Frederick Hoffman’s, “Race Amalgamation“
- The Gap: Mixing races is bad, not natural, against white supremacy. Why other races want to interbreed with each other. Maintaining Purity (why mix breeding is bad).
- Audience: People who share his same views, people who don’t understand the ‘dangers’ of mixing races.
- Writer: White Supremacist. Thinks that mixing races is bad, and against the natural way god intended races to be.
Toulmin Method:
- Claim–what is the writer’s thesis statement?
- Maintaining racial purity is something that people should do, and should stay away from mixing races, to not taint the white race in America.
- Reasons– a reason the writer provides that his thesis statement is true or at least valid.
- He adds in many ‘studies’ (poorly done scientific evaluations) that shows how mixing races taints the knowledge, and abilities of a ‘white’ man. When compared to a mixed person/ black person.
- Evidence– the testimony of experts; summary/paraphrasing/direct quotation of reputable source that studies the issue at hand; the presentation of data from an empirical study; anecdotal (not systematic or rigorously recorded) observations that backs a reason you (as the analyst) have called out.
- He references “scientists’ of the time and their ‘studied; to help prove his pint that mixing races would only be a bad thing. A specific example of this would be the study of the brain weight vs the degree of color that a person was, to show how mixing races made people have a smaller brain – therefore making them not as smart as whites (These studied however were “cherry picked”).
- Warrant– the unstated belief/values that tie the reason and evidence combo to the claim
- He believed that that people (his audience) were similar in the thought that mixing races is a bad thing to do, and take part in.
- Counterargument–the presentation of the writer’s opponent’s argument
- He doesn’t truly provide a counterargument.
- Rebuttal– the writer explaining the flaws in her/his opponent’s argument
- He doesn’t truly provide a rebuttal.
D. M. 's Blog 