Rhetorical Analysis #3: Source for Paper B

I forgot to do #2. :(

The article I am analyzing is this one:
Golub, Lester S. “The New American Revolution: Multi-Cultural Literature, in the English
Program.” The English Journal 64.6 (Sep. 1975): 23-26. Web.

#1: What is the article's goal?
The article's goal is to persuade the reader that literature written in English by ethnic groups who didn't originally speak English should be taught in secondary schools.

#2: What is the article's argument?
Literature written in English by different ethnic groups should be taught in high school classes because it reflects the mutlicultural roots of our society, validates other cultural groups, and helps students live in and deal with a pluralistic reality.

#3: Who is the audience?
The narrowest audience is readers of The English Journal. In other words, the main audience is high school English teachers across America who have the power to change their curricula to include multicultural literature.

#4: How?
The author appeals to logos by presenting a clearly outlined map of how teachers could change their curricula to include other English language literatures in their courses. One of the biggest arguments against including multicultural literature in the high school English classrooms is that it would take a very, very long time for individual teachers to rearrange the course curriculum and to figure out how to teach literature from a culture the teacher isn't familiar with. By presenting a clear outline for how the teacher should teach this literature and by outlining literary and psychological concepts that the teacher should consider while teaching this literature, the author makes it clear that teaching so-called "ethnic" literature isn't as hard as it appears. His logical outline of how to apply the concepts he lists appeals to the reader's sense of logic. It also establishes his credibility as an educator and leads the reader to trust him more, thus appealing to ethos. Finally, it also plays on the reader's emotions by making them feel more at ease with this topic, thus appealing to pathos.

The author also appeals to the reader's sense of logic by emphasizing that this literature deserves to be a part of the high school teaching canon by virtue of history. He quotes Chinua Achebe as saying, "I have been given this language [English] and intend to use it." The author continues that for many cultural groups, English is not their original language, but it has of necessity become the tongue that many of them use. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to exclude other literatures from high school English classes--all groups who write in English ought to be taught in English classes, rather than solely American or British writers. This also appeals to the reader's sense of injustice, since he argues that other writers should be included in the canon because, he says, "Fifty years ago, no African literature was discussed in the school and universities of the Western world." By emphasizing that many African writers write in English and therefore should be included in the English language canon, Golub implies that it would be unjust to continue to exclude and neglect them, as they have been for so many years.

STAR:

Sufficient: I think the evidence the author gives is sufficient for his audience. His outlined curriculum, his quotes from authors like Chinua Achebe, and his examples of multicultural works with themes that are important to high school students but that aren't usually taught in high school all evidence his main point: that this literature needs to be taught in high school.

Typical: I think a reasonable person would accept this evidence, especially in his section on "national and ethnic literature," where he lists several authors and works of note that should be included in high school curricula. The author establishes himself as credible and provides, I think, enough evidence to support his claim.

Accurate: He's fair. He addresses the counterarguments, especially that changing the curriculum of any class takes time and that Western readers might not identify as readily with non-Western literature. He doesn't set these up as easy questions to topple over easily; instead, he spends the majority of the paper addressing these questions and proposing viable solutionsl.

Relevant: I think everything in this article applies. It's short--only 5 pages long--and stays on-topic the whole time.

#5: Effective
Yes, I think the piece is effective. It outlines viable solutions and addresses the counterarguments in a logical way, making his way seem very smart and very doable.

The end.