In this speech, Mayor Landrieu believes that the confederate statues should be taken down because they were put up to not only honor them, but to also support the movement of the Cult of the Lost Cause. Landrieu celebrates the fact that by taking down the statues it is a “process that can move us towards healing and understanding of each other” (Landrieu 2017). People may argue that these statues are a part of American history, but he emphasizes that “there is a difference between remembrance of history and reverence of it” (Landrieu 2017). In his speech, he states that New Orleans was the largest slave market in America and that “these monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the …show more content…
The speaker reminds us that New Orleans was a place where thousands of souls were bought and sold, those people were raped/tortured and force to work. He asserts that the monuments made to honor confederate generals are “self-evident that these men did not fight for the United States of America, they fought against it. They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots” (Landrieu 2017). Landrieu also asks rhetorical questions when he talks about a girl that asked why there was a statue of Robert E. Lee and the effects that this statue can have on younger generations. He ends his speech with a quote from Abraham Lincoln that says “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to do all which may achieve and cherish: a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations” (Landrieu 2017). In conclusion, Mayor Landrieu believes that confederate honoring statues should be taken down so that there can be healing and understanding between the people that live in …show more content…
Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were not erected just to honor these men, but are a part of the movement which became known as The Cult of the Lost Cause” (Landrieu 2017). Basically, Mayor Landrieu is emphasizing that the statues put up for those men were put there to honor them and support a cult that wanted slavery and believed that people of color were less than human. During his speech, Mayor Landrieu quotes Alexander Stephens and says “cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -subordination to the superior race- is his natural and normal condition” (Landrieu 2017). In making this comment Landrieu urges us to realize that the confederate statues are not there to remember the people that fought in the civil war but to honor them. By keeping the statues, the people of New Orleans are reminded every day that thousands of people were sold and bought, they were raped and forced to work. These quotes support the claim because they are both about how the statues are atrocious and how they are on the wrong side of history. Both quotes establish that removing the confederate statues would benefit New Orleans because young children would not have to be exposed to hatred and racism. To the defenders of the confederate statues Mayor Landrieu says “There is a difference between remembrance of history and
Neill Blomkamp directed the film District 9 which was released in 2009. This South African science fiction action thriller was Blomkamp’s first feature film and is an extension of a short film, Alive in Joburg, Blomkamp did in 2006 (IMDb). In the film, aliens have invaded earth and are wanting to live among the humans, but the humans, being the xenophobic society that they are, discriminate the aliens; the aliens are then lead to a ghetto, known as District 9, in which they are to live. As the film progresses, one of the humans (Wikus Van De Merw) is sprayed by some alien chemical and begins to turn into an alien. The film then goes on to show Wikus’ struggle to cope with being half alien. Blomkamp evokes both ethos and pathos to show how the animalistic contemporary society has turned through the geography, film style and character development.
For years the LGBT community has been consistently denied the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts, and it wasn’t until last year that same sex marriage became legal throughout the United States. However, they are not the only minorities being discriminated against in the United States. That is why Dolores Huerta, a well-known civil rights activist, points out that people who have experienced oppression should come together to achieve equality. In her keynote speech at the 21st National Conference on LGBT Equality, Dolores Huerta uses ethos, logos, and pathos as an effective way to inspire her audience to make a change in society.
A good author writes with a specific purpose. Many of them are very opinionated and controversial, calling out certain groups of people, or presenting readers with seemingly outlandish ideas. George Orwell says that he writes “to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people’s idea of the kind of society that they should strive after.” His purpose is to persuade his readers to better themselves as well as society based on what he deems the correct approach. Erik Larson wrote “The Devil in the White City” to shine light on the infamous Gilded Age of America and the stark contrast, yet inevitable relatedness, of pride and evil. The book follows the story or architect Daniel Burnham as he works on the World’s Columbian Exposition,
W. Fitzhugh Brundage, “Introduction, No Deed but Memory” in Where Theses Memories Grow: History, Memory, and Southern Identity, ed. W. Fitzhugh Brundage. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), pp. 1 -28.
In “The Case for Reparations,” Ta-Nehisi Coates sets out a powerful argument for reparations to blacks for having to thrive through horrific inequity, including slavery, Jim Crowism, Northern violence and racist housing policies. By erecting a slave society, America erected the economic foundation for its great experiment in democracy. And Reparations would mean a revolution of the American consciousness, reconciling of our self-image as the great democratizer with the facts of our history. Paying such a moral debt is such a great matter of justice served rightfully to those who were suppressed from the fundamental roles, white supremacy played in American history.
Taking the statues down is like ignoring standing up for what you believe in and death by war. A quote from “Monumental Battle” states, “‘But many of those who support keeping the monument say their motive are about honor not race.’” This quote shows that not all who support the statues agree with slavery. Some don’t want them to come down because it’s honoring all who fought for what they believe. Others might argue that even though those people lost their lives for what they believe in, slaves lost their lives from working to hard or starvation. I would argue against that by saying, in school students are taught to stand up for what they believe in, if we take the statues down that’s saying don’t stand up for what you believe in; if you do, nothing comes from it. In other words, if we are able to take down statues of people who stand up for what they believe in, then that’s like taking down a statue of Lincoln, He stood up for what he believed in, no slavery; just like, for example, General Robert E. Lee, stood for
The Civil War was partly about slavery. Therefore, many use the flag as a symbol of hatred towards people of different descent, especially African Americans. The idea that “negro is not equal to the white man,” or white supremacy, has caused many racist attacks (Coates, 2015). Most of these attacks have involved the presence of a Confederate flag. Recently, Dylann Roof committed a gruesome attack on nine African American congregants at their local church during a bible study (Henderson, 2015). He claimed to have been motivated by the Confederate flag. Sadly, this violent attack provides a perfect example of the racism symbolically presented by the Confederate flag.
He mentions the very recent violence that occurred in Selma, Alabama; where African Americans were attacked by police while preparing to march to Montgomery to protest voting rights discrimination. Without mentioning this violent event that occurred a week prior, there would not be much timeliness to his argument, and it wouldn’t have been as effective. The timeliness of his argument gave the speech a lot more meaning, and it heightened the emotions of many who heard the address. He is appealing to the emotions of many American people, both Congressmen and ordinary citizens, to encourage them to support his cause. He reminds us of all of the Americans around the world that are risking their lives for our freedom. He refers to them as “guardians of our liberty.” He also address the problem as the whole nation should be concerned not just the north, the south, or the African American
Mich Landrieu’s speech that he delivered to the public on May 19th, 2017, was a beautiful speech written and expressed by him about the removal of the four monuments within the city of New Orleans. This message was given by the Mayor due to racist comments of these statues and Landrieu expressed in his speech the true history of the city. For some of the people of New Orleans, they thought these statues were the identity of the city and a celebration of confederacy, however, African Americans took offense to the statues. The mayor effectively uses logos, pathos, and ethos to persuade his audience that taking down these confederate monuments is what needs to be done. Confederacy and the widespread demonstrations found many in other southern states as well discussing different monuments and their meanings. .Bill Golash, a gentleman interviewed from Richmond, Virginia said “I love the city of Richmond and I want to see us grow” (Raddatz). This statement reaches out to many of the issues being faced with decisions of change and Golosh echoing we can’t change
of the Lincoln Memorial. His speech addresses civil rights and the struggles of racial diversity and
Imagine standing in front of the defaced statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee only to hear two sides of people curse, hurt each other. This situation is too familiar for people who visit Charlottesville, VA, the formerly peaceful town. The controversy between Confederate memorials never ends. Many people argue that Confederate monuments should be taken down because they become the flashpoints of unrest and violence. As far as I am concerned, confederate memorials should remain as these memorials are the legacy of history; history is value-neutral and innocent.
The American Civil war is considered to be one of the most defining moments in American history. It is the war that shaped the social, political and economic structure with a broader prospect of unifying the states and hence leading to this ideal nation of unified states as it is today. In the book “Confederates in the Attic”, the author Tony Horwitz gives an account of his year long exploration through the places where the U.S. Civil War was fought. He took his childhood interest in the Civil War to a new level by traveling around the South in search of Civil War relics, battle fields, and most importantly stories. The title “Confederates in the Attic”: Dispatches from the Unfinished Civil War carries two meanings in Tony Horwitz’s thoughtful and entertaining exploration of the role of the American Civil War in the modern world of the South. The first meaning alludes to Horwitz’s personal interest in the war. As the grandson of a Russian Jew, Horwitz was raised in the North but early in his childhood developed a fascination with the South’s myth and history. He tells readers that as a child he wrote about the war and even constructed a mural of significant battles in the attic of his own home. The second meaning refers to regional memory, the importance or lack thereof yet attached to this momentous national event. As Horwitz visits the sites throughout the South, he encounters unreconstructed rebels who still hold to outdated beliefs. He also meets groups of “re-enactors,” devotees who attempt to relive the experience of the soldier’s life and death. One of his most disheartening and yet unsurprising realizations is that attitudes towards the war divide along racial lines. Too many whites wrap the memory in nostalgia, refusing...
His argument focuses around the false religious aspect and the insensibility of it. The Lincoln Memorial is nothing but a representation of two speeches that have been published “ad infinitum” (Savage 2009). He makes the point that religiously respected things are often relics or direct artifacts, but that the Lincoln Memorial has nothing like that yet the monument makes the history is memorializes more “extraordinary and authoritative”. The monument was also made long after Lincoln’s era and death. The massive structure is nothing but that considering its anachronistic inaccuracy. This communicates how monuments have the power of glorifying history and creating some type of personal connection and community in our imaginations and just as well, these monuments can bring groups together that don’t have positive effects such as the neo-nazis and white nationalists that are empowered by confederate monuments like in Charlottesville, Virginia. This possibility needs to be considered prior to creating monuments; it being known that monuments have the power to bring people together, there needs to be some insight as to what type of people those are because the American identity depends on
Imagine a historian, author of an award-winning dissertation and several books. He is an experienced lecturer and respected scholar; he is at the forefront of his field. His research methodology sets the bar for other academicians. He is so highly esteemed, in fact, that an article he has prepared is to be presented to and discussed by the United States’ oldest and largest society of professional historians. These are precisely the circumstances in which Ulrich B. Phillips wrote his 1928 essay, “The Central Theme of Southern History.” In this treatise he set forth a thesis which on its face is not revolutionary: that the cause behind which the South stood unified was not slavery, as such, but white supremacy. Over the course of fourteen elegantly written pages, Phillips advances his thesis with evidence from a variety of primary sources gleaned from his years of research. All of his reasoning and experience add weight to his distillation of Southern history into this one fairly simple idea, an idea so deceptively simple that it invites further study.
There are certain historical facts, which have been lost in the public memory, as certain legends have taken the place of reality. In order to fully understand what happened, it is necessary to comprehend that the Northern states were far from being uniformly the champions of equal rights that is generally indicated by popular belief. By this understanding, that is that the abandonment of African-Americans did not constitute a drastic change of moral position for many people in the North, it is easier to understand their subsequent actions in ignoring the plight of African-Americans in the South after the Reconstruction era. An example of one of these overlooked historical facts would be that there were still slaves in the nation’s capital in 1860; and, at that time, the President-elect, Abraham Lincoln, offered, “to support a constitutional amendment to insulate the institution of slavery in the slave states from federal interference. ”6....