Malcolm X Attempt #2

When you teach a man to hate his lips, the lips that God gave him, the shape of the nose that God gave him, the texture of the hair that God gave him, the color of the skin that God gave him, you've committed the worst crime that a race of people can commit. And this is the crime that you've committed.

- Malcolm X, Our Hair! (http://www.endarkenment.com/hair/essays/malcolm/index.htm)

Racial prejudice is an insidious moral and social disease affecting peoples and populations all over the world. The outbreak hysteria of racism occurred in mid-twentieth century, targeting African-Americans mostly. Institutionalized racial segregation was ended as an official practice by the efforts of civil rights activists such as Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and El-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz, known as Malcolm X.

Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965 in New York City while giving a speech, Our Hair!. He was a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans. Malcolm X offered an insightful perspective on the freedom of Black people. In the historical tradition of Black educators, he was undeniably committed to "uplifting the race" by encouraging Black people to become cognizant of their consignment in the American social order, and then proposing the necessary steps to rectify these conditions. Based on my analysis, Malcolm X’s piked coherence and constructive statement offered two different kinds of audience.

At the beginning of the essay, Malcolm X targeted to the plain folks with the bulleted points of what white Americans had made us to do. He connected between the black people’s actions and white people’s responses to catch the plain black folks' eyes first. Later in the essay, Malcolm X mentioned lot about the foreign affairs going on between other countries and USA. This time, he targeted the highly-educated people about the affairs for which most Americans wouldn't have understood it. So the way he could get everybody involved with his essay. Rather than relying on theoretical and philosophical abstractions, Malcolm X used his life and experiences as a basis for his critique.

Since Malcolm X did not leave a body of writings per se that addressed significant radical issues, the diction and sentence tools that Malcolm X used helped to create his voice in the speech even on paper. In his or her head, the reader can almost hear Malcolm X dramatically giving the speech. He had a very strong, confident, persuasive voice. A writer or speaker who has control of his language has control of his audience. Charismatic, articulate and statuesque, Malcolm X was able to persuade people how repulsive the word "hate" could become. He stated,

"We hated the African characteristics.

We hated our hair...

We hated our nose, the shape of our nose, and the shape of our lips, the color of our skin. Yes we did. And it was you who taught us to hate ourselves simply by shrewdly maneuvering us into hating the land of our forefathers and the people on that continent."

One thing Malcolm X lacked in his essay was the evidences to support his reason of the hate. He did not brace his evidences of black people of the distant regions who actually hated themselves. By the power of his charisma, he was capable to layer up the evidences with his emotional appeals which were ethos to make his argument reasonable. It is a moot question whether Malcolm X made any contributions to the Negro’s struggle for freedom, whether he was a catalyst to the cause or just a loud and strident voice crying in some personal wilderness foreign to the real needs and aspirations of the nation’s Negroes. By the speech of Our Hair, he bridged everybody's emotions no matter how complicated or simple it was.

Rhetorical Analysis on Malcolm X

When you teach a man to hate his lips, the lips that God gave him, the shape of the nose that God gave him, the texture of the hair that God gave him, the color of the skin that God gave him, you've committed the worst crime that a race of people can commit. And this is the crime that you've committed.

- Malcolm X, Our Hair! (http://www.endarkenment.com/hair/essays/malcolm/index.htm)

Racial prejudice is an insidious moral and social disease affecting peoples and populations all over the world. The outbreak hysteria of racism occurred in mid-twentieth century, targeting African-Americans mostly. Institutionalized racial segregation was ended as an official practice by the efforts of civil rights activists such as Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and El-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz, known as Malcolm X.

Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965 while giving a speech, Our Hair!. He was a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans. In the speech, Our Hair!, Malcolm X accused white Americans for making black people hate themselves for what they have; big noses, shape of lips, color of their skin, and texture of their hair. I, like Malcolm X, believe in the use of violence when it is necessary to shape the society.

In the speech, Malcolm X referred and, then, insulted American’s comments about the Congolese “cannibals” holding the white hostages. Malcolm structurally supported his opinions about inferior minds of white Americans. As Malcolm X notes, Americans didn’t give any shit about thousands of black people dying from the bombings in Congo, until they panicked about the white people being held as hostages. Malcolm X created a bridge to connect two facts into a forcible statement by telling the audience about the hidden image of Congolese’s war maneuvers. They just held white hostages to warn the pilots that they would kill their own white people if they kept bombing. Throughout the speech, Malcolm X’s feelings and tone were heavily implied to all of hearers.

Malcolm X’s piked coherence and constructive transition method were used greatly to connect between the black people’s actions and white people’s responses. Malcolm X noted,

“You still see the result of it among our people in this country today. Because we hated our African blood, we felt inadequate, we felt inferior, we felt helpless. And in our state of helplessness, we wouldn't work for ourselves. We turned to you for help, and then you wouldn't help us. We didn't feel adequate. We turned to your for advice and you gave us the wrong advice. Turned to you for direction and you kept us going in circles.”

The statement above, in my opinion, is the climax of the entire speech to remind the readers that even the tiniest amount of ignorance will eventually sum into the colossal neglect of justice. Malcolm X didn’t leave any messages in the end to make us think, instead, he just heavily criticized how inglorious bastards Americans are for making black people believing in for what they hate. I notice that Malcolm X gave the audience no flexibility because Malcolm X used only logos to appeal the audience’s emotions. Once the audience is given with only facts and reasons, there is no way audience could shape or bend the facts. Nevertheless, Malcolm X’s rigid and blunt statements awakened the world with the unheard comments from a minority.

In the conclusion, Malcolm X was assassinated because his comments disputed many of the opposed-viewers with broad non-pacifist statements. I can’t say that his argument in the speech was effective to all of us, only those people who believe in him. Malcolm X had given us with a choice, which is to raise our hands to the power or to let the society imprison the minority of black people because of the color of their skin or the texture of their hair?

List of things I believe in

The fallibility of our egos.

Man is savage at heart.

Practicing humility is a worthwhile endeavor.

Violence is the answer.

The déjà vu of the book, V for Vendetta.

Ability of one to create oneself own reality.

No man is an Island. A naked man with no tools will die in the wild.

Existence of UFOs.

A happy family is but an earlier heaven.

God.

Nafisi in Lunsford

In the world of mysterious connections, Nafisi (Lunsford 2007) suggested that we must create the empathy among ourselves. The word 'empathy' is the intellectual identification with experiencing the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes connecting with another. As Nafisi mentioned about her beliefs towards the importance of ability to empathize others in Lunsford (p.910), she said we could find ourselves linking with other unknown citizens through the alternative lens.

The alternative lens, in Nafisi's argument, would allow ourselves to transcend our limitations to open and nourish our minds. Creating the shock recognition, Nafisi suggested in (Lunsford, p. 910) that despite the colossal differences between the citizens from all parts of the world, we should put ourselves aside the political indifferences and feel them. The famous literary quote, as stated in Lee (To Kill a Mockingbird), "You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view- until you climb into his skin and walk around it," greatly appertrains Nafisi's definition of empathy. Lee's Atticus Finch (To Kill a Mockingbird) was a lawyer and he was brutally honest, a tireless crusader, and he devoided any racial prejudices in small town because he established an empathy, linking with an innocent, battered black man, and accepted his role to avail the case, protecting him. That is what Nafisi wanted from all of us, to climb into somebody's skin and walk around it. Instead of Nafisi’s attempt to persuade us, she used emotional appeals in her essay.

Out of three modes of persuasion in rhetoric, Nafisi used the pathos dominantly in her essay. She linked all of us by using a general passion in her delivery and an overall number of emotional items in the text of the speech. She mentioned nothing of her characteristics or her reasoning, but an emotional allurement out of Nafisi’s thoughts. I believe that, as Nafisi suggested in Lunsford (p. 910), we should fight for what we believe as long we understand the opposing argument first. The parallel of that is assumedly similar to the well-known phrase, “You got to know your enemy first before you know yourself.” Understanding others is as vital as we need to open and analyze ourselves. Nafisi, not directly, asked all of us to rapport each other to make the world a better place.

It concludes in Nafisi’s meat-and-potatoes text in Lunsford (p. 910) that we should stop and smell the roses. We are to ponder, and develop the empathy among ourselves that would make all of us hold hands at the end.

The "F Word"

As Firoozeh "Julie" Dumas wrote about her hardships in her life, it was evidently ironic of the way she said about her name being the hefty barrier in her life. The common stereotype of immigrant’s frustration was the limitation of communication with the curbed budget. The main frustration that Firoozeh faced during her childhood being an immigrant was not one of those stereotype, ironically, it was how people pronounced her name or look her differently just because of her name. As she wrote the story in a chronological order following the earliest at the beginning, she created the most effective argument towards the common minds of Americans.

Firoozeh mainly used comparisons to oppose Americans’ general viewpoints to treat people differently through the name itself. She pointed out that where hell did they get the idea to call a guy with Richard as his name “Dick”, and that America is the land of people that have a name that could be anybody. Nobody is a masked man with a “z” on cape, unlike Firoozeh. She used the satirical methods to humor and ape American’s feeble one-way perspective concerning the bizarre foreign names. In Lunsford et al. (2004) Chapter 2, some of writers used emotions to build bridges between the readers and writers themselves by assuring them that they are to understand their experiences. Regarding sensitive issues in depth, writers sometimes used them to strike the right emotional note to establish the right connection with the readers. She consistently provided the humor comparisons that related to her experiences such as almost naming herself “Farrah”, but eventually declined due to postpubescent guys’ major obsession. She developed an immediate afflation with the readers by giving a remark title, “The ‘F Word’”. Most would expect something related to a profane word, but it is not. The title made a colossal impact on attracting the readers to complete her readings.

The conclusion of a stymied story of Firoozeh Dumas was that America was the place that shaped her life, her identity unforced. Her experience is just an additional spice to America’s huge spice cabinet, apparently placed on the last row of spices unnoticed. American’s way of life is very traditional, often reacting profusely when they are being faced with something new and odd. You could say that America is just like an old dog that can’t even learn a new trick.

Critical Thinking Applied to the Arts

Art history itself is distinguished from art criticism, which is concerned with establishing a relative artistic value upon individual works with respect to others of comparable style of critical thinking. As Paul and Elder (2005), "Critical Thinking Applied to the Arts" mentioned that art criticism plays a prominent role in art, I abet this message that high achievement in art is not considered to be existed if it cannot be identified or defined. As unofficially declared art history major, I am engulfed with experiences of art history practices and I say I agree that an art, without being criticized, becomes a hidden object of prodigious talent that will never be shown to our eyes, only known to local people. Everybody can be a critic, not limited only to advanced members of society or people with higher ranks.

Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s writings were considered to be the birth of art criticism. He first argued to a painting of Vasari that the real emphasis in the study of art should be the views of the learned beholder and not the unique viewpoint of the charismatic artist. He justified his words to the point why Vasari’s cult personality was illogical. Wincklemann’s original method of criticizing perfectly matches the line in Paul and Elder (2005), “Thus, if we believe that there is such a thing as great art, we had better to be prepared to justify our claims with words to the point.” That moves me to say that I highly disagree with one message in the book which says that every art must be assessed in accordance with the intellectual standards that apply to all reasoning. I ask you what about Jackson Pollock’s famous painting, Number 1? Does it have any intellectual standards? It broke rules of art standards, thus, creating a new art movement, abstract expressionism. It is still considered to be sui generis because of its originality and the artist’s emotions to the painting, without a question, are still puzzled to art experts today. Even though it is sui generis, in Latin for its own unique kind, it can still be criticized by the members of society. Without being criticized, an art could seek its own loss to existence. That all sums up to my logical response: every art have its own characteristics, identity, history, and purposes, and most important, beauty, but without a critique based on it, it wouldn’t be placed on a high profile among other famed artists. Artists’ fame depends on the works of people of society, sometimes absurd, but significant.

Sources for Johann Joachim Winckelmann: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33873013_ITM

Respond to Question 2 in Lunsford page 42

An argument asserts the truth of conclusion with declarative sentences that are proposed by a person or a group against the ones who disagree. In the past, I had used language to inform, to convince, to explore, to make decisions, and to mediate or pray. Few years back then, I was faced with a situation front of my parents where I had to inform them that I sneaked out of house during middle of night. I told them the truth, and it hurts. They deserved to know. We had an argument, ugly one, but at the end we cleared it off. It was no such as persuasion between us since I had nothing to convince them except apologize them for my actions.

I remember the day I was selling the milkshakes for my class during basketball homecoming. Many of newcomers walked by our booth unnoticed, of course being a president for my class, I waved some of them to receive my attention. I convinced them how good it could taste and I elaborated the nutritional facts about fat-free ice cream with slim milk that goes into the mixer to make the milkshakes. My job was triumphant and my persuasive approach eventually worked.

The trip to Venezuela was definitely an once in lifetime experience and many of natives approached me with lot of persuasions and arguments while I was out exploring the land of Angel Falls. I was looking for a local coffee shop, instead I was being encountered by several Portuguese merchants who wanted to sell me watches. They chose to persuade and convince me the quality and the cost were the perfect for Americans like me to purchase. Instead I gave them a machine gun blast of arguments in gesture that made them gulp. I pointed on the clock hands and they were moving counterclockwise. Such a moment to remember.

Often when I'm so sure of something, nothing could change my decision. There were times when somebody tries to change the course of my decision, and they failed to argue with me. Some friends of mine tried to encourage me to go to Youth Leadership Camp in Oregon and I refused. Instead of persuading them why I didn't want to go, I rained cats and dogs of argument on them. I had nothing to convince them except to argue their suggestion. That's why it was such an argument.

As I mentioned myself having a Christian background in my introduction blog, I pray often. A pray is to enter a spiritual communion with God. When I pray, I listen. There never were times when God is wrong so my argument or persuasion against God is mere worthless. Praying is an act of appreciation and listening his words and wisdom. I am proud to say it is an idiotic act to speak up against my religious belief.

Introduction

Hello my fellow classmates, some of you may find this homepage little appalling, but yes, I am a historian, not professionally. Someday maybe. Anyways, as Dr. Wood mentioned not to use my own name in this blog to prevent the embarrassment, I am the guy who has a short curly hair and claims that he is probably only one in entire class of 2013 who major in Art History. Get the clue? In case some of you don’t know who Robert Oppenheimer is, he is best known for the director of Manhattan Project, the project of developing atomic bombs during World War II era. He is one of my favorite historical figures out there.

Let me trace back to the time where I was barely in the womb. I was born in Frederick, Maryland, few miles from Maryland School for the Deaf. Despite the Desert Storm incident, my parents experienced budget cuts so I moved and raised in Indiana whole my life. I come from an Italian and Christian background. One of my family’s relatives was once an ex-Mafia, but hey, I don’t carry a gun with me. So do my brother and three sisters. I grew up being one of five kids and I am the middle one. All of us attend Indiana School for the Deaf, and I just graduated as a salutatorian for my class. I go to Gallaudet with one goal targeted in my mind which is becoming an Art History professor. As I said previously in this essay, I am a historian, not just a historian but an unprecedented one. I believe in UFOs and I venerate finding facts about conspiracies. I often viewed them with skepticism and sometimes ridicule because they are seldom supported by any conclusive evidence. That greatly applies to my favorite book of all time, Watchmen by Alan Moore, which became a major motion picture. According to that, I am an avid graphic novel reader. Graphic novels often present with a unique story plot with narrative work in which the story is conveyed to the reader using the comics form. I admire the critical thinking of graphic novel writers which heavily apply to this class, GSR 102, such a minimal irony.

That’s who I am, a guy who claims that his pseudonym is TheManhattanProject.