Sojourner Truth, a key figure in the woman’s rights debate during the 1850s helped unite women and argue for their equality to men. Her speech at the woman’s right convention in Akron Ohio as Robinson interprets was very important in its emphasis and variety of ways of showing how women are the same as men. From arguing she has “as much muscle to any man” to using a reference to the bible it was able to spread and connect with all kinds of different people.
Today one of the key arguments in the election is regarding immigrants and their rights. What gives an illegal immigrant rights in this country? And what rights are they entitled to? In America it seems very easy to overthink that we took land forcefully, whether from the Native Americans or even the Mexicans who owned territories that are now a part of the Southern states in America. Trump argues all illegal Mexicans should be deported and a wall should be built to keep them out. He even hints at the idea of not allowing any Muslims into the country.
This ignorant, somewhat white supremacist mentality is very similar to the one Sojourner Truth faced in the mid to late 19th century. To isolate a group of people for their race/heritage or religion is no better than the years when women and African Americans were oppressed by the government and the majority of Americans. Trumps seemingly idiotic and radical thoughts have swept America and he now somehow has a serious chance at winning this election, this countries past experiences such as that with Sojourner Truth and woman’s rights should be an example of what should not be repeated.
Still you need more than the rhetorical effect of your tone to unify the different parts of your post. Right now it feels like such a jump between paragraph one and paragraph two. If I didn’t know that you’re responding to a specific assignment, I would be lost. True, the nature of the assignment invites a kind of jump. However, part of the reason the gap is jarring here is I don’t really know why you brought Truth up. You seem to cut off your engagement with Truth before you even get into it. I feel like you needed at least two more sentences going deeper into one of the textual aspects (i.e. the biblical references) that you mentioned. By go deeper, I mean look at what Truth (and/or the transcriber) is doing with that biblical reference? What ideas does it introduce? How does it shape our presentation of Truth or the issues on which she speaks?
Then after you’ve more thoroughly engaged some aspect of Truth, you can ask yourself 1) how is my understanding of this aspects enhanced, challenged, refuted, or otherwise affected when I read it alongside this contemporary text? and 2) how does my understanding of what’s going on in Truth’s text affect what I notice, question, appreciate, understand etc. at work in the contemporary text?
Right now your contemporary text is not really a part of your actual blog discussion. It’s true that I said you just needed to have the text in the blog, but I did say that the text has to relate/resonate/challenge/speak to OR is challenged/supported/complicated by the contemporary text in some way in some way with the texts from the syllabus. You have to at least introduce your contemporary text in such a way that addresses how you believe it does relate/resonate/challenge/speak to OR is challenged/supported/complicated by the contemporary text?