“Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding,” said Ralph Waldo Emerson, an American poet. In our society, many consider violence as mostly inappropriate and childish. The reason being is as humans we should be capable of discussing and compromising when an obstacle is present, however many argue that that is not an option in certain situations. We can look back at 1950s-1960s, where racism loomed over in the south aimed at mostly at American Americans. Boycotts and lynchings were a popular occurrence from town to town which both the state and federal government showed minimal efforts to prevent.
Lerone Bennett Jr. argues that Abraham Lincoln is not the Great Emancipator. He claims that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation with misgivings and reservations. Lincoln shared racial prejudices with the majority of his fellow white Americans and never pretended to be a racial liberal or social innovator. A firm believer of white supremacy, Lincoln believed that whites and blacks would be better off separated. His character, eloquence, assassination, and the psychological needs of a racist society has obscured the reality of Lincoln’s motives and emotions towards abolition in Americans’ eyes.
The mere idea about removing this word from “Huckleberry Fin” is preposterous. By removing the word nigger, we are removing the whole meaning of the book. We are removing the reason and the effect Mark Twain was trying to laminate. He was trying to teach people the history behind this offensive word and how powerful a single word can be. As stated in the article, “In Defense of a Loaded Word,” the author said, “’Nigger is border, the signpost that reminds us that the old crimes don’t disappear.” The reason Mark Twain wrote “Huckleberry Finn” using this word was because he wanted to demonstrate that racial prejudice and slavery was still prevalent during their time.
How come we don’t get to learn about the $5 Indians? How come history books don’t really say how bad slaves were treated and how bad they were beaten by their slave masters? White America knows what they did and what they did wrong. History classes should teach about whitewashing of American history because it would end misinformation on colonialism, it could end racial inequality, and there would be no more false history. Exposing students to the real Whitewashing of American history impacts the lives of minorities and Native Americans.
For instance, Don’t Lower The Bar on Education Standards is strictly states lowering the bar will not fix anything it will only decrease the standards. Pitts uses his viewpoint has a black male so it is more personal for him. Or Pitts’ article Torture Might Work, but that’s not the Issue is about the morals and the authority of torture. Pitts most frequent article is Trump Has a Way With Words--and it’s Not a Good One. Comparing Trump to past presidents also conveying a message that trump is lowering the expectations for future presidents.
Hugh didn 't want Douglass to be educated because he thought Douglass would become unmanageable and unfit to become a slave if he enters the world of literacy. What would happen if slaves are revealed to education? Why are slaveholders so big on not teaching slaves how to read and write? You start to raise questions and curiosity on finding out the answer. Frederick recalled “I now understood what had been to me a most perplexing difficulty to wit, the white man’s power
She criticized the mainstream anti-slavery figures for being slow, cautious and accommodating.She stated, “The perpetuation of slavery in our West Indian colonies is not an abstract question to be settled between the government and the planters; it is one in which we are all implicated, we are all guilty of supporting and perpetuating slavery.”9In 1824, she published her pamphlet 'Immediate not Gradual Abolition'. This differed from the official policy of gradual abolition and William Wilberforce gave out instructions for leaders of the movement not to speak at women's anti-slavery societies, most of which supported Heyrick.
This actually makes sense and it is a possibility because Twain did not talk about genes and when readers say that Huck’s nature is stronger than nurture, it is only an speculation they made from what they understand from the book and the excerpt. However, even though it that the argument “Huck’s nature side is more obvious than nurture” might be an speculation, it makes more sense because readers can see that Huck would rather go to hell and readers can make an educated guess that if Huck were to be properly nurtured, he would deem going to hell for a slave a crime and an unlawful act. No matter how much the Widow Douglas tries to conform Huck to society’s way, he disapproves of it and wants no part it in. It is too late for the Widow Douglas to change Huck into someone who follows the law and rules of society because Huck’s early “environmental influences” has lead him to deviate from society. It is Huck’s nurture side that makes him who he is-- someone who is willing to free a slave.
"It's when you know you're licked before you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what.”(Lee 149). Atticus has no chance of winning the Tom Robinson case, because of society's views on African Americans, but he tries the case anyways because he knows it’s the right thing to do. While some may say that Atticus is unloyal to his portrayed character due to his drastic role change in Go Set A Watchman, many critics say that even though To Kill a Mockingbird and Go Set A Watchman have the same characters, the two books were never meant to be perceived as a set, due to the fact that almost everything in Go Set A Watchman contradicts Lee’s original views on Social Justice in To Kill a Mockingbird. “Allegedly, it's a recently discovered first draft of To Kill a Mockingbird, but I'm suspicious: It reads much more like a failed sequel.”(Corrigan 1). In To Kill a Mockingbird, Lee chooses to present the idea of what should happen, a feeling of hopefulness, whereas in Go Set A Watchman the plot is presented as what is happening, not what should be happening, and has little to no relation to the Atticus found in To Kill a
56). However, despite Twain’s Confederate influences, his opinion on slavery was not impacted, showing that regardless of the fact that he had seen the South’s opinion on slavery he knew that someone was responsible to address the cultural tensions that the nation faced. Nevertheless, there are people who greet this novel with unjust disapproval. Stephen Carter says “Once upon a time, people hated the book because it struck them as coarse. Twain himself wrote that the book’s banners considered the novel ‘trash and suitable only for the slums.’”.