Relating Articles

              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.