The White House is a White House

10 Pages2385 Words77 Views

Added on 2020-04-07

About This Document

The speech was given by Trump after violence spread across Charlottesville in a speech that received mixed feeling in the way the president unwillingly avoided to rebuke the white nationalist movement by its name despite the same being visible and evident. In my view, since I supported the movement, viewed it as a rhetorical victory on our side where the president left the interpretation open in defining hatred and violence concerning the violence which spread quickly (Ramage, Bean & Johnson, 2015). A similar event involving black supremacist groups in a

The White House is a White House

Added on 2020-04-07

Related Documents

Running head: WRITING STYLES AND METHODS1Writing Styles and MethodsNameInstitution

WRITING STYLES AND METHODS2Writing Styles and MethodsRhetoric in Writing“We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides, on many sides,” Said Trump while on vacation at his Bedminster Resort. In my own culture and political view as a white, I would perceive the comment positive and one that seeks to unite the nation on a common agenda of demonizing hate and violence in the states. As an individual, I felt that the president did not attack the white supremacist group for the offense, despite the fact that the violence and attacks sprouted from the organized event where civilians and the police were damaged. The speech was given by Trump after violence spread across Charlottesville in a speech that received mixed feeling in the way the president unwillingly avoided to rebuke the white nationalist movement by its name despite the same being visible and evident.In my view, since I supported the movement, viewed it as a rhetorical victory on our sidewhere the president left the interpretation open in defining hatred and violence concerning the violence which spread quickly (Ramage, Bean & Johnson, 2015). By saying on many sides, the president did not directly attack the white supremacist movement and stayed clear from offending the group drawing his recent support for the movement during his campaign speeches.Drawing reference from his campaign speeches, it was evident that he ‘fought’ for the restoration of white supremacy by condemning the blacks who in most cases were referred to as immigrants. In my view, I found the statement rhetorical as his statement on many sides pointed fingers to all the movements engaged in race activities despite the single case leading to the

WRITING STYLES AND METHODS3violence being caused by the white supremacist group. Later, the president issued another statement terming racism as evil and that all that caused the same were termed as thugs and criminals including white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and other groups (CNN, 2017). This too went down well for me despite mentioning the white movement. However, the rhetoric comes in whereby other teams were referred to in an isolated event where the white supremacists were the sole perpetrators in the case. Therefore, it was a win for me as it did not openly rebuke the group as opposed to the situation when referring to the black supremacy groups in similar situations. However, the same can be interpreted differently by the Black supremacy groups and its supporters regarding the level of address it received. A similar event involving black supremacistgroups in a fight with the police would have received stronger and more direct condemnation which would have the specific name mentioned in isolation. In many occasions during the campaign, the president blamed the Black Lives Matter movement following the murder of police officers which is a similar occurrence that happens even in the white supremacist movements frequently. The rhetoric lies in the intentional omission of blanket condemnation in black isolated events but having an inclusion whenever it occurs among the white protesters (Abel, 2014). In a way, the president strives to drive a negative message to the event but fails to mention the direct people involved despite the facts being open, a total contrary to the case of black demonstrators. In a way, I feel the people from the other side of the race would feel much aggrieved and let down whenever the president condemns the event while labeling all groups as evil instead of dealing with the case in isolation. Thus, the rhetoric can be read in different angles

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.