Continuing, it could be inferred that Ben Franklin is using Pathos by acting as if he naturally hates the Americans and desires to ruin them. Throughout the letter, Ben Franklin sounds like a patriot of Great Britain by insulting Americans and giving them ideas of what to do to them. Although, as Franklin includes ideas in his letter, he additionally incorporates counterpoints that would make him sound like he is trying to help. For example, Franklin claims that the laws of the conqueror are just; however, it is possible that such laws could be contrary to the laws of mankind, ultimately contradicting what he first claimed. Towards the end of the letter, Ben Franklin includes a paradox by claiming that Britain should massacre the Americans as they can bring in citizens from Britain so there wouldn’t be any rebellious acts.
Furthermore, it also hampered the culture of the native peoples, on the basis of a doctrine which is inherently and biased and oppressive. However, he seems reluctant to a practice that may or may not be legal or morally justifiable. He is bound to it because it constitutes the custom or practice under which the country has thus far been settled. He reiterates this point by saying “the history of America, from its discovery to the present day, proves, we think the universal recognition of these principles” (pg. 14).
Throughout time diverse regions have considered other societies to be barbaric, causing them to have the desire of “civilizing” them. Likewise, During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the American nativist groups, possessed a similar perspective towards immigration. Nativist’s opposed immigration, as they believed that it would negatively impact the United States socially, morally, politically, and economically. Socially and morally, the nativists feared that foreigners were a threat to the American society, as they were culturally inferior, possessed many ailments, and committed crimes. Politically, the ethnocentric nativists believed that immigrants would corrupt the government and negatively influence American politics.
The many powerful people of the colonies wrote to talk against the formation of Congress. Letters would go into great depths about how Congress would make bad decisions, inefficiency and ultimately let down the American people. Especially, colonies’ individual governments such as Rhode Island spoke about how they do not approve of Congress and its main goals. In fact, the amount of boycott toward the idea of Congress did not allow the people to hear from Congress, but instead their state governments would overpower them with reasons not to allow it. This greatly affected the Congress’s way of communication to the colonialists.
Malcolm X was not peaceful like Martin Luther King, Jr. This did change his first impression of his. Little (Malcolm) found non-violence absurd since the Islamic faith is anti-integrational. This could be a faulty decision. Secondly, he was fine with offending people with tugging at their beliefs.
Malcolm X Assassination Assignment Rough Draft The assassination of Malcolm X, an essential figure in the civil rights movement, was unjust because it significantly hampered the progression of the civil rights movement; however, others though his death was necessary to halt the vocalization of the “radical” civil rights activist Malcolm X. This unforeseen inhumanity not only affected African Americans but Asian Americans, Hispanics, and even Europeans. This event impeded the learning of the politicians and regular people who were learning from his teachings and non-other such as Kochiyama Yuri, and even Martin Luther King himself. Due to the unjust actions of Thomas Hagan America has decreased the growth of minority empowerment in many ways. First, Malcolm X was inspirational in many aspects and his upbringing added to this aspect.
It is not so much that individuals are nationalist, but the wrong definition they have of the term that has led to it bringing a negative connotation to the term. In his essay “Wrong Ism” J.B. Priestley explains, “When a man says “my country” with real feeling, he is thinking about his region, all that has made up his life, and not about the political entity, the nation” (283). This way of thinking has a high scale of negative impact on how people see and react to what they believe to be foreign. In addition, nationalism has changed through the years to become an unstable and unhealthy way of thinking. Priestly adds, “If we deduct from nationalism all that is has borrowed or stolen from regionalism, what remains is rubbish” (283).
If you also look at the arguments against the options of restricting immigration, it talks about how refusing to let asylum seekers in “will fuel anti-American sentiment throughout the world”. But that doesn’t mean we should have open borders because that not only will make already residing Americans feel not secure, but it is an open door to anyone.
The novel The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid is significant in its treatment of the issues faced by immigrants in the diaspora. Mohsin Hamid has grounded his resistance narrative in the identity narrative and through the prism of identity offers a deep insight into the American society and its ideals. The novel exposes the ugly side of the American society with its fundamentalist institutions and dislodges the narratives of fundamentalism as a Muslim monopoly and inverts the myths and discourses on identity to produce a counter narrative. Key words: Identity, Fundamentalism, Culture, Stereotyping, Resistance. Identity as it has unfolded in diaspora writings has changed our perception about this seminal issue that has for times immemorial been a central focus of academic circles across the world.