Race by the Numbers
Orlando Patterson’s claim in this article is that it is a grossly distorted when saying the white population of America is fast on the way to becoming a minority. He supports his claim with statistics, history, and political analysis. The support eventually warrants that we should stop obsessing on race in interpreting the census results and keep the facts straight along with honest interpretations.
Overall, the different kinds of support that Patterson provides in his article are equally persuasive and help contribute to his stand on the argument. The support that is most susceptible to challenge would be when Patterson uses affirmative action as a basis for support. He mentions that Latino Coalition strategies have been a major factor in the loss of political support for affirmative action, further making it problematic for blacks. Patterson lacks any kind of statistical data for this statement, which was seen quite frequently throughout the article. Could it be possible that the reason there is a loss of political support for affirmative action is because those pushing for that support aren’t going about it correctly or maybe those in political power are against it? There are many refutations to Patterson’s statement, and is somewhat irrelevant to his original claim.
He also fails to mention why blacks are the nation’s major disadvantaged minority. There wasn’t really much of a reason for that statement, it was more of a “just to let you know” statement which came off as a little ignorant. If anything, he should mention how blacks could be considered the nation’s most advantaged minority because they can get away with racism towards other races via mainstream media, are entitled to affirmative action, can play the racist card in an effort to sue another citizen of another race (primarily whites), etc. In the past, yes, blacks were the disadvantaged, however, thanks to the civil rights movement, they gained equality and more. Race has become a major card to play for those who are not white in order to gain wealth, power, or progress in life. That isn’t what the civil rights movement was all about, was it? It was about gaining equality, not being greater than others. That would be considered contradicting.
The affirmative action support and the random comment about blacks being the most disadvantaged minority were the main areas where Patterson’s article could’ve easily been refuted. In fact, I gave a short little refutation myself. He, however, did accomplish what he intended to with his argument. The rest wasn’t needed.
Family a Symbol of Love and Life, but Not Politics
Eric Zorn claims that family is not a symbol of politics, particularly conservatives. He says we need to take family back from conservative organizations who have monopolized it for too long, turning it into shorthand for a social and political outlook that excludes and hectors those who don’t conform to your notions of morality. Zorn’s claim is supported through emotional appeal mostly and ad populum to fellow liberals. This warrants that no one owns the word “family,” not the right nor the left.
It was a little suspicious for Zorn to criticize only conservative organizations and politics throughout the entire article, yet warrant that neither the right nor left own the term “family.” If that is the true warrant, why weren’t there any criticisms to liberal organizations and politics? In my pre-reading blog earlier this week, I mentioned how just looking at the fact that Zorn is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, a highly liberal newspaper, and the title of the article, it was an easy assumption to make that this article would take the side of a liberal and attack conservatives and how they view the role of family. After reading the article, this liberal bias was completely reinforced. His warrant at the end of the article tried to play off an “in-the-middle” point of view to give the reader the intention that he was fair in his criticisms, yet liberal organizations and politics were completely ignored in that sense. This is a blatant failed attempt at ad populum.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Pre-Reading Blog #2
Race by the Numbers
This article was written by Orlando Patterson, who is a historical and cultural sociologist at Harvard University. He is primarily known for his attention to issues of race in America and the sociology of development. He received his Ph.D. in Sociology at the London School of Economics in 1965. A few of his many accolades include the National Book Award for non-fiction in 1991and being inducted into the Political Science association in 1983.
Race by Numbers appeared in the New York Times on May 8, 2001. Only being published 9 years ago, it is still relevant to possible issues in race today. Judging by the title, this article could possibly cover the diversity of race in America today and how the proportions of whites to colored people has leveled out. Other than that, the title doesn’t hint anything else.
Judging by Orlando Patterson’s background and his origins in Jamaica, this article most likely shares the values and ideals of blacks and will most likely agree with their arguments regarding racial issues or topics. These values and ideals help make sense of the context by separating the values of different races in America and taking the standpoint of the blacks.
Family a Symbol of Love and Life, but Not Politics
The author of this article is Eric Zorn, who is a columnist and blogger for the Chicago Tribune. He graduated from the University of Michigan in 1980, where he was an arts section editor at the Michigan Daily and a creative writing and English literature major. He served a four-month internship at the Miami Herald and then moved to the Chicago Tribune. His eponymous news commentary column is titled Hometowns. He is also the co-author of Murder of Innocence, a 1990 book which studied the life and tragic rampage of Winnetka schoolhouse killer Laurie Dann.
The title of this article, Family a Symbol of Love and Life, but Not Politics, seems to hint that politics and family are not related. This very well could be a political rant by another columnist with no real knowledge of the political realm. This is quite common in our country’s newspapers. The fact that this is out of the Chicago Tribune, a highly liberal newspaper, could easily hint that this article is attacking conservatives with faulty emotional appeals.
This article will most likely feature the values and ideals of liberals who strongly appose conservatives. This could mean that the article may point out that conservatives don’t know what the idea of family is really about, but liberals do. The values that liberal families are all about love and life and conservative families are part of a political agenda could very well flourish throughout this article. If this is the case, this article will be highly entertaining and full of false generalizations, ad populum, ad hominem, and emotional appeals.
This article was written by Orlando Patterson, who is a historical and cultural sociologist at Harvard University. He is primarily known for his attention to issues of race in America and the sociology of development. He received his Ph.D. in Sociology at the London School of Economics in 1965. A few of his many accolades include the National Book Award for non-fiction in 1991and being inducted into the Political Science association in 1983.
Race by Numbers appeared in the New York Times on May 8, 2001. Only being published 9 years ago, it is still relevant to possible issues in race today. Judging by the title, this article could possibly cover the diversity of race in America today and how the proportions of whites to colored people has leveled out. Other than that, the title doesn’t hint anything else.
Judging by Orlando Patterson’s background and his origins in Jamaica, this article most likely shares the values and ideals of blacks and will most likely agree with their arguments regarding racial issues or topics. These values and ideals help make sense of the context by separating the values of different races in America and taking the standpoint of the blacks.
Family a Symbol of Love and Life, but Not Politics
The author of this article is Eric Zorn, who is a columnist and blogger for the Chicago Tribune. He graduated from the University of Michigan in 1980, where he was an arts section editor at the Michigan Daily and a creative writing and English literature major. He served a four-month internship at the Miami Herald and then moved to the Chicago Tribune. His eponymous news commentary column is titled Hometowns. He is also the co-author of Murder of Innocence, a 1990 book which studied the life and tragic rampage of Winnetka schoolhouse killer Laurie Dann.
The title of this article, Family a Symbol of Love and Life, but Not Politics, seems to hint that politics and family are not related. This very well could be a political rant by another columnist with no real knowledge of the political realm. This is quite common in our country’s newspapers. The fact that this is out of the Chicago Tribune, a highly liberal newspaper, could easily hint that this article is attacking conservatives with faulty emotional appeals.
This article will most likely feature the values and ideals of liberals who strongly appose conservatives. This could mean that the article may point out that conservatives don’t know what the idea of family is really about, but liberals do. The values that liberal families are all about love and life and conservative families are part of a political agenda could very well flourish throughout this article. If this is the case, this article will be highly entertaining and full of false generalizations, ad populum, ad hominem, and emotional appeals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
