.   
   Sometimes there can be times where non-violent protests turn violent. Wright said that instinctive expression of a human being denied individuality, but that violent instinct can be taken away. Although sometimes violence can take over, it can be oppressed. If violence were an instinctive act when being denied individual, then why didn't it occur before there was a big movement. Violence Cesar Chavez led a large group of farm workers protesting against being oppressed when it comes to work conditions. Although they tried really hard to keep their non-violence protests, violence at one point did come to be. However, it stopped. Violence can be oppressed, and be taken away all together, 
    Violence is not an "instinctive expression of a human being denied individuality." I'm pretty sure that many wouldn't resort to violence, when their mother is oppressing them. Violence is not our first instinct, we may think terrible things, but it isn't the first thing we resort to, well at least for many of us.

Argumentation #4: Anyone Can Be Successful

Henry Lyman Morehouse first coined the term "Talented Tenth" in 1896, just before the concept became popularized by W.E.B. Dubois. He defined the term as follows: “In the discussion concerning Negro education we should not forget the talented tenth man. An ordinary education may answer for the nine men of mediocrity; but if this is all we offer the talented tenth man, we make a prodigious mistake. The tenth man, with superior natural endowments, symmetrically trained and highly developed, may become a mightier influence, a greater inspiration to others than all the other nine, or nine times nine like them.” Write an response in which you support, refute, or qualify Morehouse's claim that the future success of the African American race in this country is dependent on the higher education (skill, ethics, culture, politics, art, etc.) of the top 10% of the African American population.  Use examples from your readings, experiences, or knowledge to support your argument.

   Morehouse claims that only 10% of the African American population will be successful in the future.  No one can predict the future. No one can one hundred percent know that a certain person will be successful. The most unexpected person, can be the most successful. Not everyone blooms early. One can guess but not know for sure if someone can be successful. No one knows for sure. Therefore, Morehouse's claim that only 10% of African Americans will be successful, is incorrect.
   Morehouse cannot claim that only 10% will be successful because he doesn't have evidence. Everyone has the opportunity to become successful. Everyone can become successful, meaning that it is highly possible that more than 10% can be successful. How can someone judge the talent of the other, without even letting them have an opportunity to bloom. One can never know for sure that the other 9 can't be just as smart as the "talented tenth." Until there can be evidence to prove Morehouse's point, people should refrain from excluding African Americans from a good education.
   All African Americans can become successful if they are given the opportunity. Forget the talented tenth, for all ten can achieve high goals, if they are given all equal opportunities. We are taught to take the opportunities that are right in front of us, if all African Americans are given the chance they can all succeed. The 54th Massachusetts Regiment, was given the chance to become the first African American regiment. They had the same teachings as any other white soldier, and were able to become great soldiers. If African Americans are given the opportunity, they can succeed just as well as any white man.
     All "Negros" can succeed, anyone can succeed, and Morehouse is just shooting down all of African Americans dreams to be successful in life.

Argumentation #5 Is There A Reason To Give Reparations?

Thomas Sowell, an Economist and Social Theorist has been consistently against the idea of reparations. Sowell said in a 2012 interview: “The people made worse off by slavery were those who were enslaved. Their descendants would have been worse off today if born in Africa instead of America. Put differently, the terrible fate of their ancestors benefited them. If those who were enslaved were alive, they would deserve huge reparations and their captors would deserve worse punishments than our laws allow. But death has put both beyond our reach. Frustrating as that may be, creating new injustices among the living will not change that.” 

Write an response in which you support, refute, or qualify Sowell's claim that the descendants of slaves have benefited from the fate of their ancestors and that the death of those ancestors has put the idea of reparation beyond our reach.Use examples from your readings, experiences, or knowledge to support your argument.

   It has been discussed many times before if the descendants of slaves deserve reparations. There are many arguments that fight for or against this idea. Thomas Sowell is one who believes that reparations are not needed for the descendants. He believes that "The people made worse off by slavery were those who were enslaved. Their descendants would have been worse off today if born in Africa instead of America." The descendants of slaves did not suffer the slaves past and they don't suffer today, therefore they is no need of reparations on behalf of their ancestors. 
   Descendants of slaves shouldn't push for reparations to those who had nothing to do with slavery itself. The descendants of slave owners today have no responsibility in paying back for the actions of their ancestors. The slaves descendants have no right to claim reparations to the slave masters descendants because slave owner descendants didn't benefit from slavery as slave descendants weren't damaged as their ancestors were. Claiming and giving reparations would make no change as the reparations are given to strangers of the salary itself.  If reparations were to be given it would only be "creating new injustices among the living..." (Thomas Sowell).  
   Slaves suffered, the descendants didn't. Descendants of slaves don't suffer today because they aren't treated unfairly as slaves did about 400-200 years ago. African Americans today have many opportunities to rise and be just as good or better than any other White person in America today. Minorities have many opportunities, maybe sometimes even more than the white population. In order for one to be able to take these opportunities, it is up to the person them self to decide to take action or not, at this point no one can blame the past for discrimination to African Americans today. Hoping for reparations will not get anyone anywhere, for hard work will actually help make a difference. 
   Reparations to the slaves themselves would of been proper. "If those who were enslaved were alive, they would deserve huge reparations and their captors would deserve worse punishments than our laws allow" (Thomas Sowell). Reparations to the salves themselves would of been ideal, and great actions would of been made. However, today slaves are no longer alive and running. The ancestors of slaves and their owners, should of took action into giving reparations, but they didn't. It is too late to give reparations now. African Americans today have been able to rise from slavery and overcome huge discrimination. Discriminations still exists, but it is not as huge as it was before. African Americans have many opportunities in America and have been able to overcome past obstacles and become great leaders of the United States. Reparations are not needed for, African Americans in America today can do fine on their own. 

Argumentation #2: Dear Mr. Dier . . .

Using Abraham Lincoln's movingly persuasive speech at the Gettysburg battlefield as a stylistic guide, Spend 12 or so lines trying to convince me to make a change in my life or to do something new. Your arguments can be mutually beneficial like taking a class field trip. Your arguments can be singularly embarrassing like dying and braiding my beard. Your arguments can be out of concern like improving physical and psychological well-being.

I need to be convinced. You need to convince me.

Mr. Dier you should watch Hadashi no Gen (Barefoot Gen). 

Barefoot Gen is a 1983 film on Japan after the U.S bombed Hiroshima. Similar to Chickamauga by Ambrose Bierce, the movie is in a child's point of view on the war. Gen Nakaoka was able to survive the bomb but is now living in a devastating world. The movie demonstrates the reality of war and how difficult living was for the Japnese after the various bombs.

The movie isn't just about the bomb. It's also about the reality of war. People don't truly understand how bad these bombs were to the Japanese. In American, we never focus on the bad we've done, but about how good America is. We won the war! We sent Japanese people to concentration camps, but we gave them reparations. We had slavery but we eventually set them free. Americans are indifferent towards the effects war takes on other countries because it never is touched or talked about. The United States ruined the lives of the Japanese, and it's certainly forgotten. Barefoot Gen is a great reminder on the reality of foreign war that is often neglected in this country.

Go watch some anime Dier. It will enlighten your life. :)

Argumentation #3: A Courageous Soldier? More Like a Coward!

In discussing the essence of a soldier it has been said that courage, above all things, is the first quality of a warrior; that there is no room for cowardice on the battlefield. In opposition, it has also been said that a coward is a hero with a wife, kids, and a mortgage. Think about these opposing views of the characteristics of a soldier, then write a response in which you explain your position on the relationship between courage and cowardice. Use examples from your readings, experiences, or knowledge to support your argument.

   Soldiers carry our honor, they are brave and heroes of the nation. However, are all these claims toward soldiers reality? Everyone has an Achilles heel, therefore soldiers can't be portrayed as perfect warriors. Many soldiers are your run of the mill cowards. They're as scared to guns and death as many other people. Vigor was once a soldier for the United States of America and was only 18 when he entered the war and left for Afghanistan. He was a brave lion in signing up for the war, but then became a rabbit at the face of war, full of fear and terror. At any opportunity he saw in being able to go home, he took it because it was a step forward to going back home. His home was safe and war was dangerous. The nation makes him, as well as many others, seem like the king of the forest when in reality all he was, was the lion from The Wizard of Oz, a coward. Soldiers go to war, knowing that the nation's future is in their hands and that it is their responsibility to fight for the nation in order for the country to be prosperous. At the face of war and battle, soldiers lose their senses and no longer fight for their nation, but for themselves. It no longer is a war for their country, but a war to save oneself. Soldiers lose to their fears and become wimps. This is the reality of war. No one wants to be on the battlefield, instead the sound of going home always sounds better. At home, one is protected and war is always unreliable. Soldiers are cowards that can't keep their promises because they always want to go home and not stay to fight for their nation. Their heart is always elsewhere. Soldiers are cowards that should have never signed up to be in the Army because all they ever were abe to demonstrate was their cowardice.