Socratic Seminar Online #3: Frederick Douglass #1

     Frederick Douglass was an American abolitionist, orator, and writer. He spoke and wrote about his past struggles as a former slave in the North and becoming a firsthand spokesperson on the abolition of slavery. Douglass had to write to appeal his audience of white men and women and he did so effectively that his message reached many people. In Douglass' narrative, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, he showcases his ability to appeal to his white audience through his use of pathos and imagery.
     In the beginning, Douglass writes about his first week at Mr. Covey's field. Tasked with driving oxen, all was going well until the "oxen took fright" and "expected every moment that my brains would be dashed out against the trees." After completing his task, he reported everything that happened to Mr. Covey and "fierceness of a tiger" he whipped Douglass. Towards the end of the story, Douglass describes another experience, one that changed his life. After falling ill and collapsed on the floor whilst doing his job, Mr. Covey then strikes Douglass' head with hickory slat, a heavy blow, his blood ran freely. He crawls away from Mr. Covey's plantation in search for his original owner and asks Master Thomas if he could protect him, unfortunately he thought of Mr. Covey as a good man and already has a contract to keep Douglass there for one year, so Douglass had to go back. The next morning he goes back and finds himself hiding from Covey. He stays a night at another slave's place, Sandy Jenkins, who gives with a root that would "render it impossible for Mr. Covey, or any other white man, to whip" him. He takes it and heads over to Mr. Covey again  who tries to injure Douglass again. But with the resolve to fight, he successfully holds off Mr. Covey and manages to make him step away. He had not been whipped then and at the end, he says that "I remained a slave four years afterwards. I had several fights, but was never whipped."
     Douglass writes of his experiences being a slave with great detail, or just enough to illicit an emotional response from the reader. Douglass used his story of being a young, slave boy almost getting killed to appeal to the white women of the audience, and his vivid detail makes that appeal a lot more effective.
     Douglass became one of the most strongest orators of his time through his ability to appeal to his audience with his use of imagery and pathos. He earned his level of respect amongst women through his involvement with women's suffrage as well as being on the same level as women who wanted a voice in the government, his narratives made him one of the most influential figures in the abolitionist movement.

Argumentation Blog #6: Slave Narrative

     Traumatic experiences in one's life can affect them remarkably, and one of the most traumatic and disgusting experiences one can go through is slavery. Slavery existed in America for a long time and it was not until 1865 when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified that the slaves became free. Unfortunately the terrors and trials of slavery cannot be erased from one's mind. 121 year old Sarah Gudger describes her lasts memories of her mother and in her description, she mentions that the stars don't shine as bright as they did before. Traumatic experiences get scarred into a person's mind and affects them, most of the time they do not recover.

     The sound of tires screeching, glass breaking, family screaming. The sight of the world spinning. The feeling of glass cutting your skin, tumbling down a hill. A car crash. A traumatic experience such as that can affect a victim. The anxiety and fear of going inside a car can grow inside that person, forever changing them both consciously and unconsciously. There are a number of events that can alter somebody's life, it may not be as extreme as a car crash but they can be just enough to change a person. In Sarah Gudger's case, it was losing her mother to slavery.
     Now, there some experiences may not change a person's mentality, getting scared straight doesn't mean that they're going to change and be a better person. However it doesn't have to be all in the mind. A family member dying doesn't have to be an emotional roller-coaster, but that does mean that one is going to have to live without that person. One may get scared straight and still be the same person, but it can change their relationships with their friends and family.
     Maybe the reason as to why the stars don't shine as bright is because her mother implanted that idea into her brain. Either way traumatic experiences do change people and it's up to the person to decide whether it'll affect them positively or negatively
     

     

Argumentation #5: My Country 'Tis of Thee

     do not comply, no progress made in society.

     W. E. B. Du Bois was an African American activist born in 1868 at the height of the realist movement. He was the first African American man to receive a PhD from Harvard University. He lived his life struggling through supported white teachers and the deeply racist Jim Crow laws. Du Bois believed that in order to stay true to yourself as well as to comply to the whites to avoid conflict. 

     

Argumentation #4: George Eliot

     Realism is a movement that depicted real life people, in their real life environment, facing real situations. Unlike the romantics which focused on the individual and typically had a positive outlook on life, the realists focused on society on the whole and typically had a pessimistic view on real life. Realist George Eliot's view on leadership advises us that flawed leadership is to be expected and shouldn't stop progress of movements or humanity. For example, Dr. Martin Luther King was a flawed leader as well as Hitler, both had their flaws but had made great progress in both of their movements.
     Would the civil rights movement be as successful if it had been led than someone other than Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.? We'll never know, but it is widely known and accepted that he was a strong leader, but he wasn't without his flaws. Many of King's speeches were plagiarized including his "I Have a Dream" speech. Without it, the civil rights movement wouldn't have been so effective and powerful, maybe it wouldn't have made much change at all. Another flaw that he had was that he was working with the communists. King was under FBI surveillance due to his ties with the communists organizations. King was accept money from them in order to fund his movement, in return he would have to let communists leaders run and project their ideas to his large following.
     You cannot deny the fact that Adolf Hitler was a powerful leader. Despite killing two-thirds of the Jewish population in Europe at the time, Hitler had so much influence on his people that he made them believe that the Jewish were an inferior race that should be removed. His soldiers swore "unconditional obedience" to Hitler on the day of Hindenburg's death. If Hitler wouldn't have been such a powerful, ruthless and intimidating leader, the Germans wouldn't have been powerful at all.
     Maybe we do need powerful leaders, both King and Hitler died whilst they were still in power. The Germans had failed and there are still racial issues happening all over America. But it is their legacy that makes the people today say we can fight for our own rights, that kind of thinking led to powerful movements like the Black Lives Matter movement. Hitler taught us not what to do to our fellow human race.
      With the presence of a perfect leader, maybe our world wouldn't have any problems at all. Our society would be perfect if we had a perfect leader. However a perfect leader doesn't exist, only people that want change. Sure, since the movements today are large and aren't really being led by a single person, there may be a lot of problems, but that doesn't change the fact that their strong. You do not need a strong leader for change, just passion.

Argumentation #3: Emily Dickinson xd

     There are two types of romanticism, transcendentalism and gothicism. Transcendentalists believe in individualism and following one's own desires and that nature and humanity was divine. On the other hand, gothics believe within every individual there existed the potential for self-destruction, personal torment, graphic morbidity, terror and madness. Emily Dickson, gothic author says that evil and fear doesn't just come from material things like a chamber or a haunted house, it also comes from the mind. I believe that evil comes from society, but at the same time it is all inside a person's mind.
     Society has a set of rules that bound everyone together, making sure that they don't deviate away from the norm, but the norm doesn't have to be right. The Doll Test demonstrates that black children tend to see white dolls as being more beautiful and good, while black dolls are less beautiful and more evil. That kind of colonial mindset is what pollutes the children's minds today, that kind of colonial mindset didn't exist in Native American cultures, that kind of mindset is what allows racism to be a part of American culture, that kind of mindset is evil and it has been inherited by the citizens through society.
     Fear has a place in one's mind. Traumatic experiences can lead to hallucinations and psychopathic behavior. Being alone in a room with no sound makes people go crazy, but with that there's nothing actually there. That is all going on inside their mind.
    It is hard to say whether or not evil and fear comes from the outside or the inside considering that there are many different people on this earth who have many different personalities and backgrounds. However, I do believe that the majority of people's fears and evils come from society. Most countries now are very competitive, doing what ever it takes to keep the ones on top, on top, and the ones on the bottom, on the bottom.
     I understand a lot of the gothic ideas and where one might get them, they must of had a terrible childhood or has been drinking to try to get rid of their demons. It's just that seeing how our society and culture functions, it's not hard to see that the way we grow up is the way that society wants us to grow up. To be free is to have no limitations, nothing holding you back.
   

Argumentation #2: Raldo Waldo Emerson

     American Romanticism is a rejection of social norms and an acceptance of an individual's desires. Ralph Waldo Emerson is one of the most famous transcendentalists of the mid nineteenth century. He believes that an individual should speak what ever is on their mind today, and do the same tomorrow, even if you contradict yourself. That is to be true to yourself. I believe that to speak your own mind without limitations, while it could remove the burdens of keeping information to yourself which will make you happier, I do not think that getting hurt for saying what's on your mind is worth a bit of happiness.
     Keeping a secret or having something on your mind can distract one from things they have to do. Whether it be waiting for a package you know is coming today or hiding a terrible secret from your family, saying all that your heart contains can make you feel more content with yourself. Especially if you say whatever you want with no limitations. However if you say whatever you want to without any limitations, that doesn't mean that there aren't repercussions.
     Take Martin Luther King Jr., one of the most popular leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, although he made a big change by speaking his mind and heart out, he got slapped in the face, hosed down, and in the end: killed by a fatal shot wound. Black Lives Matter movement also has a lot of people speaking out for what they believe in and they have members being attacked by those who oppose them.

    That doesn't mean that you're necessarily going to get hurt speaking your mind, if you call somebody fat they might not do anything. But that also doesn't mean that you'll be happier after getting something off your chest, there may be feelings of regret afterwards.
     The American Romanticism quickly became a big hit because of it's massive appeal, you can be content with your life if you say what's on your mind, or you stay true to yourself by not having any friends. It is a big reason as to why we have many protesters today fighting for what they believe in despite them going against the norm. I do think that you can do whatever you want to make yourself content with your own life, however I understand that there may also be consequences depending if what you're doing is deviant.

Argumentation #1: Dalai Lima

Disagree:
Reason #2: We live in a culture of competition
Reason #1: