My piece is on the factors of race and popular public opinion and how they affected the proceedings in the cases of The State of Florida v. George Zimmerman and The State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson. I decided to cut down on a lot of the influences to focus on the ones that are significant and can best represent my analysis. I have a ton of background information that I’m still pumping into my piece, so my meaningful analysis has not fully developed yet. I may have to condense what I have so far considering I’ve written four or more pages and haven’t fully expressed my opinion yet.

1. The challenges African American males face through litigation in an ever-changing society : A case study into the arguments on behalf of both Trayvon Martin and O.J.Simpson.

-This case study would give a perspective of defendants with popular opinion opposing them (in the case of O.J. Simpson), and with popular opinion on their side (in the case of Trayvon Martin). And consequently how both defendants have their case ruled against popular opinion.

2. Examining the extremely effective use of propaganda in Nazi Germany orchestrated by Hitler’s henchman Joseph Goebbels.

-I am very interested in this subject because it really shows how effective and powerful rhetoric can be. Goebbels use of rhetoric literally led a country to attempt a mass invasion.

3. Frederick Douglass’ use of rhetoric to help turn the tide of slavery in the US and solidify the abolitionist movement.

-using rhetoric persuasively under very grim and harsh conditions (easily life threatening)

-This example shows a man willing to risk his life to influence a country through rhetoric, and having a major effect on America’s outlook on slavery.

4. The US governments everyday use of rhetoric to influence its citizens.

-in this point I want to explore such topics as the governments ability to call its citizens to arms so effectively through rhetoric, the US’s war on drugs and how they convince (or do not) citizens to use said drugs, and how members of congress (and the president) use slander and fear campaigns to convince their citizens of the evils of the opposing party.

5. The cold war and the build-up of nuclear arms: where communication fails

 

“The plague is met by order; its function is to set out every possible confusion: that of the disease, which is transmitted when bodies mix together; that of the evil, which is increased when fear and death overcome prohibitions. ” Here Foucault sets out a very complex and pertinent look at the disciplinary system and how it pertains to quarantine. I found this very interesting because Foucault has a response of calm, cool order even to mass chaos of disease. This shows how persuasive rhetoric can be.

“Each individual, in his place, is securely confined to a cell from which he is seen from the front by a supervisor; but the side walls prevent him from coming into contact with his companions. He is seen; but he does not see; he is the object of information, never a subject of communication.” I found this passage very interesting because it plays on the mental and emotional health of the subjects which is a very scary form of punishment that is widely practiced today. When you have a feeling of someone always watching you, it can play on an individuals actions strongly. VMI has some relevancy to this.

I had some trouble understanding what Foucault was talking about when he kept referencing lepers and their ostracism from society. “The leper was caught up in the practice of rejection.”

At one point near the end, Foucault says that panopticism can be applied to a variety of situations. One he offers to the audience is medical treatment. I am not entirely sure how this is applicable.

 

Through reading the analysis of Machiavelli’s writing, I now truly understand how the phrase Machiavellian came about. In his book The Prince, some believe Machiavelli is advocating for tyrannical dictatorship, however this is not so. The author of this analysis believes Machiavelli is a realist who understands that in this situation (at the time) Italy needed strong leadership and for someone to step up to the role. Machiavelli also believed that in the long run a Roman Republic form of government is the safest and best form of government to be had. He also believes that the state is in place to serve the people and not vice versa (as a totalitarian government would believe).

Machiavelli has a cynical and deceitful views on trust and relationships. He believes that “if you  cannot be virtuous, appear so.” He believes that while it may be virtuous to live a life of honesty, it will not get you far in life; hence Machiavellian. Following the theme of his  slightly pessimistic (or realist) view of mankind he says that all men are by nature discontented. He also says that “there cannot be a peaceful citizenry under a serene monarch since it is the violent ways of man that make government necessary.”