A Question For You

 In this new school year, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many students have had to commit to an online learning experience. For many students, myself included, it has been a struggle. In one of the first classes I am taking this year, "The Art Of Rhetoric" our first action project has been issued. We studied about the appeals ethos, logos, and pathos; We talked about how Christopher Columbus was actually a genocidal maniac in the first chapter of Howard Zinn's "A Peoples History Of America;" And we talked about how to implement the appeals by reading and watching different political speeches. In this AP we were instructed to record a video of ourselves advising a political official in how to answer a question. The question in mind is: Is it acceptable to use movements like BLM in the political setting? I will be filming a video with the premise being, "Joe Biden was just asked this question and I am running through what you need to know to answer."

Joe Biden has just been asked a question by an African-American man on the South Side of Chicago.
He's been asked if he believes that movements such as Black Lives Matter should be used in the political setting.

Now we don't know what he actually believes. But as his adviser I'll be helping him to figure out how he should answer this question as well as my opinion as to how it should be answered. Before he can move into the appeals he needs to first identify his audience. In this case it is only a single person. Next he needs to explain is ethos; If he does not already have automatic ethos. This is his appointment or credibility in a subject. Being a white man his ethos doesn't amount to much in this context. Next we have pathos, the appeal to emotions. Now for this he should be explaining how no matter your skin color no one likes to be capitalized on by politicians and that it's not ok, especially if they don't actually support things such as the BLM movement. Last of the appeals we have logos. The appeal to logic now for this he should be going back to the point that I made earlier about people supporting things they don't actually believe in which put plainly is just charlatanism; Now another word for that is just being a liar and frankly nobody likes a liar now do they? We have two more things we need to cover before we go into my full explanation for my answer to this question. First we have rhetorical devices, rhetorical devices are used to enhance a person's argument on a subject. Of the two examples of rhetorical devices I'm going to list, first I have alliteration, alliteration is when you use similar sounding words in repetition making it sound as if your point is more solidified than it may be. Next we have to antiphrasis, antiphrasis is to use humorous words to lighten the mood or explain a point better. Lastly before we go on to my answer, I need to explain oratory techniques, oratory techniques are hand or head movements and emphasis on words or phrases that are used while explaining points or questions.

To wrap this up, my answer to the question is that no, I don't think movements such as BLM, especially BLM should be in the political setting because it's there for politicians to take advantage of, politicians that very well may be charlatans. Now we can't always prove that they are but there aren't very many decent politicians out there.