George Wallace Inaugural Speech

a)    Wallace tries to open the other southern peoples eye about how they are really living. He believes segregation is the way to live correctly because it promotes safety and security. When addressing the southerners and “natives of the great Mid-West, descendants of the far West flaming spirit of pioneer freedom” instead of being harsh and mean he tells them there is still hope for them to do the right thing. He states “we invite you to come and be with us… you are brothers with us in our fight”. Ultimately Wallace is trying to persuade everyone that Alabama is better than everyone else and that integration is the wrong way to live.

b)   To represent his cause he discusses all of the benefits that Alabama as a whole. He strays away from the topic of segregation to discuss how Alabama has been “blessed by god” with all of its natural resources and plush agriculture. He uses these examples and topics to solidify that Alabama truly is the best state. After discussing this he goes into more about segregation. If whites and blacks join together into one unit like the communist philosophers say then the enrichment of lives and our freedom is gone. He talks about our founding fathers and how they would be disappointed in a nation united at one. Our nation was never meant for that but rather meant for a nation united of the many. “The true brotherhood of America is respecting the separateness of others”. Ultimately he speaks very highly about segregation, Alabama, and conservatives ideas. 

c)    He talks about his opponents in a very bad light and even in an aggressive manner. “We warn those… who would follow the false doctrine of communistic amalgamanation that we will not surrender…”. This quote from Wallace comes off sounding like a threat to those who decide to integrate rather than segregate. He talks about how he is “ashamed” of the people in the south who are deciding that integration is the right way to live. Wallace’s uses harsh words to describe his opponents attempting to shut them down make them seem like they are the ones in the wrong. Basically he speaks about communists as if they are a part of some evil conspiracy attempting to ruin our nation. Where as he speaks about those for segregation as if they are angels sent from above here to fix anything and everything and make a perfect nation.

d)   Wallace definitely uses polarization to discuss black people from white people. His entire speech he is basically saying how white people are the dominant and powerful group and black people should be separated from them or else our “enrichment of life will be decreased”. In addition he uses demonizing to an extreme extent when talking about his opponents. He uses crazy accusations and harsh language to describe their stance on integration.

Intro and first two Paragraphs of essay

            Muslim veiling has recently become a very controversial issue due to security liabilities and transparency issues among citizens. Many people see veiling as a threat and danger to society while others view it as a beautiful and religious tradition. The veil allows women to experience liberation by forcing men to acknowledge them not for their outer beauty but for their intellect, faith and personality. However it is commonly argued that the burqa is a symbol of male domination and objectification and is extremely degrading to women. In this essay I will be comparing two similar yet very different articles that discuss the major problems with veiling through personal and political experience. The first author, Mayson Haydar, describes her personal experience with the burqa through anecdotes and examples of her experiences while wearing it in public. The second author I will talk about, Martha Nussbaum, discusses the issues with the burqa by relaying public arguments and then refuting them with her own reasons.

            Haydar has a few main claims within her piece. The largest claim is that there are major misconceptions about freedom within the muslim religion. She explained how she was riding a bus in New York City when she heard an American make a remark about the way Haydar was dressed and proceeded to explain how she could never dress in such ways because she enjoyed her "freedom". Haydar explains how her clothing choice in fact allows for more freedom than an American in tight jeans, a face full of makeup and curled hair. Muslim women in her religion are allowed to enjoy the same things as anyone else however they do so with respect for themselves. She states how many women subjugate themselves through the way they dress while also centering their lives on being admired for their appearance which is a very meaningless thing to do. Just because muslim women do not flaunt their bodies does not mean they do not cherish it or believe it is unimportant. Veiling strays away from a lifestyle full of harassment and self-loathing yet rather allows for a comfortable life where you're body is able to be appropriately valued. As for strategies Haydar compares and contrasts the ways of life between the muslim community and the non-muslim community. She compares a typical New York women to a muslim women. She uses a lot personal anecdotes from her past and gives plenty of reasoning for why veiling does not necessarily mean no freedom. She includes a lot of personal examples which lead to a stronger connection with her audience which most likely is majority women. She also uses rebuttals to prove her point and make her arguments even more powerful. 

There has been proposed bans on the burqa in many different areas of the world. People see the burqa as a threat to security. Security requires people to show their faces when appearing in public places and burqas restrict this from happening. Another argument that was brought up is that transparency between citizens is impeded when people wear burqas. Nussbaum retaliates this argument by explaining how these reasons are completely ignored in the winter time when people walk around, say, New York City bundled head to toe in clothing. Is security and transparency considered then? The answer is no. Another argument that is the burqa is a symbol of male domination which objectifies women. Nussbaum then argues that women in America who get lipsuction, tummy tucks, or breast implants are doing so in order to conform to the males norm of female beauty. Isn't this objectification also? Nussbaum's main argument is that people have a misconception of the burqa and when looked at close enough there are many ironies to the reasons behind banning burqas.

Nussbaum Rebuttals- Strengths and Weaknesses

Rebuttal #1

A prominent argument today is that the burqa is a symbol of male domination that symbolizes objectification of women. Nussbaum's rebuttal to this argument is ultimately very strong however there are some weaknesses with it. She explains how our society is full of symbols of male supremacy that treat women as objects. For example tight jeans, seductive magazines and photos of women, plastic surgery, tummy tucks, etc. Nussbaum makes her point that these things are done in order to satisfy men. However I disagree with this in some sense. Just because women are concerned with their image and physical appearance does not mean that they are doing it solely to please men. I personally wear make up and enjoy looking presentable for my own satisfaction and no one else's. I feel confident and good about myself when I look good. Nussbaum is making an assumption here about western women in this sense. However she talks about how people who make this argument typically don't know much about Islam and would have a hard time determining what symbolizes the religion. People make assumptions before doing their research and understanding religions. I agree with this and found it to be a strong argument. Her use of rhetorical strategies were very strong as well. She used some rhetorical questions which helped to get the audience thinking about her points.


Rebuttal #2

It is argued that security requires people to show their faces when appearing in public places. Another similar argument says that the kind of "transparency proper to relations between citizens is impeded by covering part of the face." Nussbaum retaliates these arguments by saying how they are applied inconsistently. She then makes a really strong rebuttal point by explaining how people are bundled up head to toe, covering almost all parts of their bodies during winter time in the midwest and yet there is no issue with security or transparency. In addition surgeons, dentists, football players, and skiers cover their faces during their professions with no discrimination about it whatsoever. Nussbaum's rebuttal is that we are not banning covering we are banning solely muslim covering. She does a really good job at using examples. In addition Nussbaum explains how Americans dress compared to Muslims and does so in such a way to make her readers see how it is not so much different after all. I thought these comparisons really helped to show how Muslims who veil themselves are not much different than the way Western people dress.

Veiled Threats- Nussbaum

Claims and Summary

There has been proposed bans on the burqa in many different areas of the world. People see the burqa as a threat to security. Security requires people to show their faces when appearing in public places and burqas restrict this from happening. Another argument that was brought up is that transparency between citizens is impeded when people wear burqas. Nussbaum retaliates this argument by explaining how these reasons are completely ignored in the winter time when people walk around, say, New York City bundled head to toe in clothing. Is security and transparency considered then? The answer is no. Another argument that is the burqa is a symbol of male domination which objectifies women. Nussbaum then argues that women in America who get lipsuction, tummy tucks, or breast implants are doing so in order to conform to the males norm of female beauty. Isn't this objectification also? Nussbaum's main argument is that people have a misconception of the burqa and when looked at close enough there are many ironies to the reasons behind banning burqas.

Haydar- Strengths and Weaknesses

Haydar Strengths and Weaknesses 

Haydar was very successful in making a strong connection with her audience. She used personal anecdotes and did a very good job at identifying with the readers emotions, also known as pathos. For example she starts off her piece with two quotes from the Quran that give insight as to how her religion operates. She then proceeds into her first paragraph by saying "I have a confession to make". It is then explained how Haydar did not choose to become veiled in order to honor tradition. She choose to be veiled so she could receive a board game called Girl Talk. Later in her piece she compares muslim women to the typical New York city American. She gives an anecdote about how she is sitting on a bus when she hears a woman make a remark about the way she is dressed. Haydar explains how this girls idea of freedom consists of "beauty products, plastic surgery, and self-help guides". Her perception of freedom consisting of loads of make up, complicated hairstyles and tight jeans is in fact way more oppressive and painful than the veil Haydar wears. Through veiling muslim women in fact experience more freedom and respect. Haydar writes about the misconception of freedom and beauty through comparative situations. I thought Haydar's piece was very strong overall however it could be argued that she used generalizations about Americans and even about Muslim women. Not all Americans are obsessed with physical appearance and outer beauty. Aside from her generalizations I thought she did a really good job overall and succeeded in connecting with her audience.