---

First Primary Blog Source

The Atlanta Constitution –

The primary source in the Atlantic Constitution appeared to be an Op-ed suggesting a proposed solution to violence, in particular race riots, in Atlanta. The solution was based on a perceived problem, that problem largely being attributed to Arfrican Americans. 

The attribution of this problem to the African American population of Atlanta is evident in the language used by the author. When discussing the riots he says, “The horrible crimes perpetrated by negroes, which were the apparent cause of the riot…” The use of an appositive that makes it seem evident that the problem lies with one half of the conflict by asserting that the black portion of the population being responsible is just as obvious as clarifying a title. 

The language that the author uses also asserts an innate presumption that african americans are uncivilized. This is seen easily in the title of the article – “Restrain the Negroe from Crime By Making him Respect Himself.” This title has a number of implications. First, the title addresses african americans as non-autonomous bodies for whom action needs to be forced upon, as opposed to actors who can self-determine personal aspect of their psyche. Secondly, it asserts that african americans inherently do not have any self respect. 

This language is continued throughout the article in respect to both “self-respect” and “justice.” Both subjects that are proposed as things that need to be taught to african americans. The assumption that they could not teach it to themselves, and more so that they do not inherently have these concepts is language that creates a reference to an uncivilized people.

The New York Times –

The New York Times article on the race riots in Atlanta proposed an opinion offered by a writer from the north who had a more third party perception of the violence. Similarly to the Atlanta Constitution article it assigned the opus for the violence to a particular group. However it did not assign it to either the white or black populations necessarily. Instead, it placed the bulk of the burden on officials, “The most obvious cause of the trouble in Atlanta is the weakness of the city authorities.” Like the Atlanta Constitution, the New York Times makes a similarly “obvious” assumption without any real evidence to back it up. Instead, assuming an inherent understanding based on the population they are writing to and the context they come from. 

However, while they offer little to no evidence for their assumptions they do use quotation to make a more compelling argument. The quotation from a city official comes of very harsh, brutish, and like he is unfairly placing blame on the black population of Atlanta. When read by an audience that does not share his opinion it works to undermine the officials opinion, not support it. 

The writer also talks about the larger cultural implications of the south being a region full of people moving into the area. Because of this, they are less likely to feel a sense of community and fight each other. He also continuously acknowledges that a similar situation could happen in the south under similar conditions. The authors desire to place this situation in context makes him seem less accusatory and gives his argument more substance.

Second Primary Source Blog

In the article by The New York Times detailing George Stevenson’s Centenary, the article talks about innovations with the steam engine as an iconic shift in history. When talking about the actual locomotive and the other innovations that came from the steam engine the language the writer uses is extremely positive language. His language includes phrasing such as “great enterprise,” “marvelous development,” etc. This language is indicative of the author’s overall perception of the creation of the steam engine as not only positive, but integral to the development of society. The way in which he proves this is by discussing the positive effects that the locomotive has brought to modern society. One of these new changes the writer details are the spread of population. Additionally, he often talks about how the steam engine exemplifies the capacity of the human race’s productivity. In this way, his view on how George Stevenson’s work changed communication is largely in how it connected people/populations.

Friedman’s article in the New York Times comes about 123 years later and is much more critical of the way in which new communication technologies have affected society. He notes in particular that much of the job loss today is due to the change in how prevalent technology is in our economy. Friedman’s article talks much more about human capacity, particularly in how he encourages working toward PQ (passion quotient) and CQ (curiosity quotient) – not just IQ. While the article about George Stevenson is much more about the capacity of the machine. 

The article about George Stevenson heavily focuses on what was – and is more biographical than argumentative. Friedman’s article about Obama, on the other hand, is more argumentative. In particular, he seems to be making a more conjecture statement about what could be and what should be done with the new communication; as opposed to what has been done. 

3rd Primary Source

For my project, I wanted to look at articles surrounding the election in 1968- the election of Ronald Reagan – and the subsequent years when conservatism was on the rise. My hope was to see what issues were most prevalent and why hopefully draw a connection between issues that were talked about frequently in the media, and the rise of conservatism in the 70’s, before the election of President Ronald Reagan. In an article  in the Washington Post, the journalist talks about the issues giving the GOP an edge. 

From this article’s perspective the two most important topics to the American Public in the upcoming election were the War in Vietnam and race relations. However, closely following these issues were a worry about crime and the cost of living. 

The first two issues, while more prevalent as concerns in the American Media are polarizing. Meaning that people from both parties would have platforms that appeal to very different viewpoints, meaning that neither would necessarily be huge swing points for moderate voters. However, crime and self determinate economic situations in the middle class are both issues that the more conservative party (The GOP) would have historically had a greater focus on and therefore might have been bigger attractors to the party for moderate voters in the election. 

However, what I do think is interesting is that this was not necessarily the public perception in 1966. The article was written in May of ‘68. In ‘66 a Gallop poll based on similar questions was conducted. It asked what the top issues were in 1966 and which party they [the participants] felt were the best equipped at handling these issues.  In the gallop poll conducted, the margins were almost ten points in favor of the Democrats being better equipped to handle three of the four top issues – race relations, the war in Vietnam, and the high cost of housing. I think it would be interesting perhaps to expand my search and see if there were events or politics that may have contributed to a switch in public perception about how competent the politicians were from each party and where parties might have changed courses of political action.  

……