A Rhetorical Analysis Of The Protest And Riot In Charlottesville

In “Civil Disobedience”, Henry David Thoreau presents the idea that our current government is no longer serving the people and the only way we can work to improve it is through civil disobedience. Thoreau begins by explaining his discontentment with the American government. He states “that [a person] cannot without disgrace be associated with [the American government]. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also” (1). Thoreau is saying that he is ashamed of the American government and will not associate with a government that permits slavery. He goes on to say, the ways that the State has provided to change the law “take too much time, and a man’s life will be gone...It

In America, the land of the free, people believe that it’s the greatest place to be. And America would probably be what everyone believes, but it has a very serious problem that could eventually destroy the country as whole. America is built upon Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it has a strong equality issue that has to be taken care of. Equality is a social contract in America and unfortunately it is a broken one. A social contract is an agreement amongst the members of a society, but equality is a serious issue. Equality poses the biggest problem to America simply because in any country the people make the country, and if the people can’t get along either internal conflicts occur, or people eventually leave. Throughout America everyone regardless of race, color, or sexual orientation has experienced inequality in some part of America. Words are exchanged, fists are thrown, and in serious cases lives are lost because people are racists to one another. Equality is a broken social contract in America that will eventually be its demise if not attended to.

The point of the essay is to encourage the reader to act upon their opinions. Thoreau believes that simply having an opinion or casting a vote doesn’t cause change in the world, so it is important that people take the necessary steps to fix the problems they face as a society.

I believe civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws, usually without violence, but only if it’s to make a point. In Thoreau’s essay about civil disobedience, there were points made which I agreed with, but there were things that I disagreed with. Some points he made that I agreed with was that if someone wants something to change, they should do something and do it wholeheartedly. An additional point he made which I agreed with was to depend and think for one’s self. While he’s made points which I agreed with, there’s one I didn’t which was when he said that the military was programmed to do whatever the government says.

Martin Luther King, Jr. paved the way for the civil rights movement as he was unrelenting in his strive to eliminate segregation and the social system that upheld it. He fought for justice, freedom, and the equality of opportunity. He is famous for his use of civil disobedience to fight without fighting back, to accept the consequences of his defiances, and to use the initiatives of fellow citizens to act in opposition against the laws discriminating against people of color. King was an activist, but first, he was a pastor. He received a letter through the newspaper from other clergymen trying to discourage his efforts. Responding from a jail cell, King wrote a fifty paragraph letter on scraps of paper, justifying his cause and refuting their claims. In paragraphs fifteen to twenty-two, he specifically explains the effectiveness and necessity of his efforts. Martin Luther King, Jr. successfully justifies civil disobedience by utilizing logos developed through skillful syntax, and ethos built by thoughtful selection of detail.

We see brutality everywhere, we approach a problem with the easy way out, violence. That's the solution we all resort to when we see no change or when we feel that the injustices that have been done are too much to go unanswered for. Civil rights activist Cesar Chavez published an article claiming that nonviolent resistance has always been more beneficial than violent protest. Chavez’s purpose in this article is to advertise the negative effects of violence and provide a solution for it. In his article Chavez uses an inspirational and objective tone to illustrate how the effects of nonviolent resistance over time outweigh those of violent protest, he creates an appeal to emotion, logic, and authority to persuade followers of God, minorities, and people who have suffered injustices that have gone unanswered for. Chavez uses many rhetorical devices, the most prominent being: repetition, rhetorical questions and allusions to explain why nonviolence protest is better to accomplish their efforts.

Published by the New York Times under the Opinion section, the audience for this article is any interested reader. At the time it was released, November 18th, 2016, this article arrived during last year’s elections, in which a large, but surprising number of Americans voted for candidate Donald Trump, shocking many forecasters who had predicted otherwise. Therefore, after the election, many people may have been researching the demographics of the election, and this article, which briefly shared Brooks’ opinion on the nature of the election and how viewing others through the lens of a dominant identity influenced how the votes fell where they did, may have caught a keen reader’s eye. Also, this article came at a time where racism and prejudice caused many problems, leading some to view others as one-dimensional, represented only by a skin color or religion. Since prejudice and hate is still a large issue today, tackling this problem helps make this article relevant, nearly a year after its release.

As a result, another term must be used to refer to the power and domination that white people have over minorities; therefore, in this paper I will use the term "white supremacy" as opposed to "racism." In the Constitution, in slavery, and even in our cities today, white supremacy has been prevalent throughout our history. White supremacy and black inferiority are the two main problems that our cites face today; once white supremacy and black inferiority are ended in our country, then the majority of the problems in our cities will cease to exist.

Henry David Thoreau was a simplistic man and philosopher well known for his attacks on American controversies. Thoreau was full of opinions and had many problems with the way the United States was run. He had strong opposition towards slavery and spoke his mind when it came to politics. Especially when it came to the Mexican American war, which he heavily disliked. Ralph Waldo Emerson heavily influenced him, and introduced him to the ideas of transcendentalism, a philosophy vital to Thoreau's way of thinking and writing. Thoreau was not an agitator. He did not believe that there shouldn’t be a government, but only a better one than currently existed. The government would not improve itself, so he argued; it was a patriotic man's duty to refuse to support it.

On June 11,1963 at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, John F. Kennedy delivered “The Civil Rights Address” on this day he was trying to get the message to the people that everyone in the United States should be equal and have equal rights.

In their declaration, “Declaration and Protest of the Woman of the United States” (1876). The National Woman Suffrage Association, a group determined to give women the right to vote argue they should have a fair say in elections. Two main leaders and supporters of this group included Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony. The NWSA first supports their claim by actually writing an Articles of Impeachment against the U.S. Government for violating their fundamental principles. Portions of the Articles of Impeachment include things among, better legislation for women, the issue of unequal sex codes, the right of judiciary of the nation, the written document of the writ of habeus corpus, taxation without representation, the Bill of Attainder,

In the article “On Growing Up In Ferguson and Palestine” by Naomi Shihab Nye, the author uses rhetorical devices in many places to make the reader think about things. These Rhetorical questions consist of “What could we do?”, “Why didn't the news examine those back stories more?”, “If the U.S. can’t see that Palestinians have been mighty oppressed since 1948, they really are not interested in looking, are they?”, “Why is that harder for people to see about Gaza?”, “What if they could all march together?”, “Will things change for Gaza?”, “And what gets better? Will the United States ever speak out in solidarity with scores of exhausted people burying their dead, staring up with stunned eyes mystified?”.

Part one of three of Civil Disobedience simplifies some basic ideas of how and why the government could be better, Thoreau establishes his point of view in the opening paragraph by establishing almost instantly that he believes in a weak government, his opening paragraph is basically his expression of the government doing its best when not being governed “at all” as stated in sentence 2. Thoreau expresses his speech upon how the government would function in retrospect to its own advantage, if it was not taking complete control. The way Thoreau expresses his thoughts upon the government is by using facts about what he knows about the government and the history of a well functioning government, to support the idea of a “better government” in which does not completely function. Instead of asking for no government, Thoreau's objective is to demand a better one.

Henry David Thoreau’s argument in civil disobedience makes the government more accountable, laws are made to justify the truth, but Thoreau believed that violence is not an answer to solve problems. Often Americans use the government as a solution to many of the problems the United States has but really the Americans are the problem using the government to take control over violence and use the government as violence based solutions. “Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it.” (Thoreau). By simply disobeying the government's unjust attitude and policies this creates a movement as well as non violence, therefore it will eventually have a trickling effect and turn a single drop

The idea of justice can be arbitrary. It can generally be decided based on what is deemed fair by the people, and most of the time, by the lawmakers. However, Henry David Thoreau argues in his essay Civil Disobedience that the use of moral conscience to discern unjust laws, especially from the government, and to peacefully resist them, is what serves true justice. Having been imprisoned once due to his refusal to pay the Massachusetts poll tax that supports the war against Mexico, Thoreau, as a Transcendentalist, started writing in his journal about the laws that the government imposes on its people to support unjust causes (Jacobus 134). Civil Disobedience discusses a relevant historical context— the widespread slavery and the Mexican War