JFK speech TA response

I can't agree more about how John F. Kennedy's speech still applies today. Perhaps it is because he discusses the moral obligations of politics rather than current specific issues. A perfect example of this is when JFK states "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty". This not only strikes the audience on an emotional chord, as people feel obligated to help one another, but also logic because it is the bottom line, most straight-forward approach to any issue at any time. This universal approach to solutions could be a reason why this speech is so widely recognized.

CDL: 10/20 Textile Workers Strike for Better Wages and Working Conditions

The issues regarding textile workers began when mill owners made budget cuts in the late 1920's. They downsized their worker's, but left the amount of work done the same. This means that the work that 3 workers used to do was compressed all into one worker. They also cut costs by lowering the worker's wages. This downsizing was known as "the stretch out". At first, the remaining workers were grateful that they still have jobs despite the lower pay, larger workload, and terrible work conditions. Eventually, the textile workers became discontent with their conditions, and went on strike demanding higher pay, and better work conditions. The mill owners disregarded the strike, as they knew it wouldn't last long. The workers needed the money from the job, and without the job they wouldn't survive through the economic depression. Strikers sought assistance from the National Recovery Administration (NRA), but in the cases that the NRA investigated only one case was in the worker's favor. Overall, the strike was a failure because mill owners continued to neglect improving working conditions or wages.

1. Why did the NRA almost exclusively favor the textile factory over the workers? What made the administration biased?
2. Do you think the strike would yield more significant results if it didn't take place during the great depression?

Text Analysis: Inaugural Address, Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 1933

In Franklin Roosevelt's Inaugural Address, he argues that the poor economic state of the nation can be improved using the morals of the constitution and the congregation of citizens. He states that citizens cannot just take, but also have to give to benefit everyone. One of the primary ways of national healing according to Roosevelt is to have as many jobs and people working as possible. Although he does not apply pathos to his persuasion, his argument is still convincing because he reasons that this is everybody's problem, and he conveys himself as an authoritative figure. Just by analyzing Roosevelt's grammar use alone, it is obvious that he implies that the national problem is an issue that includes all citizens. A perfect example of this is when Roosevelt explains that the solution cannot be found "merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly." His logical use of "we" not only makes the issue relevant and engages the audience, but also hints a feeling of teamwork and urgency. Another example of conveying urgency is shown when Roosevelt stated "I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require". This quote is persuading and inspiring on many levels. First of all, his "constitutional duty" gives him authority, and his statement "I am prepared" not only gives audience hope, but shows Roosevelt's confidence in his actions. The urgency is found when Roosevelt describes "the midst of a stricken world", and the conclusion the audience could come to is that without immediate action, the world and it's people are doomed. The only disappointing factor in this speech is Roosevelt's lack of emotional relevance and argument. However, sentences that have multiple methods of persuasion can be found throughout the speech, and is it that reason that I find this speech really inspiring and convincing. This speech is important to history because it signals the same economic problems that we have today and that we are likely to repeat in the future. The speech provides insightful ways of rebuilding a broken economy, and represents the beginning of the long process of economic stabilization.

CDL 10/17: The Quest For Home Ownership

As industrialization advanced, the population in general became more urbanized. This means that there is less family farms and more family houses.The reading uses 1920's Detroit as an example of the struggles of getting a house, especially for minorities. Houses were in short supply, and neighborhoods were segregated. One specific example is the case of Dr. Ossian Sweet, a black physician. He began working in the downtown ghetto until he could afford a house in the white suburbs. However, the whites in the neighborhood felt threatened that blacks that they would degrade and criminalize their neighborhood. When Dr. Sweet moved in to his new house, there was a violent protest of his neighbors. The mob threw rocks at the windows and tried entering the house when Sweet shot two of the white men. His whole family was arrested for murder. During Sweet's trail, he defended "every man's home is his castle, which even the king may not enter. Every man has a right to kill to defend himself or his family, or others , either in defense of the home, or in defense of themselves." They were found innocent, and that case spawned the beginning of residential desegregation as blacks were moving out of the downtown ghetto and into houses.

1. Why do you think residential segregation continued for another 40 years after the Sweet case?

2. How accurate were the stereotypes towards suburban blacks of their ability to "drive down property values, cause neighborhood decay, and fill the[ir] streets with criminals"?

Text Analysis: The Defense of the League of Nations

In Woodrow Wilson's speech, he argues of the importance of the League of Nations, and how crucial it is make every effort possible to avoid war. He gives the issue depth by explaining that the development of the League of Nations "is not merely a settlement with Germany; it is a readjustment of those great injustices which underlie the whole structure of Europian and Asiatic society." Wilson continues to emphasize the possible prevention of war by explaining that all of the "great fighting nations" will be united to promise "that they will not use their power against one another". To rebuttal against those who were skeptical of whether the League of Nations works, he reasoned that international law was changed by adding universal morals that applies to everybody. Personally, I find his speech very persuasive because of his incorporation of several different persuasive strategies. First trait of his persuasiveness is his simple, but clear language. His transitions between point to point keeps the audience interested, and one can't be very persuasive if the audience isn't engaged. Another trait is his ethos with the audience and engage them emotionally while staying relevant to the topic. A prime example is when he tells of a time that he visited a cemetery of dead soldiers in Paris. Assuming he's emotional at this sight of the soldiers sacrifice, he states "I wish that they could feel the moral obligation that rests upon us not to go back on those boys, but to see the thing through". I feel as though this statement can be convincing to almost everyone because of its universal moral appeal. To convince those who aren't as emotional or moralistic, he also uses logic to justify himself. Towards the end of his speech he asks "Do you want not only no probability that war will not recur, but the probability that it will recur?". Even though the answers are both the same outcome, looking at it from both sides helps the audience realize that this is an important prevention to war. I guess that Wilson knew that when asking the question. Despite his logic and persuasion, his efforts failed, as the United States did not join the league. Regardless of the failure, this speech is a significant part of American history. This is not only because it supports internationalism or that he won the Nobel peace prize for his ideas, but because its ideas would become the UN, which has been positive for the world as a whole.