Is Anti-immigration Rhetoric Provoking Hate Crimes Against Latinos? Essay
Is Anti-immigration Rhetoric Provoking Hate Crimes Against Latinos?
The power and effect brought about by any rhetoric are valuable aspects to explore and analyze - Is Anti-immigration Rhetoric Provoking Hate Crimes Against Latinos? Essay introduction? Regardless of the kind and way of delivering rhetoric that were used, it is its purpose and significant impact to individuals and to the society in general that are worthy to consider, as rhetoric generally involves the presentation of both the positive and negative sides as well as the beneficial and harmful attributes of any issue. It is therefore appropriate to evaluate and ultimately state that rhetoric and its subsequent utilization, for whatever purpose, claim, and supporting evidence, is definitely an effective tool to convince the public to either support or fight against any concern or situation.
More Essay Examples on Immigration Rubric
Rhetoric is an adjective that signifies an expressive style of language or communication while its noun form shows it as a literary study. Hence, to better understand rhetoric, it is helpful to present and analyze the rhetoric used by two writers in their respective article. Based on the issue or problem whether anti-immigration rhetoric provokes the performance of hate crimes against Latinos, two articles written by Mark Potok and Marcus Epstein were evaluated.
Per analysis of said materials, it can be established that Potok and Epstein used what is called the critical or analytical rhetoric. Such rhetoric is a proven language or communication technique as well as an efficient way of influencing and persuading the mind and sentiment of the public. The writers, through their respective articles that were written for the April 2009 issue of CQ Researcher, argued yet also notably succeeded in convincing the readers that anti-immigration rhetoric both provokes and does not provoke the commitment of hate crimes against Latinos who migrated to the United States. As Vatz (1968) stated, a critical rhetoric, due to its opposing yet investigative nature as well as argumentative presentation, serves to explain clearly the intention of the writer or article, thereby convincing the readers to believe and support a particular issue or problem (Vatz, 1968).
In particular, Potok’s (2009) article appears to support the premise that anti-immigration rhetoric indeed stimulates hate crimes against Latinos. Hence, the author embarked on an analytical rhetoric where he evidently presented a for or con position that fully supported the given issue. In doing so, Potok achieved his purpose when his article met its intention to persuade or manipulate the readers into believing that anti-immigration rhetoric ignites hate or racial-related assaults. This purpose was carried out successfully as the concrete details and statistics that Potok presented turned out to be believable information which confirmed and strengthened the pro-position that anti-immigration rhetoric ignites the potentiality of hate crimes against Latinos.
Despite being on the opposite side, Epstein (2009), on the same token, succeeded in convincing people that anti-immigration rhetoric has nothing to do or does not instigate hate crimes against Latinos. Like in the case of Potok’s article, Epstein’s goal of disputing the claim that anti-immigration rhetoric provokes hate crimes towards Latinos was achieved by similarly showing specific pieces of information and statistically-based arguments, which enabled Epstein to present a daring argument or opposition against Potok. As such, Epstein article opposed the other position that hate crimes against Latinos are attributed to anti-immigration rhetoric.
In fact, the supporting statistical data and the criticisms against his counterpart’s position are convincing. Epstein supported his purpose and position by stating that the “facts and logic” of U.S. President Obama are simply incorrect. Such daring critical rhetoric succeeded and likewise achieved the writer’s purpose of making the readers realize that anti-immigration rhetoric does not really provoke hate crimes against Latinos, and it definitely opposed Potok’s article.
To conclude, the respective claim made and supporting evidence provided by the two writers turned out to be convincing. This is because both Potok and Epstein used critical rhetoric to their advantage as their purposes were achieved and their positions, though opposing, were effectively presented, realized, and ultimately convinced the readers that anti-immigration rhetoric provokes while at the same time does not ignite the performance of hate crimes against Latinos.
Vatz, L. (1968). The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1 (1), 1–14.