Skinheads
The article “true ‘skinheads’ are Not the Racist Thugs of
Media Fame” is an article claiming that the real skinhead groups not actual
hate groups. Its talks about how the skinhead movement was started in the 60’s
due to the youth movements towards the working class. And claims that the issue
of racism only ended up appearing due to the economic disparity suffered in the
70’s. The claim also says that most skinheads today are not racist and that the
few that are identify themselves as neo-Nazi.
The
argument of the article basically says that the people who generally associate
themselves today as skinhead are not actually racist. It also states that in
the beginning of the skinhead movement they did not start of being known as a
hate group. While the book argues that although the Ku Klux Klan did not start
off as a racist hate group right away they definitely ended up as one. They are indeed not a controversial topic when
discussing whether they were an actual hate group. So the argument with these two
is of opposition. The article is saying that the skinheads did not actually
become a hate group while the book is saying that the KKK club did in fact turn
into a hate group.
In the
case of the article the speaker here is not one with much credibility. She does
not really establish her credibility trough out the article much making her not
have a very effective sense of ethos. All she does throughout the article is
claim that some racism came into effect with the skinheads but it never became
a full fledge hate group. While in the book not only is the author a historian
who is familiar with the argument but he also states that what he is arguing is
what most other historians agree to be true. But by also giving the different
and controversial opinions of some historians he shows a large sense of
knowledge. Making it seem like his opinion is the most optimum one assuming he
has closely reviewed the other possibilities. This adds strong credibility to
his ethos something the article author lacks. He states that most historians,
including himself, agree that the KKK did not start of being hate group but did
in fact turn into one. He also includes the
the possibility of racism being there from the start for counterargument
but then states that it was most likely not a part of the groups existence at
first.
When it
comes to logos the book gets very specific. It’s gives out the exact date of
things and describes the likely hood of what happened in history due to actual
written accounts. It also gives a strong sense of logos by quoting people
involved and introducing testimony to support its claims. The article on the
other hand does not give out an effective sense of logos. It simply gives very vague time stances to
support its claims with. Not to mention there is no examples of actual accounts
from people within the article.
If
I joined a conversation between the articles author and the books author I
would definitely stand for the books author. He simply gives proper facts and
claims to his arguments. He defends what he believes to be true and gives out
actual testimony. Not to mention that the author form the book is far more
credible than the author from the article. Abbots, Jennifer. "True 'Skinheads' Are Not the Racist Thugs of Media Fame."The New York Times. The New York Times, 18 Apr. 1994. Web. 20 Aug. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/19/opinion/l-true-skinheads-are-not-the-racist-thugs-of-media-fame-829412.html>
The KKK
The article “The KKK and racial Problems” is basically
Stating that in the south a group Known as the Ku Klux Klan arose. In this it
states the at policy changes, Social changes, discontinuing in the hierarchy of
classes, economic disparity (in some instances theft) lead to the creation of
the notorious hate group. The people from the south had a hard time accepting
the fact of newly freed slaves after the civil war. In spite of all this anger
a hate group arose to torment and cause violence amongst the blacks.
What
the tow have in common is that they argue about whether the KKK had started off
as racist or not. The argument of the article is that the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)
had been a racist hate group from the start. It claims that from the very
origin of the group it had been designed to try and strike fear to the newly
freed black population of the south. This is instead an argument in contrast to
the one made from the book. In the book the argument is that the KKK was in
fact not made with the initial design of being a hate group. It claims that it
started off as a mere social club that later developed into a more violent and
racist gang turned hate group.
In the
article the speaker is a far well-educated and popular historian. They
establish their ethos by stating that the historian Chris Trueman was for 26
years teaching History and Politics at a major secondary school in England.
They also state that he graduated with a honors in History from Aberystwyth
University. This indeed adds to the credibility of the author. The author of
the book is a famous writer who has written non-fiction historical pieces
before. Her experience in these adds more to her overall credibility. She also
not establishes the likelihood of what she believes occurred in history but
also gives facts to support her claim. Not only that but she states the alternative
believes of some historians respectively and is not opinionative about it. Although
they are both well credited and experienced in the matter, I think something
that plays an important role here is the audience. The audience of the author
of the book is not the same as that of the article. The book intends to be reaching
towards a more general audience with an interest in how it began. While the
article is intended for British who want to familiarize themselves with whom
the KKK were. I believe this is the reason why the author of the article does
not stress the fact that the KKK began as a simple social group before it was a
hate group
The
article states that economic disparity and the freeing of slaves fueled the
anger and frustration of the south. The
article claims that this was the reason for the creation of the KKK. Which he
goes on to say was designed from the very start to go against the black
population. Although he does establish his logos well by saying that the south
anger from economic disparity and freeing of slaves was the fuel for their
hatred and violence. I believe he jumps too far whit saying that it was
designed from the start in that way. He does not really support this claim as
much a just jumps into that conclusion. The author of the book agrees that
economic disparity changes, sudden changes in social hierarchy, changes in
public policy, and releasing of slaves are all affecting factors in the
creation of the Ku Klux Klan. But as
seen from the logos from the book evidence suggest that it actual did not start
off that way. The book has included some written testimony and singed documents.
These show how the KKK was at the beginning a mere social club. This is much
more effective for establishing his logos than jumping to conclusions ike the
author of the article had.
In
the end if I joined in a conversation between the two. I would have to choose
to agree and side with the book author. He supports his claims with better
evidence and more appropriate and seemingly accurate over all. Although the
author of the article does have a large credibility, I feel he is only trying
to generalize the complexity of the KKK. This is probably due to his target
audience being mainly British so they are not fully aware and to interest in
the subject since it does not take much affect with their history.
Trueman, Chris. "The KKK and Racial Problems." The KKK and Racial Problems. History Learning Site, 2005. Web. 20 Aug. 2014. <http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/kkk_and_racial_problems.htm>
The article states that white nationalist only use religion
as a way of justifying what they do. It
goes on to say that the all believers of the religion are not supremacists.
That it’s only a small minority that is and therefore they should not all be
judged or generalized as white supremacists. He goes on to say that much like
the KKK and Christian the White nationalists use heathenism to try and justify
their actions and
The
argument in the article is that White Nationalist only uses the religion
heathenism as way to give proof of what they are doing is correct. The article
says that they simply try to interpret the religion in a way that fits what
they want. He argues that only a small minority are actual racist and violent.
The book also argues that the Ku Klux Klan members had different
interpretations of things themselves to fit their needs. The interpreted
Christianity as meant for them and founding documents and rights as only for
white people. I believe they are having a conversation of agreement here. That
being that hates groups use religion and interpret it in order to fit their
needs and justify their actions.
The author
of the article conveys a strong sense of trust and credibility as he is a
Heathen himself. He is not writing an article from an outside perspective so it
establishes good ethos. He can use himself and people he may know and be close
to in order to prove his point. Seeing as how he is trying to persuade an
author at CNN about how Heathens should not be seen as the image produced by
white nationalists. He makes point of this by comparing the relationship between
Christianity and the KKK.
He used
logos and describes the tradition and history behind the religion. He explains
that normally there is no race involved when it comes to heathenism. Then he
goes onto describe that only a small percentage of heathens interpret it and
use it in a way to justify racism and hate groups. The book also talks about
this argument when stating that the KKK was only a small percent of Christians who
over time massively grew in size. They interpreted Christianity as a way justify
and explain their acts of supremacy and hate in order to enforce “white power”.
Today the few Christians who are a part of the KKK are only a small minority of
Christians.
If I was
sitting in a conversation with both of these authors about this very document
argument. I would have lean in and agree with both of the authors. They are
having an argument in agreement and are discussing the same thing only with
different religions and social groups.
