The essay analyzes why sander is right to oppose reparation and why he does so as it is evident from the two articles. The topic on reparation has become a pertinent issue in the politics of the US. A growing number of local, state and national politicians support creating a massive government program that would pay billions of taxpayer dollars to slave descendants (Didier, and Croucher 1). The paper expands the analysis of the articles expressing how the arguments in each of the articles are being outlined. Various rhetorical strategies, for instance, pathos, ethos, and logos are employed in the dissection and critical evaluation of the arguments that are put forward in each article. The essay analyzes the articles by looking at the arguments put forward and how each article accomplishes its goal with its audience.
Why Sander Is Right to Oppose Reparations
The author of the article uses various rhetorical strategies in convincing the target audience on why Sander is right to oppose reparations. The author starts by opining that neutral remedies to problems that face minorities are appropriate rather than reparation. “The fact that reparations are not a panacea does not discredit the policy but suggest that one can fight many aspects of white supremacy without favoring reparations” (Friedersdorf 3).The author opines that the US policies caused injuries to black people than other indigenous people, and reparations are not the best strategy to solve the problem. From the article, it is evident that the author concurs with Sanders view on the issue, and he is of the view that a neutral strategy should be embraced.
First, the author disagrees with the issue that failure to reparate is equivalent to failing because he is convinced that incarnation of justice shows a government that redistributes wealth to its people. The distribution should be based on need, and should not shift towards any strategy that would redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich in some instances. He concurs with Sander that reparation would divide people in a way that could cause more harm to vulnerable groups. Bureaucrats are also likely to take advantage of the process to come up with unjust measures of defining who qualifies as black.
Second, the author uses logic as a rhetorical strategy so as to convince the target audience of why sander is right to oppose reparations. The author opines that few blacks are far better than whites in terms of the annual earnings and still live in neighborhoods with whites who earn less. “Black families making $100,000 a year tend to live in the same kind of neighborhoods as white families making $30,000 a year” (Friedersdorf 4). The writer argues that Sander wants to confer benefits to the underprivileged and working-class black people with a race-neutral rather than a reparation strategy.
Third, the author alleges that a neutral approach will not only help the black Americans but also members of other abused groups, and impoverished white people who have been unable to climb out of poverty due to injustices that were committed against them in the past. The author argues that the approach sander takes lacks the symbolism of reparation and fails to transfer wealth to black people who are better off. The author suggests a race-neutral approach could consist of an inquiry into redlining that which would highlight the unequal ways that targeted blacks who were harmed. Black victims would obtain justice under a race-specific policy which is neutral rather than reparation.
The author establishes his credibility with the target audience with his vast knowledge on how reparations have not solved problems, for instance, racist policing. He argues that reparations have not ended the problem of racist policing because the vice is still prevalent in the US. The author argues a neutral approach is the best by dwelling on how it is working for police reforms, for example, end broken windows policing, Community oversight, and limit the use of force and fair police union contracts. The benefits of reparations could be gotten from race-neutral policies which may not harm the poor and other marginalized groups.
Why Precisely Is Bernie Sanders against Reparations
The author starts off with Sanders response when he was tasked with explaining why he was against reparation. He argues that from Sanders sentiment it is evident that he is opposing plutocracy, but his sentiments are limited against the white supremacy. The author opines that Sanders opposition to reparation is divisive and rivaled by the unlikelihood of Sanders pretentiousness as a pragmatist. The author alleges that Radicals increase the political mind and, prevent instrumentalism from becoming a virtue but Sanders radicalism has not been able to fight against white supremacy. The authors argue that the prepositions of Sander are within the overtone window and his stand on race echoes democratic orthodoxy. Reparation is both an indispensable and possible tool against supremacy of the white (Coates 5). The author sees Sanders as not only a candidate who is against reparation but also a person who does not understand his argument.
The author establishes his credibility with the target audience with his knowledge of historical injustices. He alleges that from1619-1960s, institutions, businesses, associations, and governments in America repeatedly plundered blacks. They used various methods to commit social ills, for instance, land-theft, red-lining, disenfranchisement, convict-lease labor, lynching, enslavement, and the vending of children among many others (Coates 5). He alleges that Sanders is evading facts by only changing the subject and coming up with a remedy that may not be possible. The use of factual information backed up with statistics to communicate to the audience shows the credibility the author has of talking about the subject.
The author uses logic to relay his message and convince the target audience that sander is wrong by opposing reparation. He alleges that a person cannot recommend plundering people, incurring debt, propose never to pay, and claim to be engaging in the fight against white supremacy. The author successfully uses reason to convince the target audience why Sander is against reparation.
The author evokes feelings from the target audience by mentioning victims of various social ills that bedeviled the American society. He alleges that if Sanders believes that victims of the Tulsa pogrom, contract lending, debt peonage, and political plunder, of black communities, have a right to nothing, then he is wrong. The mention of victims of various social injustices is an appeal to emotions and feelings of the audience because it evokes sadness. The memory of victims of past social injustices makes the audience feel sad and see why reparation is the best option. The author opines that if sander is the candidate of change, then America should endure white supremacy for many years to come.
The authors of the articles easily convey their message to the target audience by employing various writing strategies. They all achieve their goal of communicating their argument about Sanders’ opinion to the audience.
Consor Friedersdorf: Why sander is right to oppose reparations, The Atlantic, 25th Jan 2016, 1-9, print.
Michel, Didier, and Richard Croucher. “‘Legal at the time’? The case of Mauritian slavery.” Journal of African Law 58.1 (2014): 89-108 Print
Ta-nehisi Coates: Why Precisely Is Bernie Sanders against Reparations, The Atlantic, 4th February 2016, 1-5, print.