Blog Entry #2 - Rhetorical Analysis

Introduction

Hello readers, welcome back to my blog on Marc Aronson's "Race." I have read up to page 134 as of writing this, and am still enjoying the book. I would like to dedicate this post to the rhetorical choices that Aronson makes in this book.

Stories

First of all, I'd like to point out how good of a storyteller Aronson is. Not only does he tell them compellingly, but he also decides on the perfect stories for the right time in the book. A book primarily focused on history and facts it can often feel like reading a textbook. But Aronson somehow finds the right stories that always keep you completely plugged into the story. 

Aronson has a very interesting way of finding examples of history that directly relate to current happenings, and in doing so, he points out the oddities of the situation. One such example is found on page 121 where he recounts the reign of King Fredrick II. He speaks of how his society in Prussia was run effectively by breaking down barriers. His orders were to tolerate all religions of his land and others, and in doing so he paved a path for communication with "the best-known French Enlightenment thinkers." (121) This story reminds me of the focuses of current politics in America. 

One major point that helped current President Joe Biden to win was his view on unity and equality in the country. During America's previous presidency, walls were put up and division was almost encouraged by the administration. This war over ideas has been going on a lot recently, but also for many years in America. While this blog post is not arguing for one way of thinking over another, I just want to point out how Aronson's story relates a lot to the current state of America. In doing this he allows us to understand the topic better.

Anecdotes

Aronson tells two types of stories in this book. The first being what I have previously described, his historical accounts provide the bulk of information in this book. The second type of story Aronson uses is anecdotal fictitious stories rooted in history and fact. The anecdotes that Aronson uses are usually found at the beginning of chapters or large sections of the book. One that I found interesting described a fantasy scenario involving an alien invasion of Earth. Aronson says that all news outlets tell the public to be wary of aliens and to defend themselves. He brings up a good point about how prosecution might begin against people who might look a little like aliens, simply because of how they look. Without thinking, the public has been given "prejudice against fantasy creatures."(70) I like this story and all the others like it because he never concludes with a "and this is what that means" section. The meaning is relatively clear-cut, outlining how easy prejudices and biases are formed, but he still doesn't need to point out anything because the story itself is so good. The anecdotes he chooses are just obvious enough to be understood with minimal analysis, while also being thought-provoking.

Communicating Viewpoints

The way Aronson describes the free-thinkers of the Enlightenment movement compared to the religious leaders at the root of conflict shows his position on the matter. Just a page before, Enlightenment is described as "clear, free, dazzling, light shining on every dark corner of life." (120) While it is relatively clear what Aronson's point of view on this would be before the description, he still decides to amplify the wonders of a free way of thinking to show it. 

Earlier in the book, Aronson is relaying the story of the origins of the Islam faith. He talks about how Muhammad bases his religion on freedom and equality, and how "slaves were to be well treated and seen as human beings... and freeing a slave was favored." (101) Aronson then points the hypocrisy of this claim by going into the real view on slavery of the Muslims. "Since Muslims were not allowed to enslave fellow believers, they bought people from other parts of the world."(101) When I first read this section, I was completely confused. How could they build a religion so clearly based on the eradication of slavery while contributing to the exact same problem? After another read of the page, you can see that this is kind of the point, and the intentionally unclear justification of slavery is a jab at the Muslim's early views on slavery.

He uses this same "foggy" explanation of beliefs again when talking about Thomas Jefferson's views on race. Aronson tells us that Jefferson believed in the idea of equality, (at least on the surface.) He then points out the hypocrisy of that statement when he points out that Jefferson, who wrote "all men are created equal" also "believed that Africans were an inferior race."(133) What makes this argument work is the fact he contradicts himself using the ideas of another. He describes one of their viewpoints, then breaks it down using another one of their beliefs, so that he really doesn't have to do any explanation.  

-----

I think what I like most about Aronson's argumentative style is his ability to make clear points without directly stating them. He instead either uses contradiction to disprove points, or he uses simple description and storytelling. The latter seems like an odd way to write a nonfiction piece, but it works because this book is so story-driven.

Thanks for reading!