Thao Tran
Professor Aboulian
English 1C
21 March 2017
The War on Drugs: A Rhetorical Analysis
The War on Drugs, which was declared by President Nixon in 1971, efforts to control drug use and sales in inner-city neighborhoods. The government has been recently targeting poor communities of color. In 1980, the skyrocketing drug arrests reflected a surge in illegal drug activity. In The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, the author also stated that “huge cash grants were made to those law enforcement agencies that were willing to make drug-law enforcement a top priority” (73). Clearly, the Federal Government did a big involvement in the War on Drugs by giving grant reward for law enforcement agencies. Moreover, the Government, at the moment, instantly
…show more content…
Establishing credibility in claims is really important because it makes the information more trustworthy. On page 61, Alexander discusses how polices have the right of searches and seizures people virtually anywhere. She actually mentions the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution while talking about the topic. In that way, readers will know exactly what the Amendment is, so that the information is not misleading. Furthermore, Alexander does a lot of research on trustworthy sources like the New York Times, the National Journal and so on. It can be seen that the author does not randomly pick any kinds of newspaper, but she does sort out the ones which have good reputation and reliable. To express about how severe drug use was happening, New York Times displayed that “64 percent of those polled … now thought that drugs were the most significant problem in the United States” (55). The percentage was higher than half of the polls, which was like an alert for the government to face the problem. Therefore, by using ethos in The New Jim Crow, Alexander stands her book out with credible sources, which empower her arguments to the …show more content…
The title may tell the readers the whole picture of following paragraphs. The author really knows how to use words to get readers’ attention. On page 61, “Rules of the Game” sounds like the War on Drugs is a game of the government who also set the rules. It is the Supreme Court changing the rules so that “anyone, virtually anywhere, for any reason, can become a target of drug-law enforcement activity” (63). Since then, people cannot sue the police for search and seize without a warrant. Another example of how Alexander plays with words in the subtitles is “Kissing Frogs” (69). Polices had to make a lot of searches to find an illegal drug case while they might catch innocent people. Although the agencies were specially trained to have the “sixth sense” that could recognize drug holders, they hardly catch up a case in thousand searches they did. Alexander describes this idea like “you’ve got to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince” (71). Polices stopped everyone they suspected, and then prayed if the suspicion had drugs. This comparison adds imagine into her arguments, and also makes the whole argument ironic. In short, Alexander knows how to wrap up the whole thesis by using word choice that brings her argument to be seen in a different
Alexander uses a variety of specific primary sources in chapter one. Verbal rhetoric was used to try to bring out emotions through pathos and by starting off with a violent topic to a less violent one. In addition, there were many primary sources in the sense historical events that Alexander uses to address the start at the root of the problem that led to mass incarceration. She uses a historical narrative to try to connect past events to the present day. Alexander uses the historical timeline of different historical events to try to prove a cycle that is occurring.
First, I want to examine a particularly critical review of Alexander’s text by Joseph D. Osel. According to Joseph D. Osel’s, “while Alexander’s book claims to be concerned with exposing and describing the history and mechanisms of mass incarceration of the American ‘caste system,’ which affect the poor and people of color systematically and disproportionately, her work systematically, strangely, and empathically excludes these voices” (OSEL Whitewash). Osel goes on to contend that Alexander’s work provides the history of criminal justice and imprisonment with a “vast rhetorical and historical facelift where the most relevant and affected voices on the topic at hand are safely expunged from the discussion, from relevance, from history” (OSEL
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness is a non fiction book written by Michelle Alexander, a well known civil rights lawyer, is a book that every American citizen should read. Alexander’s book cover is of three metal bars and two strong black hands holding them tightly. The book spent multiple weeks on The New York Times bestsellers list and has a foreword written by Cornel West, he is a well known and respected social activist. The book discuss how the new system of oppression for people of color in the United States is mass incarceration. Jim Crow laws were a systematic way to segregate and discriminate against black people.
It is an existing theory that our society is constructed via racial dimensions, and that racial equality is a figment of the imagination. This very principle is highlighted in Michelle Alexander’s novel, “The New Jim Crow.” The specific dimensions covered within the text include the unjust aspects of the federal drug policy, and by connection that of mass incarceration as well. Alexander claims that racism is still very prominent in present day society and is direct and frank about the heavy influence of white supremacy. One of the main arguments pushed by Alexander in this book is that mass incarceration is “ a stunningly comprehensive and well-disguised system of racialized social control that functions in a manner strikingly similar
Former President Reagan used the FBI and DEA to assist local law enforcement to fight the "War on Drugs". However this help fueled
Keywords that are most important to the documentary are, War on Drugs, incarceration, drug involvement/abuse, and racism. All of these words are loosely or heavily connected to each other. The words drug involvement/abuse highlight the purpose of the film, and the reasons for the War on Drugs and numerous laws created to fight drug abuse that cause death and destroy abiding citizens of communities. Furthermore, the War on Drugs simply labels the struggle against drug use and the governmental involvement to enforce anti-drug laws. The word incarceration and racism also link together to explain how as a result of the War on Drugs, the U.S. is one of the top countries with the highest imprisonment rate and more African-Americans or low-class minorities are convicted of drug crimes than any other ethnicity or social class.
For this semester, we read The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander. The book talks about how minorities face, especially black men, being treated like second-class citizens by the criminal justice system and this leading to our modern mass incarceration problem. Alexander goes as far as to say “We have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it” (2). This is shown by the War on Drugs.
Police Reform rhetorical analysis In the article "The Myth about Police Reform". A brief background of cases where the suspect was called by cops are presented. Coates continuously calls upon on the actions taken by police officers and how he believes the situations should have not been handled the way they were. Coates quotes from the 1953 book The Quest for Community by Robert Nisbet in order to explain the difference between authority and power.
After he told his personal story, he went on to explain the history of the war on drugs, which started in 1971 due to President
Race is one the most sensitive and controversial topics of our time. As kids, we were taught that racism has gotten better as times has passed. However, the author, Michelle Alexander, of The New Jim Crow proposes the argument that racism has not gotten better, but the form of racism that we known in textbooks is not the racism we experience today. Michelle Alexander has countless amounts of plausible arguments, but she has failed to be a credible author, since she doesn’t give enough citations or evidence for her argument to convince people who may not have prior agreement with her agreement.. Alexander’s biggest mistake when it came to being a credible author was starting off the book with a countless number of claims without any evidence in her Introduction.
Losing a battle to illness is devastating and utterly heartbreaking. With addiction, it is quite often that people fail and fall into their old habits. Others simply don’t want to be sober. In How to Help Someone with an Opioid Addiction, published by the Chicago Sun Times, the author lists ways for friends and family members to assist in the process of sobriety. But, what if it doesn’t work?
A security expert for the Bunational Human Rights Center in Tijuana states that “Each year, the violence takes on distinct new dimensions,” and “It’s like fighting guerrillas — it often defies understanding.” Adding to it, corruption within the Mexico’s government has seriously hampered the war on drugs. Many report have surfaced stating that government officials, police officers, and military personnel are receiving payments from the cartels. A March 2011CFR report states that “A system-wide network of corruption has ensured distribution rights, market access, and even official government protection for drug traffickers in exchange for lucrative
Michelle Alexander in the first chapter, reviews the history of racial social control in the United States. She describes the different forms and patterns of the racial caste system. The author maintains that the racial prejudice and hierarchy has been sustained as a result of the insecurities of the lower-class whites. Her main point was that "racial segregation would soon evolve into a new caste system" (p. 40). Alexander explains that even though slavery ended after the Civil War, it left a big impact on the American community.
We have been fighting drug abuse for almost a century. The war on drugs is a growing problem in America everyday. This war is becoming an unfortunate loss. Our courts, hospitals, and prisons are continuously being filled with drug abusers. Violent crime the ravages our neighborhood is a result of the drug trade.
As of recent, the war on drugs has been a very often discussed topic due to many controversial issues. Some people believe the War on Drugs has been quite successful due to the amount of drugs seized and the amount of drug kingpins arrested. I believe this to be the wrong mindset when it comes to the war on drugs. The war on drugs isn’t a winnable one so we must do all that is possible to assist those who struggle with drug addiction and decriminalize small amounts of drugs. These minor changes in the way we combat drugs will create significant change and have lasting effects.