Analysis Of Johwitzgebel's Argument

In this essay, I will discuss chapter 12 and how it relates to Donald Trump. Discrimination is behaving differently, usually unfairly, toward the members of a group. Stereotypes are widely held beliefs that people have certain characteristics because of their membership in a particular group. Donald Trump gave a variety of speeches and after listening to his personal beliefs, I believe Donald Trump is racist. Donald Trump believes that Muslims are terrorists and they need to be kept far away from the United States. Also he bashes African-Americans and insults women. Donald Trump insulted all Muslim women which is a form of stereotyping when he said "Look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say.

Practically everyone in the story has a hidden agenda for his or her actions. The protagonist, a 22-year-old named Helga, was a teacher at an institute of higher learning called Naxos where the true agenda was not education but instead was teaching Blacks their accepted status in life—lower than that of Whites. She became convinced that she needed to leave Naxos after hearing a speech from a visiting white preacher whose remarks she found offensive. The preacher stated that if everyone acted like those from Naxos “there would be no race problem, because Naxos Negros knew what was expected of them” because they “knew enough to stay in their places” (Larsen 1724). At the beginning of the story, the reader would feel sympathy towards the workers at Naxos, who truly believed they were preparing the students for better lives and sympathy for Helga who tried to convince the new principle, Dr. Anderson, as to the true state of affairs. Helga failed to realize, however, that Dr. Anderson was aware of the situation at Naxos but felt that for change to occur there needed to be “more people like you, people with a sense of values, and proportion, an appreciation of the rarer things of life” (Larsen 1735). Helga mistakenly became offended at Dr. Anderson’s compliment by calling her “a lady” with “dignity and breeding” because of her belief that being able to trace one’s ancestry was more important that one’s actions (Larsen 1735).

Gruwell taught her class about the Holocaust, the genocide of Jews. While learning about this major event in class the students were able to see how another person’s hatred affected someone’s life. They saw that many of the victims did not survive and were killed simply because of their race. This drew a parallel for the students to see how their hatred and violence against each other was senseless. In the same way Hitler killed Jews because of their race, they were killing each other. From learning about the Holocaust the students were able to step outside from their own personal norms, and examine a situation from a new or different

Although he was uneducated, drunk, racist, and abusive, Pap believed he was inherently superior to most people. He was repulsed by anybody who had more than he did, especially somebody who was black. He said, “Thinks I, what is the country a-coming to? It was 'lection day, and I was just about to go and vote myself if I warn't too drunk to get there; but when they told me there was a State in this country where they'd let that nigger vote, I drawed out. I says I'll never vote ag’in,” (34). Pap detested a biracial professor for having opportunities equal to those of whites. He even suggests that the government “put him up for auction and sell him” (35). Pap’s belief in innate white superiority displays his hypocritical character: despite his complete lack of character he still believes he is more worthy than the biracial

He then speaks specifically of segregation, describing it as unjust. Because it is a law that a majority forces the minority to follow while exempting itself from it, it is a law worth breaking. Further, because Alabama’s laws work to prohibit

Discrimination is another key concern for the author as he is struggling to overcome poverty, racism and intolerance. Discrimination comes in many different forms and is defined by the textbook as being any behavior directed against persons because of their membership in a particular group. As a young man Williams experienced many acts of discrimination directed towards both himself and his family. For example, after fishing one evening Carl wanted a soda but couldn?t get one from the drive-in they were passing because ?blacks were barred from the drive-in like every down-town restaurant? (Williams, 225). Another example of discrimination appears in the text when Black students were unable to obtain teaching positions once they graduated from Ball State University because of the color of their skin.

The author says that defenders and supporters of Lincoln can always back up his remarks with a redeeming quality. Lincoln admitted his feelings of racial equality; instead he always stated the feeling of white people. He didn’t always carefully construct his answers when speaking about his position of certain topics, although he tried. Lincoln wanted all questions about race removed from all discussion. His strategy to do so was to agree with the Democratic Party that there was no equality between blacks and whites. He used racism strategically to eliminate it. Lincoln did admit that he was in support of colonization because he truthfully believed that blacks and whites could not live together equally. To a man like Frederick Douglass, what Lincoln and the Republicans stood for was disjointed. And to me, while this may have all been a strategy for Lincoln, I feel it necessary to take Douglass’ side of the issue.

The author uses a logos argument to prove his point. Blake gives an example of white prejudicial biasing

Williams makes very strong points and claims within the excerpt however one her most recognizable ones is on page 10 the first paragraph and last sentence Williams states “The noisy, racial chasm still yawn darkly beneath us all, but we few brave souls glide gingerly above, upon a skim of hope, our bodies made light with denial, the black pond so dangerously and thinly iced with the conviction that talking about it will only make things worse.” Williams claim in this is clear: not talking about racism will only continue to add to the fire which will only make the situation worse. Not talking about racism is letting a pot stir and allowing racism to grow beneath our noses. When we don’t speak on racism it slows down the process of us advancing as a world. Many white people were taught that talking about racism is racist so they tend to shy away conversations that evolve around race without knowing they are involuntary apart of the problem by refusing to recognize the issue.

Mrs. Nelson is writing about the recent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, where many white supremacists are protesting with former KKK member to get their ¨country back.¨ Nelson is writing to the American people who are staying silent. Nelson is telling them to stand up and speak out against open racism. Nelson talks about how her ancestors, slaves, were never treated right. Nelson talks about how many things still did not change. Nelsons tone throughout the article was angry. Nelson seemed very upset about the situation. Nelson herself is African American which makes her a credible person to write this article. The author argues U.S citizens need to stand up against racism, and she supports her argument with her angry tone, implicit claims about privilege, and appeals to pathos.

The presumption that exists here interrelates with the idea of structural racism because it demonstrates you telling your friend to behave a certain way because society deems black men suspicious. The suggestion is also fundamentally flawed in because in being “responsible for the actions of your neighbor” you suggest to your friend to change his behaviour, but his behaviour was not flawed at all. By looking at this flawed logic we can see a commentary on the acceptance of structural racism and people of colour is suggested to change their behaviour and how that idea is at best something thought of “clumsily”. This passage also demonstrates the overly visibility of your friend, because he was black he sought attention from the neighbour and his suspicious. Making him a ‘distinguishable other’ when he was on the front yard, And because of that distinguishability the treatment he received was also distinguished.

His point is that it is extremely unjust that there needs to be laws passed for black people to be treated like the humans that they are. Unless the African American society can share the same rights as white Americans, then blacks cannot be rightfully be called Americans.

In “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” Hannah Arendt analyzes Adolph Eichmann while he is on trial in Jerusalem for the crimes that he committed while being a Lieutenant Colonel in the SS during the Nazi Regime. In the book Arendt talks about how Eichmann’s actions were “banal” in the sense that he seemed to be an ordinary person who just committed acts that were evil. Italian-Jewish Writer Primo Levi, a Holocaust Survivor, states that SS officers like Eichmann lived in their own self-deception that made them believe that their actions were caused by just following their orders in the SS. In this paper, I will analyze the views that both Arendt and Levi had about the Eichmann trial and then compare and state the differences of their views. I will then explain the reasons why both Hannah Arendt’s and Primo Levi’s analysis of Adolph Eichmann that show that the actions that he committed were all truly evil actions.

The book’s character’s main problem is finding individuality in racism. For the duration of the book, the narrator is constantly fighting racism and stereotypes. Ellison put many examples in the book to help show the character’s fight to be seen equal. Ellison shows that, through the character himself, that you can not tell people who to be. However, Ellison throws curves at the narrator that challenges

In the context of this argument, discrimination is the unjust treatment of groups of people, specific in this argument, women and racial minorities. Discrimination often involves unfair denial of opportunity to a woman or minority from a source of power. While discrimination is wrong, it is not all the same and it does not all come from the same source. Discrimination can stem from things like emotions, specifically fear or hatred, rules and laws, and society. To compare discrimination, you must be comparing situations with the same cause. Comparing discrimination with different causes does not work since they are not coming from the same foundation. Comparison needs the same foundation so similarity in the situations are taken into consideration. The cause is a big enough difference that makes the cases incomparable. In discrimination cases, a situation that began from fear will be vastly different than a situation that began from a law. The reasoning for discrimination and how to handle the problem will be different. These situations have to be dealt with separately and they should not be compared as they are not similar enough for comparison.