Thanksgiving in my family

Malcolm X- “The Ballot or the Bullet”

So we're trapped, trapped, double-trapped, triple-trapped. Any way we go, we find that we're trapped. Any every kind of solution that someone comes up with is just another trap. But the political and economic philosophy of black nationalism…the economic philosophy of black nationalism shows our people the importance of setting up these little stores, and developing them and expanding them into larger operations. Woolworth didn't start out big like they are today; they started out with a dime store, and expanded, and expanded, and expanded until today they are all over the country and all over the world and they getting some of everybody's money. Now this is what you and I – General Motors, the same way, it didn't start out like it is. It started out just a little rat-race type operation. And it expanded and it expanded until today it's where it is right now. And you and I have to make a start. And the best place to start is right in the community where we live.

My Thanksgiving mimic

So my family is loud, very loud, very very loud. Anywhere we go we are told that we’re loud. You can only imagine how loud and rambunctious we are on Thanksgiving. But we do have some deep and meaningful conversations at dinner….we talk about the economic state of the United States and we talk about politics, primarily about how Obama is doing his job. Occasionally my snobby cousin talks about what amazing designer dress she’s wearing; what designer clothes she’s getting, and has, and what gifts she’ll get on Christmas, and currently what shoes are to die for and what aren’t and of course brag about her new iPhone 6. Now my other cousin and I- we just nod our heads, pretending to listen, occasionally throwing in some replies. And then there’s dessert and that’s of course my favorite part. And that’s always what goes the fastest and there’s never any left overs. And the best part is that I’ll be having an assortment of Italian and Arabic desserts.

Churchill vs. Hirohito vs. Goebbels

In the short time of a week, I have read three drastically different speeches, or so I thought. Although all the philosophers are addressing somewhat different topics and different audiences, they do have many rhetorical devices, claims and fallacies in common, in fact they even use them in close to the same ways. The most distinct similarity was the scare tactic and slipper slope used: if we don’t do something then we will die and eventually all of human civilization. Oh, and all the speakers were experts in making their country the victims.

In all cases they use slippery slope to say that they are doing the addressed action to make sure that the end of civilization does not happen, their actions are a benefit of the world.  Specifically, Emperor Hirohito was surrendering, and in some way said that this would benefit the rest of the world, “Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.” But he also didn’t make it sound like a complete surrendering speech..he made it sound almost neutral, like there great loss was supposed to happen. In ways such as saying that the war was “not necessarily to Japan’s advantage…”, which was a complete litote. However Winston Churchill is talking to the British Empire to do the exact opposite, he needs everyone to stand up and take action, fight back! The beast has been awakened! Churchill says almost the exact same thing as Hirohito: “Let that be realized; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal.” And with that being said Joseph Goebbels also had the fact that he was rallying his people up in Berlin, Germany in common with Churchill, but also said the end of civilization was near if they did not do anything.

All parties also use the royal “we”, creating a sense of unity, making sure the society is united in whatever they do whether its surrendering or fighting back!

Thoreau vs. Machiavelli

            The major differences in these two pieces of work are power and freedom, while Thoreau advocates that the government shouldn’t have so much power and the society should stray from the majority, Machiavelli believes in making the society fear the ruler (or government) establishing the power, giving the society very little freedom. Both authors establish two different perspectives as to how a society should act and how it should governed.

Machiavelli believes in belittling citizens, making them feel small, intimidating them, establishing that he is in charge and no one should even think to cross him or they will face the unknown consequences. He also says that lying before being put into power is okay, you have to do what you have to do, once you’re in power you can you’re your real colors. We discussed in class that, in some ways, this is how real politics works. Many candidates that run for any position promise the people many things just to look good, gaining votes. Now are these lies bad? Are the necessary? That was something we came to a dead end with. There’s no way to stop these “white lies”. Machiavelli addresses this when saying a ruler should show his generosity, spend his own money giving back and such, but once elected as ruler, use the citizens money for whatever he may be showing his “generosity” towards.

Thoreau, however, almost argues the exact opposite, the government shouldn’t have as much as power as it does. He even goes on to say that the government treats the citizens, and any government employers as “puppets”. He expresses in a sense that militants are government puppets that have lost all humanity, who will do anything for the government at any costs. This creates and evokes his readers, what if we are really just puppets for the government? Thoreau even goes to the extent of not paying his taxes to get his point across….he suffered those consequences.