Blog Post #2

(Stage curtains open, revealing a courtroom scene. The judge is a hamburger, while a piece of bacon is on the witness stand. A shinbone paces the area in front of the stand, while a bottle of mayonnaise glares from the desk of the prosecution.)

Bacon: “…and that’s how I got into researching African-American speakers in the 19^th century.”

Bone: “That’s pretty interesting. (Mayo yawns, but Bone ignores it.) Now to get back to what we were discussing-“(Takes a greasy piece of paper from a stack of books) “what were you trying to prove when you wrote this article?”

Bacon: “That contrary to the findings of some other researchers, African American abolitionists used advisory rhetoric more than adaptory rhetoric.”

Bone: “And how did you compare your findings to those of Ms. Mayo’s?”

Bacon: “I used non-judgmental language when introducing and comparing her and my arg-“

Mayo: “Objection, your honor! It is an assumption to say that the language the defendant used was indeed ‘non-judgmental’.”

Burger: “Sustained.”

Bacon: “W-well, I tried not to offend her and other scholars by stating that I was building upon Ms. Mayo’s arguments instead of contradicting them. Obviously that didn’t work.”

Bone: “Please tell us more about the difference between advisory and adaptory rhetoric.”

Bacon: “In a nutshell, adaptory rhetoric appeals to the audience by minimizing clashes between the audience and the speaker, while advisory rhetoric does the opposite by emphasizing those very clashes and in fact condemning the audience.”

Bone: “And what kind of evidence did you use to support your claims?”

Bacon: “I used a fair amount of material from various sources, such as speeches from William Whipper, Charles Lenox Remond, William Watkins, and of course the famous speech from Frederick Douglass and David Walker’s Appeal by David Walker, which I quote many times in my work.”

Bone: “Now, a simple skimming of this article shows that your sources are mainly from male speakers, although there have been female African American abolitionist speakers. Why is this so?”

Bacon: “At the time, there were more male speakers and relatively few female speakers, especially those who were African American. The records themselves limited me to citing only two female speakers.”

Bone: “I see. You end your article by connecting Walker’s quote to the speeches of Malcolm X, a great example of the militant rhetoric of the Black Power movement. Isn’t this connection a little weak in that Walker was not advocating physical and racial violence, while Malcolm X was in fact quoted to be doing just that?”

Bacon: “Walker’s quote shows him to be exasperated with Americans because they do not understand- and often misinterpret- their own Declaration of Independence. This exasperation, especially combined with the time that had passed between Walker’s speech and that of X’s, and the social injustices African Americans had to put up with for all that time, must have made X very angry- angry enough to hurt others.”

Mayo: “Objection! Speculation!”

(Burger strokes his lettuce patch thoughtfully.)

Burger: “Overruled. Bacon is merely stating why she ended with the Malcolm X quote. Prosecution, do you have any more questions?”

Bone: “No, your Honor. Thank you.”

Burger: “Please be seated then. The defense may start questioning.”

(Mayo rises slowly. The stage lights dim.)

Blog Post #3

Question 1: Because the 19th century was historically significant in that it signaled an advancement in women's rights, especially in women's suffrage, I think it might be interesting to write about the specific improvements in women's rights and about iconic figures such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucy Stone. The connections and conflicts between the temperance movement, the women's suffrage movement, the anti-slavery movement and the African-American suffrage movement is complex and varied, with important historical figures shuttling back and forth between these issues of the day. Susan B. Anthony's famous speech, "Is it a Crime for a Citizen of the United States to Vote?"is a good example of a woman standing up to the injustice of a nation's laws, and something that I may be interested in writing about.

Question 2:

1. Susan B. Anthony

2. Women's suffrage

3. National Women's Rights Convention

4. National American Woman Suffrage Association

5. The History of Woman Suffrage

6. Fourteenth Amendment

7. Nineteenth Amendment

8. Elizabeth Cady Stanton

9. Lucy Stone

10. Seneca Falls Convention

Introduction to Post #2

While many in her time dismissed women’s suffrage as being too ambitious and even disrespectful to the Bible, Sojourner Truth replied to this view with a relatively short but persuasive speech, arguing that even though no one treated her as a lady and no one helped her in her time of need, she remained a woman and a human being. Former speakers had cited the Bible and even the supposed fragility of women in general to support their views that women should not be allowed to vote, yet Truth managed to use the same book and reasoning to counter these views effectively and show the holes in her opponents’ arguments.

Post #2

Speech: Ain’t I A Woman? Delivered by Sojourner Truth at the Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio, 1851

Where I got it: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/sojtruth-woman.asp

While Sojourner Truth uses all three persuasive strategies of pathos, logos and ethos in her famous speech, ethos is arguably the strategy she leans upon most heavily. She describes her painful experiences as a slave, working in the field, suffering under the lash of the whip, bearing thirteen children and seeing most of them sold off- and yet remaining a woman. Her experiences clash with one of the former speakers’ claims that women are fragile and helpless, as Truth seems to have done and endured more than many men could ever even think about, in addition to having no one to share her sorrow with. Truth uses logos when talking about the intellect of men and women, using the analogy of a quart and a pint. If women indeed have pint-sized intellects, Truth asserts, they should at least have their “little half measure full”, that they should be educated and allowed the choice to vote. Also, when Truth refers to the story of Adam and Eve, she reasons with the audience that if Eve was “strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone”, probably referring to Eve’s consumption of the forbidden fruit and subsequent banishment from paradise, women are also strong enough to make the world right again. The context of the speech plays a large role as well, as people thought the Bible was the ultimate truth. Truth responds by interpreting well-known stories from the Bible with a fresh twist to support her stance for women and slaves’ rights. She disagrees with a man who claims that women cannot have the same rights as men because Christ was not a woman, asking him repetitively, “Where did your Christ come from?” As Christ came from God and Mary, a woman, Truth seems to tell the audience that without a woman, Christ would not have been born and therefore women also play a crucial role in this world. Her passionate, heart-wrenching repetition of “And ain’t I a woman?” is one of the best-known parts of Truth’s speech, and also what I thought made this speech so persuasive in appealing to the audience’s emotions.

Post #1 Revised

1) What would we expect from a Fourth of July speech? How does Douglass meet our expectations or challenge them?

I expect a Fourth of July speech to appeal to the audience in patriotic yet simple terms, engaging them in celebration and unity. Douglass challenged my expectations from the beginning by talking about his “quailing sensation”, freely admitting to his nervousness and lack of confidence in his own speaking skills. Many speakers strive to appear more important than they are, and perhaps in an effort to engage his audience’s sympathies, Douglass rather shows he is not an important figure, but merely human. One of the things that struck me was that he would not use the term “us” “our” or “we” as Lincoln did in the Gettysburg Address, but rather distanced himself from the audience by using “you” and “I”. One of the prominent lines in Douglass’s speech is “You may rejoice, I must mourn.” In other words, Douglass believes that while the Fourth of July is a day of joy for many in the United States, it is a day of sorrow for slaves and for ex-slaves. He also emphasized the differences between his origins and where he is now standing. The speech was also surprising in that it was more of an ironic scolding, shame-on-you type of speech rather than of a celebration, a speech that you would likely find at a abolitionist gathering rather than on Fourth of July. However, Fourth of July does not free slaves nor abolish slavery, even for a day. Douglass points out that to slaves, the Fourth of July is not a celebration but rather an ironic reminder of the constant injustice they are subjected to in this country. His speech seems to use the following variation: hope-reflection-indignation-irony-hope, and perhaps it is not surprising that he ends on hope, rather than depression or anger, because this emphasizes his point all the more.

2) Is the speech devoted more to praise or blame? What is the rhetorical purpose of the praise and blame? How does it appeal to the audience?

This speech is more devoted to blame than praise. He praises the Founding Fathers and early Americans’ bravery in the face of tyranny, but he also uses irony in comparing them to America today. While talking about the Fugitive Slave Law, Douglass fumes, “tyrant-killing, king-hating, people-loving, democratic, Christian America… filled with judges who… in deciding in the case of a man’s liberty, hear only his accusers!” referring to the injustice slaves have to endure when they try to seek freedom, as even though they are tried for running away, judges only hear the slave-owner’s point of view. In my opinion, the purpose of his doing so is to rile up the audience while on the other hand shaming them for their actions and beliefs. Douglass refers to the course of America’s own independence, and argues that while in hindsight everyone knows which side they should take, at the time it was not so. It took courage to side with the weak against the strong while change could still be made, and he argues that America was born because of this courage. He appeals to his audience, asking them to root for the underdog, while retaining a patriotic note.

Blog Post #1

After reading "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?"

1) What would we expect from a Fourth of July speech? How does Douglass meet our expectations or challenge them?

I expect a Fourth of July speech to appeal to the audience in patriotic yet simple terms, engaging them in celebration and unity. Douglass challenged my expectations from the beginning by talking about his “quailing sensation”, freely admitting to his nervousness and lack of confidence in his own speaking skills. Many speakers strive to appear more important than they are, and perhaps in an effort to engage his audience’s sympathies, Douglass rather shows he is not an important figure, but merely human. One of the things that struck me was that he would not use the term “us” “our” or “we” as Lincoln did in the Gettysburg Address, but rather distanced himself from the audience by using “you” and “I” (“You may rejoice, I must mourn.”) and also emphasizing the differences between his origins and where he is now standing. The speech was also surprising in that it was more of an ironic scolding, shame-on-you type of speech rather than of a celebration, a speech that you would likely find at a abolitionist gathering rather than on Fourth of July. However, Fourth of July does not free slaves nor abolish slavery, even for a day. Douglass points out that to slaves, the Fourth of July is not a celebration but rather an ironic reminder of the constant injustice they are subjected to in this country. His speech seems to use the following variation: hope-reflection-indignation-irony-hope, and perhaps it is not surprising that he ends on hope, rather than depression or anger, because this emphasizes his point all the more.

2) Is the speech devoted more to praise or blame? What is the rhetorical purpose of the praise and blame? How does it appeal to the audience?

This speech is more devoted to blame than praise. He praises the Founding Fathers and early Americans’ bravery in the face of tyranny, but he also uses irony in comparing them to America today (“tyrant-killing, king-hating, people-loving, democratic, Christian America… filled with judges who… in deciding in the case of a man’s liberty, hear only his accusers!”). In my opinion, the purpose of his doing so is to rile up the audience while on the other hand shaming them for their actions and beliefs. Douglass refers to the course of America’s own independence, and argues that while in hindsight everyone knows which side they should take, at the time it was not so. It took courage to side with the weak against the strong while change could still be made, and he argues that America was born because of this courage. He appeals to his audience, asking them to root for the underdog, while retaining a patriotic note.