In David Brook’s, “One Nation Slightly Divisible” and Jonathan Rauch’s, “In Defense Of Prejudice, both writers make valid points. Both authors also have a common technique; Brook’s and Rauch seem to have biased viewpoints towards the subject matter. But although these two authors share this similarity, one author stands out in how he uses the bias to his advantage or even to the advantage of the audience to better understand and be convinced by his ideology. Although both authors seem to have biased viewpoints, their bias fuels their arguments in efforts to successfully fulfill their purpose. David Brook’s appears to structure his biased viewpoint in a way that exhibits a more pervasive bias than Jonathan Rauch in how he uses the bias to incorporate …show more content…
Brook’s mocking tone expresses his bias as well as views his intentions in a way that comes out negatively towards red America. Brook’s initiates his article saying, “Sixty-five miles from where I am writing this sentence is a place with no Starbucks, no pottery barn, no borders or Barnes & Noble.” Although it may come shocking to the younger generations that an area doesn’t have a Starbucks, what is more shocking is the depiction of “red America” as made by Brook’s. The image of a dessert may come to mind after reading this sentence. It almost seems as if the town is not evolved, lacking technology or modern day status. Here Brook’s is showing his mocking and even insulting tone, the description made of the “red America” town is insulting, as if the people there are still living in the Stone Age. Although “red America” is not actually in the Stone Age, this statement he makes gives a clearer depiction on the image he is trying to portray of “red …show more content…
His biased view towards the matter is a tool Brook’s uses to better fulfill his purpose of the writing, implying that the subject he is speaking about is of interest to him. Using words and phrases such as “In this place, people don’t complain that Woody Allen isn’t as funny as he used to be, because they never thought he was funny.” This statement not only contains a slight bit of humor but also contains a bold message. Brook’s is speaking about how “blue” America may find Woody Allen funny unlike “red” America but taking out the irrelevance of Woody Allen, Brook’s purpose and argument begins to show. The distinct status, intelligence, personality and overall being between the two social groups. Rauch states, “The whole objective of eradicating prejudice, as opposed to correcting and criticizing it, should be repudiated as a fool’s errand. Salman Rushdie is right, Toni Morrison wrong.” Rauch makes it clear of who’s side he is on, but rather than making a joke of it, as Brook’s did, he makes a statement believe that a task such as eradicating prejudice would be a “fool’s errand,” it would be impossible, and his argument is rather than attempting the impossible and getting nothing done, instead correcting what needs fixing would be the better
Some people love controversy; some despise it. Regardless of how one views a controversial topic, odds are he is fascinated by it and has his own thoughts on the matter. Journalist Leonard Pitts, Jr., who authors editorial articles for the Miami Herald, writes extremely opinionated pieces on current controversial topics targeting those who are not minorities. He writes with the goal of bringing to light issues that people would rather not discuss. Pitts’ style can be seen through pieces such as “Don’t Lower the Bar on Education Standards;” “Torture Might Work, but That’s Not the Issue;” and “If the Gunman is White, We’re OK With Mass Murder.
He effectively moves from a position of “Other” to one of empowerment through his active participation in the Civil Rights movement, and his comedy. In fact, Gregory views comedy as “friendly relations,” allowing him to abandon his repressed identity—one that was “mad and mean inside” (134)—and move to a position of empowerment that allows Gregory to “make jokes about [whites] and their society” (Gregory 132). Through his comedy, Gregory is also able to dissociate himself from the term “nigger,” as well as the namelessness, de-individuation, and dehumanizing effects associated with it: “Every white man in America knows we are Americans, knows we are Negroes, and some of them know us by our names. So when he calls us a nigger, he’s calling us something we are not, something that exists only in his mind. So if nigger exists only in his mind, who’s the nigger?” (Gregory 201). In refusing to adopt the word and its negative connotations as self-definition, Gregory “returns” the word and its negativity to the dominant society of the white middle class—the discriminatory “. . . system that makes a man less than a man, that teaches hate and fear and ignorance” (Gregory
Fridman pulls examples from across the educational spectrum, from elementary school up through college. This variety of examples emphasizes the widespread and deeply engrained prejudice expressed throughout the United states. The sheer size of his example highlights the enormity of the issue. If this ostracization occurred only in the lower academic level it would not be considered an issue. Fridman’s variety of examples discourages argument that this could be an isolated phenomenon.
Smith introduces the concept of ascriptive inegalitarianism, which effectively brings to light the conditions in which the reality of political ideologies exist due to social preconceptions that are passed from one generation to the next about the “natural” superiority of one race, gender, religion, etc. Liberalism and republicanism exist and function within this realm, not allowing for their respective ideological potentials to be fully realized. Hereditary burdens are placed on minorities because of clashing of democratic liberalism and republicanism along with these systematic and cyclical discriminatory practices. When seen through the eyes of society and government, these systems are completely inescapable. Americans, through these ascriptive systems of multiple political traditions, struggle with the contradictions each idea presents against the other and as a society attempt to embrace the best qualities of each. These outlooks help explain why liberalizing efforts have failed when countered with supporting a new racial or gender order. The ascriptive tradition allows for intellectual and psychological validation for Americans to believe their personal and hereditary characteristics express an identity that has inherent importance in regards to the government, religion, and nature. This provides those who are a part of the white elite to dictate which features are the most desirable and holy, giving head to social conceptions like “white wages”, which make them inherently superior to all other races and cultures. These ideologies are institutionalized within all facets of American life such as causing evils like mass incarceration, wage gaps, and rising suicide
The ability for people to look at a situation from a different perspective is vital in today’s globalized society. Diversity is the most important core attribute we share that gives us a new perspective to assess situations differently through our diverse backgrounds and upbringings. Unlike Patrick J. Buchanan’s argument in his essay titled “Deconstructing America,” diversity is not a burden, but rather a necessity in America’s culture. Conversely, Fredrickson 's essay titled, “Models of American Ethnic Relations: A Historical Perspective,” illustrated a more precise version of American history that disproves Buchanan’s ethnocentric ideologies. Buchanan speaks of diversity as a narrow, one-way street. The imprecise interpretations of history
For example “… the story line held that white men under economic pressure were livid about gays, guns, immigration, affirmative action, and Hillary, and turned in frustration to the Gingrich Republicans.” This exhibition of bias may upset the reader one way or another talking about crucial topics causing them to become emotional and/or stop reading this article. An additional weakness that Fiorina exhibits in this article is that he portrays many opinions about the “Cultural Divide” but does not explain or have any evidence to support it…” The simple truth is that there is no culture war in the United States- no battle for the soul of American rages, at least none that most Americans are aware of.” Fiorina does not portray any evidence leading this statement to back it up. I disagree with Fiorina that there is no culture war today when in fact the whole premise of the American government system was created with the ideology of the division of Democratic and
We’ve all done it: walking down a hallway, judging someone or thinking someone is less than what we perceive ourselves to be based on the color of their skin or how they are dressed, or even their physical features. The author of The Language of Prejudice, Gordon Allport, shares how we live in a society where we are ridiculed for being less than a culture who labels themselves as dominant. This essay reveals the classifications made to the American morale. Allport analyzes in many ways how language can stimulate prejudice and the connection between language and prejudice.
When the word “prejudice” is mentioned in public conversation, undertones of anger and unfairness usually accompany it. Prejudice is often defined as a predetermined opinion not based on fact,experience, or knowledge. Many acts of inequalities and discriminative wrong-doings in history can be traced back to being a result of prejudice.So what place does a concept with such a negative connotation have in an institution of higher education where students and faculty of varying cultures and backgrounds come together to learn? Instinctively, a good number of people would answer that prejudice and its negative consequences have no place in such an environment. However, a contradicting opinion is expressed in an article written by Jonathan Rauch titled “In Defense of Prejudice” . In this article, Rauch expresses his dissatisfaction with the
In the Norton Reader 13th edition, readers will find an article “In Defense of Prejudice” by Jonathan Rauch. Rauch correctly tells us that rather than trying to get rid of prejudice, people should try and teach people to fight prejudice. Rauch says “stamping out prejudice really means forcing everyone to share the same prejudice, namely that of whoever is in authority” (575). Rauch believes that people don 't need to focus on destroying prejudices, but instead put effort into redirecting it so that they it is used to help people. That would require that everyone put prejudice against prejudice, which would allow everything to be put up to public criticism. Rauch lets it be know that he is gay, and a Jewish man. In
Second, I will discuss Brook’s ideas about social groups working together and social groups coexisting in a specific area. According to Brooks, in the United States we cannot see neighborhoods with different races or cultures because people always try “to group themselves with people who are basically like themselves” even in their workplaces (306-307). He makes this asseveration giving just an example on how wealthy Democratic and Republican lawyers do not tend to buy expensive houses in the same neighborhoods (307). However, in our country we can see middle class neighborhoods where we have different social groups coexist together, such as Coral Gables in Miami, Fl or Pembroke Pines in Broward, Fl.
...r own unique ways.; however, the authors focus on different aspects of prejudice and racism, resulting in them communicating different ideas and thoughts that range from racial discrimination to stereotypical attitudes. The range of ideas attempt to engage the readers about the reality of their issues. The reality about a world where prejudice and racism still prevail in modern times. But when will prejudice and racism ever cease to exist? And if they were ever to cease from existence, what does that mean about humankind?
For instance, Brooks himself confesses that he has himself in the past gravitated towards places where he believed he could be most comfortable in and where he also felt he could be his true self. He further states, that the majority of his friends are middle-income level Caucasians and conservative Christians. Brooks’ main argument in the essay is that many individuals in the United States often do not even bother to show that they would like to build diverse communities. The essay, Brook says, is about the public discourse on race and is meant to make us ponder about the stereotypes and assumptions we have when we think about diversity or people from other ethnicities. It is also meant to make us look where we fit in the diversity debate? Are we truly for the integration of
He creates this tone to convey his purpose to the reader which is that prejudice is still an ongoing problem in American society, and that it will never be a thing of the past. Staples gives many personal anecdotes that are very somber; the readers are affected by this because they can emphasize and feel the prejudice that the victim, Brent Staples, faces. Although Staples is never delighted with the positions he is in, he never shows his resentment. In one part of the article, Staples said, “It is not altogether clear to me how I reached the ripe old age of twenty-two without being conscious of the lethality nighttime pedestrians attributed to me.” (Staples, 2). Staples attributes that he knows many people in American society automatically assume that he is a threat to “their” society because of
A majority of the population has or will gain a bias towards or against a person, place, object, or concept, an example of one of these people is Truman Capote, a successful homosexual writer. He grew up as a openly feminine, gay man, who was neglected by his parent. As his father abandoned him for being different and his mother, an alcoholic, left him with relatives for many years. From this neglect he turned to writing. Wanting to create an interesting new book, he found a news clipping relating to the unsolved murder of the Clutter family. With his interest peaked, he left for Kansas to search for information to figure out the mystery. Using the information he gained from questioning the townspeople and even the murderers themselves, he
Throughout this essay, Rauch does a good job to defend prejudice. However, he makes it clear that he does not think it is right,