NCHS AP English Language

Dylan argument

Dylan begins his argument by explaining how pawns are used in a chess . They are put on the front line of battle and have little to no mobility as they protect their higher-valued teammates. He argues that poor white men in the American South, specifically Byron de la Beckwith, can metaphorically be considered pawns. As pawns, these men falsely trusted the idea of social mobility for themselves. They were caught in the rift between the wealthy white men with whom they shared race and gender and the poor Africans with whom they commonly shared occupations. From this position, the poor white males in the South observed many contradictions between the social classes, and held one thing in common with each. Consequently, their own social world was built upon their ignorance of who was in fact the enemy. The desire to avoid association with African Americans was so strong that poor whites often acted outrageously in order to appear as if they belonged in the wealthy white group. Beckwith represents this notion by ki8lling Medgar Evers, a member of the NAACP, because he believed the organization was a threat to the white social world. His ignorance of the fact that the enemy was not the NAACP, but rather the South politicians is obvious, but whether he is culpable for his actions is debatable. Dylan argues using many different points such as acute status anxiety, shame, and lynch mob organizations as a way to excuse his behavior. For these reasons, Dylan believes Beckwith cannot be held responsible for his own actions because he was a victim of "bad moral luck" and his actions were not voluntary. Contradictingly, the smaller but stronger argument invites culpable ignorance and negligence into question. Although Beckwith acted in ignorance, he is demeritorious for his moral negligence in those actions. In comparison with a pawn, Beckwith's society was not in fact brainwashed as Dylan tries to convince us, but as people with free choice, they disregarded any moral character whatsoever and turned to violent behavior. Poor white males are not exempt from moral laws only because the situation permits it, and are censurable for their actions accordingly. He may have believed the NAACP was a threat to the white society and wanted to protect his way of life, but is ultimately morally unjustifiable and inexcusable in any situation.

posted by Anonymous @ 8:58 AM