Chapter 4: Rhetorical Activity #1 (part 1 of 3)

I assume, in this blog, that my assumptions on what Hirsh and Zinn are trying to suggest and how they related to which direction their views go, will suggests whose description I find more accurate more-so than I can say for myself.
Hirsh discusses the vaguely defined morals of Americans, where Zinn discusses the impact of the influences on Americans. Hirsh uses “our” to discuss views in ways that appear introverted in individualistic perceptions. He uses “we” in a way that suggest collective outlook extraverted onto others. “American culture” is used to represent an externalized view on the traditional views that are not effectively supportive to the way things really are; perhaps suggesting that one externalize the notion that ‘they’ are a certain way, while ‘we’ should shun such notion via the appearance of ‘us’ being practical, ingenuous, inventive, and dependent-minded. Finally, he refers to the “myths” fostered by “American culture” as “it.” And, “it” (the beliefs of history external to our collective beliefs) welcomes punishment for ones beliefs in ways that it should not.

Zinn uses “we” as he discusses the influences of American society on our thinking/choices, how we cannot escape them, and how less trouble will come our way if we accept them (‘less trouble coming’ is supported by the externalized notion that “most people” agree with them). He says these external influences are not coming from a ‘survival of the fittest’ influence, and also are not from a free-thinking society. Instead, they come from culturally collective persuasions that lean toward a safer world to live in; one that doesn’t attempt to question authority. Finally, although traditional notions set up by society are not accepted by everyone, enough people believe in them to make them highly influential on our thoughts.

Hirsh suggests liberalism in promoting a positive view of human nature in discussion of “our” and “we”, yet does not by suggesting “American culture” appears more negatively viewed. However, septicism of authority appears relevant to this “American culture” statement, perhaps suggestive toward a liberal stand.

Zinn appears to lean against skepticism toward authority, therefore lacking suggestion of being liberal. He doesn’t appear to take any personal stand toward saying things are right or wrong for the ways they are, he is just saying that ‘they are this way.’

Zinn appears to be more supportive of tradition and authority than Hirsh, therefore being more conservative than him. Hirsh appears to believe more in equality of all citizens (liberal), where Zinn appears to highlight the importance of the influences on us more than giving discussions on equality (conservatism).

Various other issues involving ones taking a liberal or conservative stand were difficult (if not impossible) for me to find even a sense of recognition as being one way over the other. Perhaps making notes on all of these could suggest how much grey area (and/or area of unclairty) influence appears present within each person’s statement.

Page 135 says that the two dominant parties in America, Democrats and Republicans, no longer represent liberal and conservative roles. Democrats are more in the middle, and Republicans are more to the right of conservatism rather than conservatism-based. I assume that this exercise suggests two dominant views being taken into account for this comparison, and that Zinn is one while Hirsh is the other. If so, I would think that Hirsh is a Democrat (being between liberalism and conservatism), and Zinn is a Republican (being somewhere to the right of conservatism).

Page 131, just before Zinn’s description, gives us a hint in stating that his “politics are to the left of Hirsh’s.” Therefore, I cannot “justify my placement of either writer on the political spectrum.” I don’t know much about politics, and have apparently overlooked some things (and/or misinterpreted some things) suggestive to Zinn’s being more to the left of Hirsh.