Table of Contents
Discussion Questions for Roberts-Miller ...................................................................................................... 2
Making a Demagogic Argument: M&Ms vs. Skittles ..................................................................................... 3
Unit 2 Sample Reading Responses ................................................................................................................ 4
Sample Short Arguments for Analysis........................................................................................................... 5
Some Sample Homework for Unit 2 ............................................................................................................. 7
Characteristics of demagoguery – questions to help develop your analysis (Matt) .................................... 8
Paper 2: Scoring Rubric ............................................................................................................................... 10
Peer Review Workshop Paper 2.................................................................................................................. 12
As You Revise… ........................................................................................................................................... 13
Examples of Demagoguery & Propaganda ................................................................................................. 14
Analyze the Statements & Identify Weaknesses ........................................................................................ 15
Bin Laden Speech, 7 October, 2001. ........................................................................................................... 16
LaPierre Reading Notes 1. IN GROUP/OUTGROUP & DEMONIZATION ..................................................... 17
LAPIERRE NOTES ..................................................................................................................................... 21
Qualifications .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Rebuttals ................................................................................................................................................. 22
STRATEGIES ............................................................................................................................................. 22
CRITICAL QUESTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 24
REPRESENTATION OF OPPONENTS ......................................................................................................... 24
ANALYZING EVIDENCE............................................................................................................................. 25
LaPierre - Analysis and Evaluation of Strategies ......................................................................................... 27
WALLACE & DEMAGOGIC RHETORIC – Rough Notes ................................................................................. 30
1
Discussion Questions for Roberts-Miller
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
In the first paragraph on page 460, the author draws a distinction between arguments that are
crafted in what seems like an objective manner and arguments that are crafted in a way that
seems less objective. As you think over the discussions we’ve had about arguments for the first
paper, what strategies of arguing seem to fit into these two different kinds of argumentation?
Do you consider one to be truly objective – why or why not? Roberts-Miller raises the concern
that valuing arguments that are perceived as more objective over those that are perceived as
more subjective would silence the voices of oppressed groups – why might this happen, and
why would it be detrimental to democratic discourse?
In the fourth paragraph on this page, the author refers to a commonly accepted definition of
demagogue from Lomas. Explain this in your own words and identify the reasons Roberts-Miller
views that definition as unreliable.
In the third full paragraph on page 462, the author states that one of the techniques used by
demogogues is polarization. Explain this term in your own words and come up with some
examples of your own. Why is polarization harmful to democratic discourse? Roberts-Miller
states that polarization is an intensification of “preexisting perceptions.” If that is so, then what
can thoughtful citizens do to recognize polarization? What should leaders who are not
demogogues do to avoid polarizing speech?
Below her discussion of polarization, the author begins a discussion of the dynamic between the
“ingroup” and the “outgroup” in demagogic discourse. Explain this dynamic in your own words.
Why is it troubling in a democracy? What differences might you see between writing for a
specific audience, which our class has recognized as necessary for effective argumentation, and
writing for an “ingroup,” which Roberts-Miller sees as demagoguery?
In the second full paragraph on page 463, the writer discusses the demogogue’s need to unify
the ingroup and avoid “consubstantiation.” Explain these terms in your own words. Why would
demogogues seek to prevent consubstantiation? Why might consubstantiation make
democratic discourse more fruitful?
On page 464 in the second full paragraph, Roberts-Miller describes the term “scapegoating.”
Explain in your own words the ways in which scapegoating goes beyond merely identifying an
ingroup and an outgroup. Perhaps the most famous and tragic example of scapegoating is the
treatment of Jews in Hitler’s Germany. How do these terrible happenings exemplify
scapegoating? Can you think of other examples? In the second paragraph on page 465,
Roberts-Miller gives an important qualification to her claim about scapegoating – what is this
and why is it important?
At the bottom of page 465, the author begins a discussion of complexity. She suggests that
people may find complexity frightening; explain in your own words why she suggests this
happens. How would this affect democratic discourse and the attempt to find effective
solutions to problems in a society? Roberts-Miller seems to assume that complexity will
generally be preferable to simplicity – do you think that her audience would be likely to share
that assumption? Do you yourself share it? What rhetorical strategies or ways of making an
argument seem to you to be most likely to encourage complexity? How does a writer or speak
make an argument that is complex without being unclear or confusing?
2
Making a Demagogic Argument: M&Ms vs. Skittles
Imagine that, in order to celebrate the completion of your first essay, I'm going to bring
in candy for the whole class, but I can only bring either M&Ms or Skittles, not both. I
took a vote and the class was split perfectly in two, making it impossible to choose
which to bring. In order to sway me to their side, each half of the class will formulate a
demagogic argument to cause me to passionately support their side and revile their
opponents. You need not make a complete, edited argument, but each half of the class
must chart out basic techniques and arguments to be used to sway me.
Arguments should:







Display elements of Roberts' definition of demagoguery.
Define the virtues of the ingroup and the flaws of the outgroup.
Scapegoat your opponents (blame them for some problem, scare me).
Promise me stability and “an escape from freedom”.
Use powerful language (without being offensive, please).
Employ several types of fallacies as defined by Roberts.
Demagoguery generally plays upon racial, political, and religious
characterizations, and while I encourage you to try to match the tone of
demagoguery, please do be respectful of others. Feel free to be silly, and make
up your own stereotypes as necessary. Have fun.
Demagoguery sometimes plays upon racial, political, and religious characterizations,
and while I encourage you to try to match the tone of demagoguery, please do be
respectful of others. Feel free to be silly, and make up your own stereotypes as
necessary. Have fun.
3
Unit 2 Sample Reading Responses
Roberts-Miller Reading Response 1
1) Patricia Roberts-Miller’s article “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric” examines the
characteristics of demagoguery. On pages 462-66 she provides a series of definitions, define the
following terms using her article: Demagoguery, Polarization, Ingroup/Outgroup Thinking,
Identification/Division, and Scapegoating.
2) On pages 469-71, Roberts-Miller discusses ten fallacies developed by van Eermeren and
Grotendoorst. Why might these fallacies be viewed as guidelines for democratic discussion?
How are they related to demagoguery?
3) Discuss a contemporary public figure (a politician, celebrity, professional athlete, etc.) who
exhibits characteristics of demagoguery. In what ways specifically does he or she exhibit these
characteristics?
Directions: Write your response in complete sentences and paragraphs, responding to all three
questions. Proofread your text before turning it in. Provide textual support using MLA parenthetical
citation (https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/02/).
Criteria: Reading Responses should be 300-350 words, roughly a little more than a page and a half,
although longer responses are welcome. Because we will using MLA format for the larger papers in this
course, it is good practice for your response to be typed 12 point font, double-spaced, Times New
Roman, proper heading, and stapled. If you need help with MLA formatting, consult
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/. Responses are due on the day scheduled; no
make up or late responses. They will be graded credit/no credit. Responses that have been turned in on
time, yet have not sufficiently answered the questions will be allowed a revision turned in the next class
meeting.
Roberts-Miller Reading Response 2
1) Throughout the speech LaPierre/Wallace establishes an ingroup and outgroup dynamic: list the
types of people (nouns) who he places in the outgroup and what qualities (adjectives) and
values they possess.
2) List the types of people who are part of the ingroup and what qualities and values they possess.
3) What seems to be the two choices with which he presents his audience? How does he
characterize these two choices?
4) How does LaPierre/Wallace create a sense of insecurity in his audience? What outside threats
does he present them with?
5) How does he reestablish a sense of security within his audience? What are his solutions to
these threats?
Directions: Write your response in complete sentences and paragraphs, responding to all five questions.
Proofread your text before turning it in. Provide textual support using MLA parenthetical citation
(https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/02/).
Criteria: Reading Responses should be 300-350 words, roughly a little more than a page and a half,
although longer responses are welcome. Responses are due on the day scheduled; no make up or late
responses. They will be graded credit/no credit. Responses that have been turned in on time, yet have
not sufficiently answered the questions will be allowed a revision turned in the next class meeting.
4
Sample Short Arguments for Analysis
[In 2000] when Bob Jones University was under fire for its policy against
interracial dating, the university explained its beliefs this way:
[E]very effort man has made, or will make, to bring the world
together in unity plays into the hand of Antichrist. This first began
at the Tower of Babel, and it will culminate at Armageddon when
the Lord returns to establish His rule of peace and harmony for a
thousand years. Bob Jones University opposes one world, one
church, one economy, one military, one race, and unisex. God
made racial differences as He made sexual differences.1
McCloskey on Motivism and Vulgar Marxism
In modem times the corresponding obstacle to rhetorical thinking is
vulgar Marxism (it is not confined to Marxists; a leading American
vulgar Marxist was the late George Stigler, a Nobel laureate in
economics). Vulgar Marxism rests on the Ideological Postulate, which
the critic Wayne Booth has called "motivism"- the argument that I need
not attend to your argument but only to the motives for your
argument, since after all you are in the grips of your ideology (Booth
1974, 24f). The old turn in Communist rhetoric is "It is no accident that
Comrade Trotsky advocates world revolution: after all, he is in the pay
of anti-Soviet agents." Persuasion is supposed to come always from
one's class or pocketbook, not from listening to the arguments. (“The
Rhetoric of Liberty” Deirdre McCloskey, Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 1
(Winter, 1996), pp. 9-27)
1
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/02/homosexuality_religious_free
dom_and_interracial_sex_is_bobby_jindal_the.html
5
Global Warming – Comments from National Review Online
“Climate Change or whatever they are calling it this week is just as much a religion
as Islam, Christianity, or Buddhism. It's just the religion of atheists who are
conceited enough to believe that man actually has a significant impact on the
earth/climate.”
"Climate change" is the Holy Ghost of the liberal religion- Their father & son
deities are the false gods of "tolerance" and "diversity"....Abortion is their holy
sacrament and their virgin mother is Margret Sanger........Their holy disciples are
Marx, Engels, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che', and Ho-Chi....Their canonized saints are
Harvey Milk, the Kennedy brothers, Mario Cuomo, Tip O'Neil, etc.....They believe
Reagan is the devil......Yes, Virginia, liberalism IS a religion (albeit a false one).”
“I think that claiming to believe or not believe in man caused climate change is
just the surface argument for a larger battle, liberty vs. socialism. Man made
climate change supporters want to use the threat of catastrophe to push their
agenda of expensive "renewable" energy, increased public transportation,
increased urbanization and the elimination of suburbs and exurbs, electric cars,
etc. Climate change is merely a means to a collectivist end.”
“Jon, if this situation is a dire as people would have us believe, why hasn't our
ruling class given up jetting around the world, leaving 10 times the carbon
footprint than all of us poor and middle class people combined will have. This is
nothing but an attempt by Obama and the left to change the talking point from
Obama Care to something else, anything else. It's a trumped up issue to get
liberals fired up over, open their pocket books and donate money to people that
can set a giant world thermostat to the exact temperature; hey, how do you
determine that very temperature anyways. If we get it just right here, another
country will suffer. If we want the kids to see snow in the winter, Canada may
gripe because it's too cold there.”
6
Some Sample Homework for Unit 2
For Wednesday March 05
Use Roberts Miller to write a couple of paragraphs that do the following:


Analyze one element of demagoguery in Wallace (using examples, discuss how it works, why it
may have been used in the context, and possible effects on the audience.)
Analyze one fallacy in Wallace’s text, explaining how/to what extent it reveals a potential
weakness in Wallace’s argument. Use the section in Roberts Miller
(starting page 466) to explain why the fallacy undermines reasoned debate.
For Monday March 03
1. Read the file by Roberts Miller, "Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric." This is a slightly
fuller explanation of the things we have been discussing in class. Don't worry if you find it tough going - do
pay particular attention to the material on fallacies that starts page 466.
2. Use Roberts Miller to compose one or more paragraphs that explore how a specific characteristic
(polarization, scapegoating, etc.) works in Wallace, why it may have been used, and possible effects on
the audience.
3. Use Roberts Miller (see the material on fallacies that starts page 466) to identify a weakness in
Wallace. Use Roberts Miller to explain why it is a weakness. This work will help you with assignment 2.
Post this to your blog (or bring to class).
For Wednesday Feb 12
1. Read Wallace, "Inaugural Speech."
2. Read “Characteristics of Demagoguery,” by Patricia Roberts-Miller, plus a short handout that
summarizes key points in Roberts Miller (both attached & on the wiki).
3. When reading Wallace, list three words or historical references you are unfamiliar with. Look them up
and be prepared to share. Surname A-L – 1st 3 pages of Wallace; M-Z – last 3 pages of Wallace.)
4. Answer the following questions (1-2 pages)
a) What did you notice about the way Wallace tries to persuade his audience?
b) How does Wallace represent his cause?
c) How does he represent his opponents?
d) Using Roberts Miller, list 2 examples of demagoguery in the Wallace text.
Please post to your blog.
7
Characteristics of demagoguery – questions to help develop your
analysis (Matt)
Polarization: A choice between two options
1) How does the writer introduce Roberts-Miller’s concept of polarization? Does the writer quote
a definition or paraphrase? Does the write adequately explain the concept? Is it cited?
2) Does the writer provide an example of the choice LaPierre wants his audience to choose? Is
there textual support? Does the quote demonstrate this choice?
3) Does the writer provide an example of LaPierre’s other choice? Is there textual support? Does
the quote demonstrate why this is a poor choice for his audience?
4) Does the writer analyze how this example reflects, as Roberts-Miller describes it, an “obviously
stupid, impractical, or shameful” choice? (462) Does it address why LaPierre’s audience would
disagree with this policy rather than LaPierre’s?
5) Does the writer make a claim about how polarization disrupts democratic discourse? Would this
claim help focus the analysis if it appeared at the beginning of the paragraph?
6) How does the writer demonstrate that polarization violates a rule of argumentation and how
this also involves a fallacy?
Ingroup and Outgroup Thinking: Assigning Qualities to Groups
1) How does the writer introduce Roberts-Miller’s concept of ingroup/outgroup thinking? Does
the writer quote a definition or paraphrase? Does the writer adequately explain the concept? Is
it cited?
2) Does the writer provide examples of the qualities and/or values which are common to LaPierre’s
ingroup? Is there textual support? Does the quote demonstrate the qualities and/or values of
the ingroup?
3) Does the writer provide examples of the qualities and/or values of which LaPierre’s outgroup
have in common? Is there textual support? Does the quote demonstrate the qualities and/or
values of the outgroup?
4) Does the writer analyze how these qualities of ingroup allows the audience “to take the moral
high ground” in relation to the outgroup? (463) And does the writer analyze how the outgroup
is associated with only negative qualities?
5) Does the writer make a claim about how ingroup/outgroup thinking disrupts democratic
discourse? Would this claim help focus the analysis if it appeared at the beginning of the
paragraph?
6) How does the writer demonstrate that ingroup/outgroup thinking violates a rule of
argumentation and how this also involves a fallacy?
Scapegoating: Shifting Responsibility
1) How does the writer introduce Roberts-Miller’s concept of scapegoating? Does the writer quote
a definition or paraphrase? Does the write adequately explain the concept? Is it cited?
2) Does the writer provide an example of LaPierre projecting blame on an outgroup? Is there
textual support? Does the quote demonstrate how LaPierre shifts guilt onto an outgroup?
3) Does the writer analyze why LaPierre would want to shift this blame?
4) Does the writer analyze why his audience would want to be absolved of this specific guilt?
8
5) Does the writer make a claim about how scapegoating disrupts democratic discourse? Would
this claim help focus the analysis if it appeared at the beginning of the paragraph?
6) How does the writer demonstrate that scapegoating violates a rule of argumentation and how
this also involves a fallacy?
Simple Solutions: Creating Certainty and Promising Stability
1) How does the writer introduce Roberts-Miller’s concept of simple solutions? Does the writer
quote a definition or paraphrase? Does the write adequately explain the concept? Is it cited?
2) Does the writer provide an example of why the audience would feel threaten? Is there textual
support? Does the quote demonstrate the threat with which LaPierre warns his audience?
3) Does the author provide an example of how LaPierre creates certainty and stability for his
audience? Is there textual support? Does the quote demonstrate how LaPierre promises his
audience certainty and stability?
4) Does the writer analyze how this certainty and stability that LaPierre promises his audience
involves “ a way to escape from freedom itself”? (466)
5) Does the writer make a claim about how simple solutions disrupt democratic discourse? Would
this claim help focus the analysis if it appeared at the beginning of the paragraph?
6) How does the writer demonstrate that simple solutions violate a rule of argumentation and how
this also involves a fallacy?
Identification and Division: Creating Unity and Separation
1) How does the writer introduce Roberts-Miller’s concept of identification and division? Does the
writer quote a definition or paraphrase? Does the writer adequately explain the concept? Is it
cited?
2) What examples does the writer provide of people or places with which LaPierre wants his
ingroup to feel united? Is there textual support? Does the quote demonstrate these people or
places with which he wants his audience to identify?
3) What examples does the writer provide of people or places from which LaPierre wants his
ingroup to feel separate? Is there textual support? Does the quote demonstrate these people or
places from which LaPierre wants his audience divided?
4) Does the writer analyze how the ingroup becomes equated with others to produce unity
through identification? Does the writer analyze how the outgroup becomes equated with
others to produce separation and division from the ingroup? How are these different outgroups
brought together as a single outgroup?
5) Does the writer make a claim about how identification and division disrupts democratic
discourse? Would this claim help focus the analysis if it appeared at the beginning of the
paragraph?
6) How does the writer demonstrate that identification and division violates a rule of
argumentation and how this also involves a fallacy?
9
Paper 2: Scoring Rubric
INTRODUCTION (10 PTS)
 Introduces the topic of demagoguery. Establishes centrality (why the issue matters – may
include reference to demagoguery and its relationship to democratic discourse.)
 Clearly and accurately introduces Roberts Miller and her project
 Clearly and accurately introduces Wallace, the rhetorical situation, and what the paper will do
(metadiscourse)
BODY PART 1 (25 PTS)
 Describes the characteristic of demagoguery (from Roberts Miller) that will be used as a lens to
examine Wallace’s argument. This includes a mixture of quotation, definition and paraphrase.
The characteristic of demagoguery is defined and explained clearly and precisely.
 Analyzes an element of demagoguery in Wallace. The element analyzed is carefully selected (it is
a good example of the characteristic of demagoguery). The analysis is based on a careful,
accurate reading of Wallace’s text.
 Makes strong use of textual evidence and examples to support the analysis. Explains how the
characteristic of demagoguery works, why it may have been used in the context, and possible
effects on the audience.
 Quotations are introduced, integrated and explained.
BODY PART 2 (25 PTS)
 Presents a fallacy that will be used to explore Wallace’s text. The fallacy is defined and explained
clearly and precisely.
 Analyzes how/to what extent the fallacy reveals a potential weakness in Wallace’s argument.
The analysis includes a mixture of quotation, definition and paraphrase.
 The analysis is based on a careful, accurate reading of Wallace’s text.
 Uses the section in Roberts Miller (starting page 466) to explain why the fallacy violates a rule of
argumentation and/reasoned debate.
 Makes strong use of textual evidence and examples to support the analysis. Explains how the
fallacy works, why it may have been used in the context, and possible effects on the audience.
 Quotations are introduced, integrated and explained.
BODY PART 3 (25 PTS)
1) Applies one of Roberts Miller’s characteristics of demagoguery to an example you select (can
also be a contemporary example of someone being accused of demagoguery, and you will
determine the extent to which this charge is true).
2) Briefly explains the rhetorical situation –the audience, context, and purpose.
3) Analyzes an element of demagoguery in the text. The element analyzed is carefully selected (it is
a good example of the characteristic of demagoguery). The analysis is based on a careful,
accurate reading of the text.
4) Makes strong use of textual evidence and examples to support the analysis. Explains how the
characteristic of demagoguery works, why it may have been used in the context, and possible
effects on the audience.
5) Quotations are introduced, integrated and explained.
CONCLUSION (5 PTS)
10
1. Presents a conclusion that answers the classic question, “So what, who cares?” What is
significant about the work you did/things you learned in the course of writing this?
MECHANICS (5 PTS)
The writing is clear and cohesive, and the paper is tightly organized. The paper makes strong use of
transitional language to guide the reader through the analysis, and introduces, integrates and explains
quotations. The paper is free of missing words, fragments, splices, typos, and other, similar grammatical
issues.
11
Peer Review Workshop Paper 2
Before you start, re-read your paper. Write a brief reflection on the two areas you are most satisfied
with, and the two that are the most challenging. Share with your partner and brainstorm ways of
tackling the challenges.
1. Does the introduction explain the topic and Roberts Miller’s work so that the reader has a good
idea of what demagoguery is, why it matters, and what Roberts Miller’s project is? Do you have
any questions or suggestions?
2. Does the paper briefly introduce Wallace, his overall argument, what he is responding to, and
who his audience is? Do you have any questions or suggestions?
3. Is the paper’s analysis of one element of demagoguery in Wallace clear and easy to follow?
Any questions/suggestions/comments?
4. Does the paper’s analysis of an element of demagoguery in Wallace provide examples and
textual evidence? Any questions/suggestions/comments?
5. Does the paper discuss how the element of demagoguery works, why it may have been used in
the context, and possible effects on the audience? If any of these could do with development,
suggest possible improvements.
Any questions/suggestions/comments?
6. Does the paper identify and analyze one fallacy in Wallace’s text, explaining how/to what extent
it reveals a potential weakness in Wallace’s argument? Any questions/suggestions/comments?
7. Does the paper use the section in Roberts Miller (starting page 466) to explain why the fallacy
undermines reasoned debate? Any questions/suggestions/comments?
8. Does the paper apply Roberts Miller to an example chosen by the student? Any
questions/suggestions/comments?
9. Look just at your peer’s use of quotations. Are enough quotations used to support the analysis?
Are page numbers given? Are all quotations introduced, integrated and explained? Any
questions/suggestions/comments?
DISCUSS YOUR FEEDBACK WITH PEER Give your peer the chance to ask questions and brainstorm ways
of addressing the issues you have identified.
POST REVISION PLAN ON BLOG: After reading your peer’s comments, what do you plan to do? Post on
your blog
12
As You Revise…




For the body paragraphs, use the handout called “Questions to Help Develop Your Analysis”
As you revise, look at the “Scoring Rubric.” It will help you figure out where to focus your
energies.
Focus on the specifics of the language choices – why does Wallace make a particular choice?
How does the language work to persuade? Why was it used in the context? What effect did it
likely have? (Remember, every word, every sentence, and the organization and order of every
word and sentence, was carefully, strategically chosen, and was intended to have specific
effects.)
Wallace’s text can be hard to understand from our historical moment. If you are unclear about
the history of segregation or civil rights or the civil war, look things up. A quick Wikipedia search
will help. Don’t guess.
QUOTATION TIPS









See the “quotation ninja” and “quotation sandwich” handouts
Select quotations carefully – make sure they are the most appropriate ones to support or
illustrate your point.
Make sure you introduce and explain the quotation accurately.
Make sure the quotation supports the point you want to make.
FOR LONGER QUOTATIONS - Make sure you introduce them, provide background, and also
engage in sustained analysis afterwards (a long quotation signals to the reader it is important
and you will base much of your analysis on this. It’s important you deliver this). Otherwise your
writing may appear fragmented, and it look as if you have a “hit and run quotation.”
USING SHORTER, BLENDED QUOTATIONS
You can blend short quotes, paraphrase, and analysis. This can help you add depth and flexibility
to your analysis. Remember – “work your quotes,” bend them so they say precisely what you
want them to, while presenting them accurately (use ellipses, square brackets, and blends.)
Punctuation (almost always) goes inside quotation marks, “like this.”
Introduce, integrate and explain all longer quotations.
Never insert a quotation as a stand-alone sentence. This often confuses readers (expert writers
do occasionally do this, but they are professionals (you may occasionally see professional drivers
take flaming cars off a ramp, but you probably shouldn’t do it yourself).
13
Examples of Demagoguery & Propaganda
The random list below contains some potentially useful resources, but proceed with caution – much of it
is scary and incendiary, and may not be safe for class
This speech by Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe might work (he is also very homophobic and
critical of efforts by outside nations to get him to take less extreme positions on many issues)
http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/transcript-mugabes-inauguration-speech-22-august-2013/
Internet Evangelist Anita Fuentes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2jl3ctCfnw#t=53
https://www.youtube.com/user/PureGraceEvangelism?feature=watch
1. The Southern Poverty Law Center tracks extremists of all kinds - http://www.splcenter.org/
2. Stormfront - this is a "white nationalist, white supremacist and neo-Nazi internet forum that was the
internet's first major racial hate site." (wikipedia)
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/
3. Genocidewatch - this group lists the events that come before genocide. Many echo claims made by
Roberts Miller. http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/8stagesofgenocide.html
4. Transcripts of radio shows that helped instigate the genocide in
Rwanda. http://migs.concordia.ca/links/RwandanRadioTrascripts_RTLM.htm
5. Louis Farrakhan
http://blog.adl.org/anti-semitism/farrakhan-continues-his-anti-semitic-saviours-day-message-in-chicago
http://archive.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/on_jews.html#.Uxj9ZPmwJcQ
6. Alex Jones– could be examined to see what extent the category fits. Here's Jones' site, and some
articles about him in the LA Times.
http://www.infowars.com/
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/alex-jones
14
Analyze the Statements & Identify Weaknesses
SAMPLE GMAT Strategies/Fallacies Exercise
1. “Since you don't believe that the earth is teetering on the edge of destruction, you must believe that
pollution and other adverse effects that man has on the environment are of no concern whatsoever.”
2. “The stock market declined shortly after the election of the president, thus indicating the lack of
confidence the business community has in the new administration.”
3. “ln a recent survey conducted by Wall Street Weekly of its readers, 80% of the respondents indicated
their strong disapproval of increased capital gains taxes. This survey clearly shows that increased capital
gains taxes will meet with strong opposition from the electorate.”
4. “People should keep their promises, right? I loaned Dwayne my knife, and he said he'd return it. Now he
is refusing to give it back, but I need it right now to slash up my neighbors' families. Dwayne isn't doing
right by me.”
5. “People who oppose mandatory sentencing want convicted rapists and killers to get off scot-free.”
Identify the Strategy and/or Fallacy
1. “People object to racism because they say it is a form of discrimination. Yet even they agree that it is OK to
choose carefully which tomatoes to buy in the supermarket. They discriminate between the over-ripe, the
under-ripe, and the just right. They discriminate between TV shows they don't want to watch and those they do.
So, what's all this fuss about racism if they're willing to discriminate, too?”
2. “Scripture is either God's pure, infallible word, free of any contradiction, error or inconsistency, or it is a
purely human invention full of error, inconsistency and contradiction that can be dismissed as such. Since one
can clearly find contradictions and errors in the bible, the bible can thus be dismissed.”
3. “Darwin's theory of evolution is just that, a theory. Theories are merely ideas that are not certain or infallible.
We don't want our children to believe that theories are certain or infallible, so we shouldn't teach the theory of
evolution in school without mentioning this, and without including alternatives such as intelligent design.”
1. LSAT SAMPLE QUESTION
“Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often higher for red cars than for cars of other colors. To
justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are
involved in accidents than are cars of any other colors. If this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be
saved by banning red cars from the roads altogether.” The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the
argument:
A) Accepts without question that insurance companies have the right to charge higher premiums for higher
risk clients.
B) Fails to consider whether red cars cost the same to repair as cars of other colors.
C) Ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars.
D) Does not specify precisely what percentage of red cars are involved in accidents.
E) Makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life.
15
Bin Laden Speech, 7 October, 2001.
I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that
Mohammed is his messenger. There is America, hit by God
in one of its softest spots. Its greatest buildings were
destroyed, thank God for that.
There is America, full of fear from its north to its south, from
its west to its east. Thank God for that. What America is
tasting now, is something insignificant compared to what we
have tasted for scores of years.
Our nation (the Islamic world) has been tasting this humiliation and this degradation for more than 80
years. Its sons are killed, its blood is shed, its sanctuaries are attacked, and no one hears and no one heeds.
When God blessed one of the groups of Islam, vanguards of Islam, they destroyed America. I pray to God
to elevate their status and bless them. Millions of innocent children are being killed as I speak. They are
being killed in Iraq without committing any sins and we don't hear condemnation or a fatwa from the
rulers.
In these days, Israeli tanks infest Palestine - in Jenin, Ramallah, Rafah, Beit Jalla, and other places in the
land of Islam, and we don't hear anyone raising his voice or moving a limb. When the sword comes down
(on America), after 80 years, hypocrisy rears its ugly head. They deplore and they lament for those killers,
who have abused the blood, honour, and sanctuaries of Muslims. The least that can be said about those
people, is that they are debauched. They have followed injustice. They supported the butcher over the
victim, the oppressor over the innocent child. May God show them His wrath and give them what they
deserve.
I say that the situation is clear and obvious. After this event, after the senior officials have spoken in
America, starting with the head of infidels worldwide, Bush, and those with him. They have come out in
force with their men and have turned even the countries that belong to Islam to this treachery, and they
want to wag their tail at God, to fight Islam, to suppress people in the name of terrorism.
When people at the ends of the earth, Japan, were killed by their hundreds of thousands, young and old, it
was not considered a war crime, it is something that has justification. Millions of children in Iraq, is
something that has justification. But when they lose dozens of people in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam
(capitals of Kenya and Tanzania, where US embassies were bombed in 1998), Iraq was struck and
Afghanistan was struck. Hypocrisy stood in force behind the head of infidels worldwide, behind the
cowards of this age, America and those who are with it.
These events have divided the whole world into two sides. The side of believers and the side of infidels,
may God keep you away from them. Every Muslim has to rush to make his religion victorious. The winds
of faith have come. The winds of change have come to eradicate oppression from the island of
Muhammad, peace be upon him.
To America, I say only a few words to it and its people. I swear by God, who has elevated the skies
without pillars, neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in
Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad, peace by upon him. God is
great, may pride be with Islam. May peace and God's mercy be upon you.
16
LaPierre Reading Notes
1. IN GROUP/OUTGROUP & DEMONIZATION
“Connected to their polarization is reliance on ingroup and outgroup thinking. That is,
demagogues rely on a common way for people to view the world: there are some people
whom we think of as “like us” in some important regard, and others who are very different
from us in some equally important regard.”
[1-3] Those who exploit the tragedy for political gain, directing anger and noise at NRA while doing
nothing to solve the problem vs. the NRA who remains respectfully silent and committed to real
solutions.
[5] Politicians and the press: pass gun free zones and invite every killer to attack, vs. NRA that seeks to
defend. [11-12] Politicians who refuse to create a national registry of mentally ill, pass laws that leave
people defenseless, and fail to prosecute (“federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40%”and cause
violent crime to increase (it’s “increasing again for the first time in 19 years!”)
[8-11] Monsters, predators and the mentally ill (?) incited and enabled by the media vs. the NRA, the
rest of us.
[13-20] The who media peddles the “filthiest form of pornography,” tries to conceal what it does, brings
a “toxic mix of criminal cruelty” into our homes, causing violence and death. The national media are
“silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators,” who “demonize lawful gun owners” and fill the world
with “misinformation and dishonest thinking” that guarantees “that the next atrocity is only a news
cycle away.” [20] Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban — or one more
law imposed on peaceful, lawful people — will protect us where 20,000 others have failed.
[8] Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our
children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world
know it and exploit it. That must change now. [9]The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown
number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons
that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day. And does anybody
really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on a school he's already identified at this
very moment? [10] How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a
national media machine that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they
crave — while provoking others to try to make their mark? [11] A dozen more killers? A hundred? More?
How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database
of the mentally ill?
MOTIVISM
[27] Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and
America's gun owners that you're willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone,
unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one — regardless of
personal political prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice.
[13] And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a
callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.
17
[14] Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and
Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my
research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had
found it?
POLARIZATION
“Demagogues polarize a complicated (and often frightening) situation by presenting only two
options: their policy, and some obviously stupid, impractical, or shameful one.”
[22] The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911
call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?
[35] If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level
of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy.
SCAPEGOATING
“Individuals (or communities) can deny responsibility for a situation by projecting that responsibility
onto some outgroup. This is an attractive way of seeing a situation both when the causes are
complicated (and there is no clear villain) as well as when the community does not want to hold
responsible the individual or group who caused the situation [Roberts-Miller quotes Burke, who says this
about scapegoating]:”
The scapegoat bears the blame, while the scapegoaters feel a sense of righteousness and
increased unity. The social problem may be real or imaginary, the grievances legitimate or
illegitimate, and members of the targeted group may be wholly innocent or partly culpable.
What matters is that the scapegoats are wrongfully stereotyped as all sharing the same negative
trait, or are singled out for blame while other major culprits are let off the hook.
[13] There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows,
violence against its own people.
[30]..Politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral
imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm. [Unclear who has actually done this].
[13-20] The who media peddles the “filthiest form of pornography,” tries to conceal what it does, brings
a “toxic mix of criminal cruelty” into our homes, causing violence and death. The national media are
“silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators,” who “demonize lawful gun owners” and fill the world
with “misinformation and dishonest thinking” that guarantees “that the next atrocity is only a news
cycle away.” [20]
ANALOGIES
[24] So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our president or our country or our police,
but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools? They're our kids. They're our responsibility. And
it's not just our duty to protect them — it's our right to protect them.
18
[7] We care about the president, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress
work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers. [8]Yet when it comes to the most beloved,
innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly
defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now.
REBUTTALS & STRAW MEN
“The fourth rule is that interlocutors must defend their standpoints with relevant forms of
argumentation. If they do not, then, “in effect, the argumentation supports a standpoint that is
quite different from the one about which the opinions differ.”
[23] Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are
the NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society,
much less in our schools. But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?
A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the president isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands
of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living
room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get
there fast enough to protect you.
LEADING QUESTION?
[35] If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of
protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy.
HOW ARE QUESTIONS USED STRATEGICALLY?
[3]Now, we must speak … for the safety of our nation's children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the
past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we
protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?
[6] How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we
protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports
stadiums — are all protected by armed security.
[9]…And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on a school he's already
identified at this very moment?
[10] How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media machine
that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while provoking others to
try to make their mark?
[11] A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's
refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?
[14] There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its
own people….And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research
department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it?
[15] Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like
propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a
way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."
19
[16] [violent movies and video games are called “entertainment”] But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing
about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?
[22]…The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call
bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?
[23] Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are the NRA's
answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools.
But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word? A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent
protecting the president isn't a bad word.…And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call
911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.
[24] So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our president or our country or our police,
but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools? They're our kids. They're our responsibility. And it's not
just our duty to protect them — it's our right to protect them.
[25] You know, five years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school,
the media called me crazy. But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary
School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?
[26] Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you
that you would rather continue to risk the alternative?
[27] Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America's
gun owners that you're willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school
principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care?
[29] With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can't afford to put a police officer in every
school?
20
LAPIERRE NOTES
Why start with 4 paragraphs discussing situation, preparing to make claim? (as context – explain silence,
and respond to criticism.) [1]"The National Rifle Association's 4 million mothers, fathers, sons and
daughters join the nation in horror, outrage, grief and earnest prayer for the families of Newtown,
Connecticut … who suffered such incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime.”
Identification and empathy – we are fathers and mothers and sons and daughters, and we share in the
emotions people feel about this tragedy.
Main points
[3] Question/answer – how do we protect our kids? Armed guards at every school, as part of
comprehensive, nation-wide security policy that uses NRA resources (free).
[5] Gun free zones cause the problem, as they tell killer where it’s safest to strike.
[6] Qn/answer – How have our priorities gotten so far out of order? We should protect what we value,
same way we protect money, airports, courthouses, sports stadiums, etc. (i.e. tragedy happened
because the has been a decline and we failed to protect kids same way we protect other valued people
and places. EVIDENCE= examples of places we protect.
[9] Emphasis THE TRUTH IS – there are monsters everywhere. They can’t be understood, and they walk
among us, and also killers, rapists, gang members, etc., and numbers have increased, and prosecutions
dropped. The media provokes and rewards them to act and gain fame.
EVIDENCE prosecutions down 40%, crime increasing for first time in 19 years!
[23] Only way stop monster = “plan of absolute protection,” where there is always good guy there to
stop bad guy. So get rid gun free zones, and arm people.
SUB [30] We can afford it – we spend money on foreign aid etc., so we can afford put cop in every
school
[31 – 40]. NRA will lead way with National School Shield Program.
MEDIA IS MAJOR CULPRIT – in creating violence, misrepresenting issue/NRA, and stopping any
meaningful solutions
[13] EMPHASIS & REPETITION - ANOTHER DIRTY LITTLE TRUTH media conceals –shadow industry sells
and sows violence against own people.
EVIDENCE – video games (kindergarden killers) movies, kids witness 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of
violence by 18. (BUT WHERE IS EVIDENCE OF CAUSE?)
21
[18] Media responsible for the problem, and for lies, inaccuracies and demonization of gun owners, and
this delays solution, all but guarantees next atrocity.
EVIDENCE: [19] examples of describing guns incorrectly?
[20] Media advances crazy idea gun ban will help.
Qualifications
Not many – absolutist?
[29] – no one size fits all…but
Rebuttals
[24] Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll
claim, "are the NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no
place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a
bad word? A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the president isn't a bad word. A gun
in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass
breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in
the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.
[25-27] [24] when did the word gun become a bad word? [25] why is gun good when protecting president, bad
when used to protect children? [27] Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have been
spared? Is that so abhorrent to you that you would rather continue to risk the alternative?
BUT STRAW MAN – who says these things?
STRATEGIES
EMOTION – fear is key emotional register. (FEAR MONGERING?)
[9] “does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on a school he's already
identified at this very moment?” (question – as statement seems more controversial?)
[9 – 12] society plagued by monsters, this is almost existential condition. “So demonic no person can
even comprehend them. [11, 12] Can’t know how many there are, or even guess, as government refuses
to create a database of mentally ill. But even if we did, there’s a larger criminal class of rapists, etc., a
cancer in EVERY COMMUNITY. [WE ARE ALL THREATENED EVERYWHERE, ALWAYS.]
EMOTION – resentment – [28] press and political class = enemy.
“Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and
America’s gun owners that you’re willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a
lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one —
regardless of personal political prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice.” (BLAMES media and
politicians for forcing the teacher to sacrifice her life. Teachers don’t want guns in schools)
NRA UNFAIRLY PICKED ON, yet MEDIA ARE THE CULPRIT
18 -23 Media fills debate misinformation. Their misinformation and dishonesty causes delay and all
but guarantees next atrocity.
22
Definition of the problem [9 – 12]
- ALL OBJECTIONS TO CURRENT GUN REGULATION, ALL CALLS FOR CHANGES ARE PROJECTED ONTO
MEDIA, who are both a) the ones who create violence, and b) the ones who PROFIT FROM IT AND
ENSURE IT KEEPS GOING, due to MOTIVISM. YET MUCH COMES FROM VICTIMS groups – Brady,
Giffords, family NYC train, etc.
- society plagued by monsters, this is almost existential condition. “So demonic no person can even
comprehend them. [11, 12] Can’t know how many
BLAME MEDIA - SCAPEGOAT MEDIA? DEMONIZE? [16] peddle violence that is the ‘filthiest
pornography,’ they inject “reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes,” they are ‘compliant
co-conspirators.’
Analogy
[6 – 8] between the way we protect people and places we care about – banks, court houses, airports,
the president, and schools.
[6] Sign – our nation’s priorities have gotten so far out of order – shown by how we protect banks etc., but not
kids.
RHETORICAL QUESTIONS (LEADING QUESTIONS, AND CHANGE SUBJECT)
[23] would you rather your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun who is a mile away or a minute away?
[24] when did the word gun become a bad word?
[25] why is gun good when protecting president, bad when used to protect children?
[26] You know, five years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in
every school, the media called me crazy. But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy
Hook Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?
[27] Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared? Is that so abhorrent to
you that you would rather continue to risk the alternative?
[28] “Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and
America’s gun owners that you’re willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone,
unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one — regardless of
personal political prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice.” (BLAMES media and politicians for
forcing the teacher to sacrifice her life. Teachers don’t want guns in schools.) MOTIVISM
[30] With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can't afford to put a police officer in
every school? Even if they did that, politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the
right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm. [WHO IS
DOING THIS???]
23
POSITIONING and representation of NRA (he is the vice president and spokesperson) as only ones to see
straight, only ones to speak the truth, only one with solutions and expertize. Only ones who really care.
ETHOS – we will make training free (good will)
CALL TO ACTION
37 let’s talk and debate later, and act now.
CRITICAL QUESTIONS
[24] press will say guns are evil and have no place in society…when did gun become a bad word. A gun in
hands of secret service guy, policeman, soldier, etc., isn’t bad (BUT WHO SAYS IT IS?)
STRAW MAN? Do many people say guns are inherently bad and have no place?
Sets up extreme version of opposition. Rebuttals appear not to address arguments that people make,
which often center on contextual comparisons – e.g. why do other developed countries that also have
mental illness and violent media not also have the same degree of gun violence?
Causal argument –gun free zones cause violence. SO – countries with more such zones should be more
violent? IMPLICATION
STATS – [12] from where? (There do not appear to be any sources listed or links provided that enable a
reader to check anything). Also, if violence is starting to go up – cos of unemployment, recession, more
guns, repeal of assault weapon ban?
MOTIVISM – media is corrupt and treacherous, covers stuff up
CAUSAL ARGUMENTS AND ANALOGIES – questionable.
Demons and Monsters and the Mentally Ill Conflated?
Q. Read 8-12 – how does he represent mentally ill Americans? (Seems to conflate monsters, demons,
and killers – says we can’t know how many monsters and killers there are as nation refuses to create
database of mentally ill.)
REPRESENTATION OF OPPONENTS
Lapierre identifies a number of groups he disagrees with and believes bear primary responsibility for the
shooting at Sandyhook. Who are these groups, and how does LaPierre represent them? How does he
attempt to make the audience feel about these groups? (You could compare Kristof’s “Do We have the
Courage” article, which is short, but makes extensive use of rebuttals.)
In particularly, how does he represent a) the media, b) entertainment companies, c) politicians?
GASCAP – work through generalizations, analogies, causal arguments, appeals to authority, etc.
You will probably want to look particularly carefully at analogies, since they are central to the text.
24
ANALYZING EVIDENCE
LaPierre makes a number of claims and provides some examples, hypothetical cases, statistics and other
forms of evidence. You could ask students to examine how this evidence is selected, presented, and
framed, and you could have them check some of the concrete figures supplied.
Examples:
[12] And the fact is, that wouldn't even begin to address the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers,
robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country.
Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% — to the lowest levels in a decade.
So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for
the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster,
and you've got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.
[14] Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and
Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my
research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found
it?
[15] Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are
aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a
joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."
[17] A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or
she reaches the ripe old age of 18.
[19] The media call semi-automatic firearms "machine guns" — they claim these civilian semi-automatic
firearms are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers ...
when all of these claims are factually untrue . They don't know what they're talking about.
[20] Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban — or one more law imposed on
peaceful, lawful people — will protect us where 20,000 others have failed.
[28] Ladies and gentlemen, there is no national, one-size-fits-all solution to protecting our children. But do
know this President zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year's budget, and scrapped "Secure
Our Schools" policing grants in next year's budget.
How is temporality and modality used (the event, responses to it, the danger and likelihood
of more gun violence)?
[3] How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?
[9]The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged,
so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them.
They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his
attack on a school he's already identified at this very moment?
25
[10] How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media
machine that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while
provoking others to try to make their mark? [11] A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we
possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally
ill?
[12] And the fact is, that wouldn't even begin to address the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers,
robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country.
Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% — to the lowest levels in a decade.
So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for
the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster,
and you've got a recipe for a national nightmareof violence and victimization.
[23] A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the president isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands
of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living
room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get
there fast enough to protect you.
[36] There'll be time for talk and debate later. This is the time, this is the day for decisive action.
[37] We can't wait for the next unspeakable crime to happen before we act. We can't lose precious time debating
legislation that won't work. We mustn't allow politics or personal prejudice to divide us.
[38] We must act now.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
TONE? (angry? How do we know?)
How does he represent, and position, the NRA (he is the vice president and spokesperson)
As only ones to see straight, only ones to speak the truth, only one with solutions and expertize.
What motives are they characterized by?
How does he represent, and position, MEDIA AND POLITICIANS? What motives are they said to have?
STRATEGIES – look at rebuttals, rhetorical questions, and analogies, and pathos/emotion.
LOOK AT CAUSES - what causes what? Media main cause. Their misinformation and dishonesty
causes delay and all but guarantees next atrocity.
Gun free zones are main causes. But don’t both– exist in other countries?
26
LaPierre - Analysis and Evaluation of Strategies
LaPierre - How are Questions Used Strategically?
[3]Now, we must speak … for the safety of our nation's children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the
past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we
protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?
[6] How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we
protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports
stadiums — are all protected by armed security.
[9]…And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on a school he's already
identified at this very moment?
[10] How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media machine
that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while provoking others to
try to make their mark?
[11] A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's
refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?
[14] There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its
own people….And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research
department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it?
[15] Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like
propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a
way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."
[16] [violent movies and video games are called “entertainment”] But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing
about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?
[22]…The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call
bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?
[23] Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are the NRA's
answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools.
But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word? A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent
protecting the president isn't a bad word.…And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call
911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.
[24] So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our president or our country or our police,
but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools? They're our kids. They're our responsibility. And it's not
just our duty to protect them — it's our right to protect them.
[25] You know, five years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school,
the media called me crazy. But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary
School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?
[26] Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you
that you would rather continue to risk the alternative?
[27] Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America's
gun owners that you're willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school
principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care?
27
[29] With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can't afford to put a police officer in every
school?
REPRESENTATION OF OPPONENTS
Lapierre identifies a number of groups he disagrees with and believes bear primary responsibility for the
shooting at Sandyhook. Who are these groups, and how does LaPierre represent them? How does he
attempt to make the audience feel about these groups? (You could compare Kristof’s “Do We have the
Courage” article, which is short, but makes extensive use of rebuttals.)
In particularly, how does he represent a) the media, b) entertainment companies, c) politicians?
GASCAP – work through generalizations, analogies, causal arguments, appeals to authority, etc.
You will probably want to look particularly carefully at analogies, since they are central to the text.
ANALYZING EVIDENCE
LaPierre makes a number of claims and provides some examples, hypothetical cases, statistics and other
forms of evidence. You could ask students to examine how this evidence is selected, presented, and
framed, and you could have them check some of the concrete figures supplied.
Examples:
[12] And the fact is, that wouldn't even begin to address the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers,
robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country.
Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% — to the lowest levels in a decade.
So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for
the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster,
and you've got a recipe for a national nightmareof violence and victimization.
[14] Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and
Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my
research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found
it?
[15] Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are
aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a
joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."
[17] A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or
she reaches the ripe old age of 18.
[19] The media call semi-automatic firearms "machine guns" — they claim these civilian semi-automatic
firearms are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers ...
when all of these claims are factually untrue . They don't know what they're talking about.
[20] Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban — or one more law imposed on
peaceful, lawful people — will protect us where 20,000 others have failed.
[28] Ladies and gentlemen, there is no national, one-size-fits-all solution to protecting our children. But do
know this President zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year's budget, and scrapped "Secure
Our Schools" policing grants in next year's budget.
28
How is temporality and modality used (the event, responses to it, the danger and likelihood
of more gun violence)?
[3] How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?
[9]The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged,
so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them.
They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his
attack on a school he's already identified at this very moment?
[10] How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media
machine that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while
provoking others to try to make their mark? [11] A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we
possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally
ill?
[12] And the fact is, that wouldn't even begin to address the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers,
robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country.
Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% — to the lowest levels in a decade.
So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for
the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster,
and you've got a recipe for a national nightmareof violence and victimization.
[23] A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the president isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands
of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living
room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get
there fast enough to protect you.
[36] There'll be time for talk and debate later. This is the time, this is the day for decisive action.
[37] We can't wait for the next unspeakable crime to happen before we act. We can't lose precious time debating
legislation that won't work. We mustn't allow politics or personal prejudice to divide us.
[38] We must act now.
29
WALLACE & DEMAGOGIC RHETORIC – Rough Notes
1. FIRST OBSERVATION – MORALLY REPUGNANT POSITIONS ALWAYS CLOAK THEMSELVES IN MORAL
LANGUAGE. It may not be apparent to students how bigoted and hateful Wallace’s speech is. Shows
evil never presents itself as in movies. People advocating bad things almost always do it in the language
of idealism, piety, sincerity, moral purity.
Three days before infamous church bombings that killed children, a reporter asked him, what needs to
happen to stop civil rights movement in Alabama, and he replied, “we need some first class funerals.”
Said that on a Friday, and on Sunday, churches blow up. As interviewee said, it was what he didn’t do, as
much as what he did – didn’t stop violence, and his speeches contained language like this which
fomented rage, resentment and violence.
FIRST THING TO NOTICE – LANGUAGE OF VICTIMIZATION. FIRST PARAGRAPH. “No man shall have a
part of his livelihood cheated and no child shall have a bit of his future stolen away.” WHY OPEN
SPEECH THIS WAY? It signals his resistance to federal efforts to desegregate.
Note how Wallace uses language of victimization; WE ARE THE REAL VICTIMS; WE ARE THE REAL
MINORITY; WE ARE THE TRULY OPPRESSED; WE ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE HAD OUR FREEDOM TAKEN
AWAY.
2. AUDIENCE – rarely says, ALABALAMS. WHY? HE speaks for South. BUT ALSO TO NATION.
HE’S IN TRICKY POSITION – defending racism and segregation. He can’t say directly, white people are
superior and deserve special privileges. How does he represent this?
“A race of honor”; Anglo Saxons; People of the Southland.
HE SWEARS “AN OATH TO MY PEOPLE” – why not to “the people”?
After WW2, and in context of cold war, overt racism becomes difficult (SCHOLARS note shift in discourse
of southern demagogues and racist politicians). Hitler ruined racism. Plus was Achilles heel in U.S.
presentation of itself as an ideal to the world. )
3. HE IS USING GOD TERMS IN WAYS WE MIGHT FIND STRANGE TODAY – “DUTY” in first paragraph.
Have them work through the text and find other examples of GOD TERMS. “Freedom,” “spiritual,”
“rights,” etc.
DEVIL TERMS – communism, Godlessness, TYRANNY – associated with opposition.
LEAD INTO DISCUSSION OF DEFINITIONS - RHETORICAL DEFINITION. Desegregation is defined as
“amalgamation” and “mongrelization” and tyranny, and as opposed to diversity and freedom.
See p 6, no. 37 – “I have been taught that freedom means freedom from any threat or fear of
government.” NOT FREEDOM TO VOTE, get an education, etc.
4. BINARY DIVISIONS
BINARIES 1: WHO ARE THE GROUPS
EXAMPLE – p 3, “international white community vs. international colored majority.”
ELITES versus normal people.
30
Anglo Saxon Race, and the rest. Southland, plus those who share Southern Spirit.
A RACE OF HONOR (page 1)
FALSE FATHER (government, which “encourages fear and destroys faith”) and TRUE FATHER (religious)
“WE ARE GOD-FEARING MEN, NOT GOVERNMENT FEARING MEN” (p. 4, par. 20)
BINARY DIVISIONS RELATING TO INGROUP AND OUTGROUP
Work through some of the binary divisions in the text, particularly as these relate to the construction of
“us-them” divisions.
What words/metaphors/analogies/language does he use to represent the in group, and what with the
out group? SEE P. 3. (p 3 – ungodly government; “degenerate, base, decadent”; CARNAL - MATERIAL
ELITIST (Harvard advocates; pseudo intellectuals).
Rapacious. Motivated by desire to take freedom away, and to take god away. “opposite of Christ”
GOOD = “strong, simple faith” FREE; RACE OF HONOR; TRUE FATHER/GOD.
BINARIES 2: GENERAL BINARY DIVISIONS – page 3. Human rights vs. individual rights (really means
rights of whites). Voting rights vs. spiritual responsibility of preserving freedom. TYRANNY vs. FREEDOM.
SANE REASONING vs pseudo intellectualism of Harvard crowd; Fear vs. Faith. MATERIAL, CARNAL,
desire, vs spiritual, pure, immaterial.
TYRANNY - freedom
CENTRALIZED – versus decentralized;
NATION OF ONE VERSUS NATION OF MANY (UNITY AND DIVERSITY – diversity as dominance.)
■ ANALOGIES
Page 3 – Rome, Nazi Germany, etc. – fall because the system that built it “rotted the souls of
builders…and rotted the foundations of what God meant that men should be.” SAME SYSTEM is
sweeping world = liberalism.
Compares Federal government to Roman empire (‘
Compares Hitler’s persecution of Jews to liberals “persecution of white international minority.”
Compares citizens of Oxnard, MI, to colonial white minorities in Angola and Congo.
■ Assign groups to different characteristics of demagoguery – e.g. demonizing,
polarizing, anti-intellectual, etc.
1. Polarization = pretty obvious. BUT NATURE OF BINARIES interesting
2. Oversimiplification/reductiveness.
Par 18 “It is the spirit of power thirst that caused a president in Washington to take up Caesar’s
pen” to make laws – dictate who sell house to, or desegregate university.
par 15 – we just need, “strong, simple faith” to guide us. HIS REPRESENTATIONS OF FOREIGN
POLICY ARE LAUGHABLY SIMPLISTIC.
3. Scapegoating – whole speech is scapegoating. And also see projection – as the horrible things
being done in AL are projected to other countries. OPPRESSION OF southern states projected
onto federal government. CHAINS – claims southerners are being put in chains.
31
4. Demonizing + rhetoric of Hate and disgust – explicit. P 3 “the opposite of Christ”; “ungodly”;
Fed government comparable to Nazi Germany. Says “disgusting,” talks of decadence,
5. Denial of Responsibility for situation, refusal to redeem claims (bad behavior by out group –
riots = rule, but all things done by in group are fine.
6. Ultra nationalism – one’s country is best – mythic essence of country – belonging in terms of
ethnic defn or membership in in-group.
7. Authoritarianism
8. Demand compliance to established traditions and authorities – to God, to nation, to freedom.
HERITAGE. DEFINES civil unrest as law and order issue.
9. Anti intellectualism (pseudo intellectuals, judges, etc.)
10. Motivism par 18 “It is the spirit of power thirst that caused a president in Washington to take up
Caesar’s pen” to make laws – dictate who sell house to, or desegregate university.
11. FALLACIOUS REASONING – lots of.
One indicator can be the purity.
The more they see the terms of absolute good and bad, the more they see their side as unambiguously
good and universally true, the more they are likely to see opponents as evil or stupid, and so any means
to achieve their ends are justified.
The culture war in the 1990s and early 2000s centered on the legitimacy of these latter three foundations.
In 2009, with the rise of the Tea Party, the culture war shifted away from social issues such as abortion
and homosexuality, and became more about differing conceptions of fairness (equality vs. proportionality)
and liberty (is government the oppressor or defender?). The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are both
populist movements that talk a great deal about fairness and liberty, but in very different ways, as you
can see here, for the Tea Party, and here, for OWS. THEY FRAME THE PROBLEMS OF RECENT
YEARS IN DIFFERENT WAYS, but use overlapping moral terms, yet different ways.
GROUP WORK FOR WALLACE DISCUSSION
http://www.indiana.edu/~inst2010/lessons/Prince_Civil%20Rights.pdf
Developing the lesson –Comparing speeches (Wallace, Appendix B: King, Appendix C)
Divide students into pairs. Assign groups one rhetorical device (Appendix D) to discuss. They
should focus on the following questions:
Who is the target audience of these speeches? How do you know?
How do the speakers use the rhetorical device you have been assigned to appeal to their target
audiences?
How well did the device work in appealing to the target audiences? Remember the historical
framework behind the two speeches as you consider this question.
Identify at least two places in each speech where the speaker uses figurative language (metaphor,
simile, hyperbole). How does the use of figurative language impact the speeches?
Homework
Read the handout “Some Characteristics of Demagoguery” (given in class, but also on Blackboard and
attached.)
Skim over the section on fallacies in “Course Reader Part 1,” which is on Blackboard under _Course
Documents_ in order to efresh your memory of fallacies.
Read Wallace’s inaugural speech (given in class, but also on Blackboard and attached.)
Identify two elements of the Wallace's that you found rhetorically interesting. Using the Demagoguery
32
handout as a lens, plus your knowledge of fallacies, identify any elements of the text that approximate
demagogic rhetoric, and fallacious reasoning.
Close reading of Wallace
Homework
Read the handout “Some Characteristics of Demagoguery” (given in class, but also on Blackboard and
attached.)
Skim over the section on fallacies in “Course Reader Part 1,” which is on Blackboard under _Course
Documents_ in order to refresh your memory of fallacies.
Read Wallace’s inaugural speech (given in class, but also on Blackboard and attached.)
Identify two elements of the Wallace's that you found rhetorically interesting. Using the Demagoguery
handout as a lens, plus your knowledge of fallacies, identify any elements of the text that approximate
demagogic rhetoric, and fallacious reasoning.
Who is the target audience of this speech? How do you know?
How do the speakers use the rhetorical device you have been assigned to appeal to their target
audiences?
How well did the device work in appealing to the target audiences? Remember the historical
framework behind the two speeches as you consider this question.
Identify at least two places in each speech where the speaker uses figurative language (metaphor,
simile, hyperbole). How does the use of figurative language impact the speeches?
BLOOD AND SOIL: The German expression was coined in the late 19th century, in tracts espousing
racialism and national romanticism…..[the phrase was popularized] at the time of the rise of Nazi
Germany… The doctrine not only called for a "back to the land" approach and re-adoption of rural
values; it held that German land was bound, perhaps mystically, to German blood… Urban culture was
decried as a weakness, "asphalt culture", that only the Führer's will could eliminate—sometimes as a
code for Jewish influence.
33
What is CONTEXT? – civil rights conflict about to explode. January 14, 1963.
INTEGRATION BEGINS, AND PUSH FOR VOTING RIGHTS AND ULTIMATELY CIVIL RIGHTS
1957
More than 1,000 paratroopers from the 101st Airborne Division and a federalized Arkansas National
Guard protect nine black students integrating Central High School in Little Rock, Ark.
1962 A federal appeals court orders the University of Mississippi to admit James Meredith, an African
American student. Upon his arival, a mob of more than 2,000 white people riots.
1963 http://www.infoplease.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html
Martin Luther King is arrested and jailed during anti-segregation protests in Birmingham, Ala.; he writes
his seminal "Letter from Birmingham Jail," arguing that individuals have the moral duty to disobey unjust
laws.
1963 Two African American students, Vivian Malone and James A. Hood, successfully register at the
University of Alabama despite George Wallace's "stand in the schoolhouse door" — but only after
President Kennedy federalizes the Alabama National Guard.
May
During civil rights protests in Birmingham, Ala., Commissioner of Public Safety Eugene "Bull" Connor
uses fire hoses and police dogs on black demonstrators. These images of brutality, which are televised
and published widely, are instrumental in gaining sympathy for the civil rights movement around the
world.
June 12 (Jackson, Miss.) Mississippi's NAACP field secretary, 37-year-old Medgar Evers, is murdered
outside his home. Byron De La Beckwith is tried twice in 1964, both trials resulting in hung juries. Thirty
years later he is convicted for murdering Evers.
Aug. 28 (Washington, D.C.) About 200,000 people join the March on Washington. Congregating at
the Lincoln Memorial, participants listen as Martin Luther King delivers his famous "I Have a Dream"
speech.
Sept. 15 (Birmingham, Ala.) Four young girls (Denise McNair, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and
Addie Mae Collins) attending Sunday school are killed when a bomb explodes at the Sixteenth Street
Baptist Church, a popular location for civil rights meetings. Riots erupt in Birmingham, leading to the
deaths of two more black youths.
1964 The 24th Amendment abolishes the poll tax, which originally had been instituted in 11 southern
states after Reconstruction to make it difficult for poor blacks to vote.
President Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The most sweeping civil rights legislation since
Reconstruction, the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or
national origin. The law also provides the federal government with the powers to enforce desegregation.
START OF ENFORCEMENT & BATTLES
Southern legislatures call for "massive resistance" to school desegregation and pledge to close schools
under desegregation orders.
WASHINGTON D.C.
Prince Edward County, Va., officials close their public schools rather than integrate them. White
students attend private academies; black students do not head back to class until 1963, when the Ford
34
Foundation funds private black schools. The Supreme Court orders the county to reopen its schools on
a desegregated basis in 1964.
Let’s do a frame by frame advance type analysis (like film school – dvd advance, to see how shot
composed) of first two paragraphs.
1. Word choice
2. Cultural references
3. Moral values
4. Self presentation (what kind of persona does he try to construct?)
Paragraph 2: What do you notice about way Wallace beings his speech (paragraph 1)?
“The people of this Great state” = flattery.
“feel a deep obligation” – depth of feeling and seriousness – theme to be continued.
References General Robert Lee – why? (military leader of Confederacy – why do that? Dog Whistle?)
Says that “duty” is sublimest word in English language – and I have come, increasingly, to realize what
he meant (humility topoi – took a while for him to realize what the great man understood - also, DUTY –
see how same moral vocabulary, but for different ends – makes you think of … Pinker? Since his duty is
to defend segregation. This is duty to confederacy, to south, to his race, and to ongoing racism and
discrimination. Duty to uphold traditions of apartheid state.
“Every man, every woman, yes, to every child.” (Tricolon – pre-figures most famous tricolon,
segregation; plus “yes” = building in conversational feature).
Other values – honesty, economy, and will defend people and children. From what?
“No man shall have livelihood cheated and no child have a bit of his future stolen away.” What does this
suggest? (RESENTMENT, and idea of attack. Desegregation required people to sell to blacks, not to turn
away, to stop discrimination.) THIS IS FRAMED AS AN ATTACK.
Paragraph 2:
Stood where Jefferson Davis stood (constructs similarity to Davis – why? To leader and president of
confederacy.
“An oath to my people” (why “my”? Why not the people? Perhaps suggests what comes next – white
anglo saxons)
Cradle of the confederacy, Heart of the great Anglo Saxon Southland. VERY SPECIFIC ETHNIC
HERITAGE. Many extremists and demagogues praise their land as not just any place, but the center of a
civilization. As the center. As SOUL of confederacy. And a center defined by blood. [Nazis – Germany is
cradle of Aryans; Italian fascists – Italy is cradle of Western civilization, THE TRUE ESSENCE.]
“We sound the drum for freedom” Moral values – freedom is resistance to civil rights, to blacks voting,
participating, being fully human. RHETROICAL definition.
“we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us
done, time and time again through history.” OUR ANCESTORS AND WE ARE THE
HISTORICAL FORCE FOR FREEDOM. We are thus unequivocally good.
Nazis viewed blood mystically as the carrier of ancestral heritage – central to idea of humanity and
citizenship.
35
“Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the
tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South.” THEY WANT TO ENSLAVE US – they
are real tyrants and oppressors
Why blood? National identity, in fact a notion of citizenship, based on race. Blood and soil.
“In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss
the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say,
Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
CALL FOR LOYALTY.
Paragraph 4 The Washington D.C. school riot report is disgusting and revealing.
(LANGUAGE OF PURITY).
We will not sacrifice our children to any such type school system, and you can write that
down. (Emotional language – define desegregation as sacrificing children).
“The federal troops in Mississippi could be better used guarding the safety of the citizens of
Washington D.C., where it is even unsafe to walk or go to a ballgame, and that is the
nation's capitol.” (1962 A federal appeals court orders the University of Mississippi to admit James
Meredith, an African American student. Upon his arival, a mob of more than 2,000 white people riots.)
“I was safer in a B-29 bomber over Japan during the war in an air raid, than the people of
Washington are walking to the White House neighborhood. A closer example is Atlanta. The
city officials fawn for political reasons over school integration and then build barricades to
stop residential integration, what hypocrisy!”
HYPOCRISY AND RESENTMENT. Analogy seems stretched – being bomber safer than walking around
D.C.
Paragraph 5
Let us send this message back to Washington by our representatives who are with us
today, that from this day we are standing up, and the heel of tyranny does not fit the
neck of an upright man; (figuration – we stand proud, and we are morally upright.)
that we intend to take the offensive and carry our fight for freedom across the nation,
wielding the balance of power we know we possess in the Southland; that WE, not the
insipid bloc of voters of some sections will determine in the next election who shall sit in
the White House of these United States; that from this day, from this hour, from this
minute [TRICOLON]
“we give the word of a race of honor that we will tolerate their boot in our face no
longer, and let those certain judges put that in their opium pipes of power and smoke it for
what it is worth.”
Defines who they are in racial terms; defines desegregation as persecution, as boot in the
face.
PARAGRAPH 6:
Hear me, Southerners! You sons and daughters who have moved north and west
36
throughout this nation, we call on you from your native soil to join with us in national
support and vote, and we know, wherever you are, away from the hearths of the Southland,
that you will respond, for though you may live in the farthest reaches of this vast country,
your heart has never left Dixieland.
[This is perhaps directed to Washington D.C., telling them to back off, or will get all
southerners to resist.]
FRAMED AS RESISTANCE
And you native sons and daughters of old New England's rock-ribbed patriotism and you
sturdy natives of the great Mid-West, and you descendants of the far West flaming spirit of
pioneer freedom, we invite you to come and be with us, for you are of the Southern
spirit, and the Southern philosophy. You are Southerners too and brothers with us
in our fight. [FLATTERY, and RATHER ODD ATTEMPT AT IDENTIFICATION – to
include all these people in the category of Southern]
What I have said about segregation goes double this day. And what I have said to or about
some federal judges goes triple this day. [NO NEEDTO REFERENCE WHAT SAID BEFORE –
more dog whistling?]
Paragraph 8
Alabama has been blessed by God as few states in this Union have been blessed. Our state owns ten %...
PAR 9
With ample rainfall and rich grasslands our live stock industry is in the infancy of a giant future…Nestled
in the great Tennessee Valley, we possess the Rocket center of the world and the keys to the space
frontier.
PAR10 While the trade with a developing Europe built the great port cities of the east coast, our own
fast developing port of Mobile faces as a magnetic gateway to the great continent of South America,
well over twice as large and hundreds of times richer in resources, even now awakening to the growing
probes of enterprising capital with a potential of growth and wealth beyond any present dream for our
port development and corresponding results throughout the connecting waterways that thread our
state.
PAR11 …our work of development and enrichment of the educational futures of our children, the
opportunities of our citizens and the fulfillment of our talents as God has given them to us.
PAR12 To realize our ambitions and to bring to fruition our dreams, we as Alabamians must take
cognizance of the world about us. We must re-define our heritage, re-school our thoughts in the
lessons our forefathers knew so well, first hand, in order to function and to grow and to prosper. We
can no longer hide our head in the sand and tell ourselves that the ideology of our free fathers is not
being attacked and is not being threatened by another idea, for it is. [WE ARE ATTACKED – we are the
ones oppressed, and WE RISK LOSING HERITAGE OF FREE FATHERS – DEFINES situation as potential
loss of Heritage and freedom.
37
38
39