Critical Thinking E block

Prompt: : Analyze the rhetorical strategies – such as arguments, assumptions, and diction – that King uses, and comment on the intended effect of the letter on its audience.

These are notes. Choose, reject, modify at will.

Conclusion:
African Americans are justified in practicing direct action at this time.
Direct action in Birmingham is wise and timely.
Direct action is a justifiable method of opposing segregation.
People are justified in taking direct action against an unjust system.

Premises:
• Current social system is unjust. (Segregation is unjust. The current system supports segregation.)
• Unjust systems are changed through negotiation; direct action is a rational, philosophically-based method (the only way) to promote negotiation.
• The problem is so bad that it needs to be addressed right now. “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
• Unjust laws should be broken.

Disappointment with white moderates (whites have a moral obligation to uphold others’ freedom)
- direct action not violent and in fact will prevent violence
- not extreme, but mediates between between two extremes
- can’t suppress universal yearning for freedom & social justice; maybe “extreme” isn’t so bad
Disappointment with white church (church should uphold highest principles of justice and freedom)
- maintain status quo



Essay:
Identify audience and context, purpose of the letter
Thesis: King uses a blend of rogerian strategy, logical reasoning, and emotional appeals in order to ...

Possible organizational strategies:
ethos, logos, pathos
premise by premise look at techniques he he uses to prove each premise. (premises can also be considered reasoning, a point in itself).

Audience
Religious leaders
Male
Educated
Powerful & influential, well respected
Actively involved in events, sharp
Socioeconomically comfortable
Privileged, removed from situation
White (?)
Accused him of “unwise & untimely” activities
Operating from ignorance – as whites, they have no real understanding of being oppressed

Purpose
justify, explain,-→ change men’s minds about his actions; to educate.
-explaining ideology: mission statement of King & non-violent direct action
locating his group’s actions in the flow of US history, framing civil disobedience as an important American activity, with deep roots; elevating his action to a “higher level”
Claims & asserts equal status; introduces himself, shows respectability of his actions
Not to “turn off” his audience

Strategy
Use of language: tone is respectful, non-condescending, educated, eloquent
-evocative metaphors
-presents information, respects audience to draw conclusions
Emotional appeals
Biblical analogies
Historical analogies
Logos, ethos, pathos: http://www.millikin.edu/wcenter/king1a.html

After reading to the end of the section "The Law of the Few," you're aware of Gladwell's central point: that fads are like epidemics; their success can be explained by a set of rules or principles. For this discussion, recall your own experiences with one or more of the types Gladwell identifies: connectors, mavens, and salesmen. Briefly describe an incident with one of these types and the ideas or information with which they "infected" you. Refer to Gladwell's definitions of the type and/or process of transmission.

Find your name below. Respond only to the corresponding question by clicking on the pencil icon below the question. You needn't answer all of the questions, but should capture the gist of the topic, as Thoreau argues it. You will meet with other group members to formulate a short presentation on the ideas of your section, so read each others' responses; don't repeat ideas, but rather build on them, clarify them, take on the parts of the question that haven't been addressed in earlier responses.

Question 1: Alma, Byron, Kathy
Question 2: Lucas, Trisha, Simon, Rosa
Question 3: Dominique, Sebastian, Harry
Question 4: Nick, Aileen, Mike, Emily

1. Majority v. Minority: On the top of page 69 (left column), Thoreau argues that “a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it.” Read through and discuss this argument. Define majority, minority, and justice. Is our government a product of majority rule? What’s wrong with majority rule? On p. 70 (right column), he adds, “Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already . . .” and “A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight.” Evaluate these statements. In what ways does our government disenfranchise minorities (think expansively, not exclusively ethnicity)? In what ways might (or does) our government protect minority rights?

2. Why Americans Tolerate Unjust Government: On pp. 69 – 70, Thoreau explains his opinions of why Americans tolerate injustices such as slavery and imperialistic war. What reasons does he give? What does he mean by “The American has dwindled into an Odd Fellow, -- one who may be known by the development of his organ of gregariousness, and a manifest lack of intellect and cheerful self-reliance. . .?” How might this also represent today’s average American? Discuss the pivotal question: “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?” Why do we obey, according to Thoreau? Discuss the remainder of the 1st ¶ on p. 70 in this light, especially, “Why does it always crucify Christ, “ etc.

3. The Machine of Government
On the 1st page of our copy, Thoreau introduces this idea: “. . . for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have.” Explain.
Also, read the last ¶ on p. 69, left column. Explain the difference between “all machines have their friction,” and “But when the friction comes to have its own machine.” See also p. 70, ¶ 2, left column. What produces “friction” in a machine? How is a machine an apt metaphor for the kind of government Thoreau is attacking? Examine our government in this light.

4. The Conscience: “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.” Read the rest of this ¶ (top of page 69, left column). Later (p. 71, left), he asks, “Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death.” What does Thoreau mean by conscience? How do you define conscience? How does Thoreau seem to define it? How does this become the basis for his own act of Civil Disobedience? Finally, revisit the top quote: Is compromising on moral issues ever necessary?