Your first sentence doesn't really mean anything. It is defining the thing by itself. The second sentence is awkward, but can probably pass.
"During the 1950's and 1960's, Whites denied Blacks fundamental civil rights such as decent housing, adequate education, and the right to vote. " Was it Whites who denied Blacks ... and the right to vote, or was it the Jim Crow Laws that were to blame? Most Whites living in the 50s and 60's had no part in passing the Jim Crow Laws. I suppose you can assign some blame for people failing to demand the end of laws that were clearly unjust, but your sentence condemns everyone on the basis of "race". Isn't that a bit racist too? Try this: Blacks during the 1950's and 60's were denied the right to vote. Blacks were denied quality education by laws that claimed that segregated schools were "separate, but equal". Conditions in much of the South for the poor and Blacks were substandard and poverty was widespread. Alright, that is a few more words, but broken into smaller sentences the meaning is more clear, and accurate as to what is being described. You can probably cut that down into shorter sentences.
Were Blacks really severely beaten by dogs? Of course not, you have to be careful that what you say is clear. Try this phrasing instead: Television news showed a shocked nation unarmed and peaceful Blacks being beaten with sticks, battered by water, and attacked by police dogs. You see, that is clear and short without even more emotional shock value than your original sentence. A more balanced structure, which often is better especially in academic writing might be: Television news showed Black protesters being beaten, hosed and attacked by police dogs.
"America was racially unbalanced". What does this mean? Has this country ever been racially balanced, should it be? Should there be the same number of Whites, Blacks, Indians, Asians and Hispanics? You need to clarify what you mean.
"Many cities in the South, especially Birmingham, Alabama, enforced segregation and unjust laws." Actually, most of the Jim Crow Laws were State Laws, and most cities in the south were strongly segregated by law. Why was Birmingham so prominent? Why not focus instead on Atlanta, or Selma?
"Since the Blacks' powers were limited, they lacked the freedom of choice in many situations." This is a truism. Without freedom we are powerless in the grip of authority. "Blacks lacked power because their freedoms were chained by unjust Jim Crow Laws."
The following is a different topic and should probably be a separate paragraph. "Considered one of the greatest political strategists of all time, Martin Luther King Jr. took action against the racists of the South and compelled them using his nonviolent methods to accept equality. He put the South under political, economic, and moral pressure. He used the power of love for God against his enemies. He stressed that they should not surrender their right to protest in order to allow opportunity to be similarly distributed among the races."
Who considers King to be one of the greatest political strategists of all time? Why is he such a great strategist? That assertion is a whole sentence, and shouldn't be a subordinate clause to the second half of the sentence. "... took action against the racists of the South and compelled them to accept equality." King did take action, but he wasn't alone. It was King's ability to mobilize and lead great masses of people in demonstrations that made him successful. Alone, he would not likely have even gotten a line in history. The masses have power, but the power of any individual is very limited.
King aroused the masses by putting words to their frustrations, dreams and aspirations, and then he led them into the public arena to voice before the nation the need for justice and change. That's heroic, as was MLK's sacrifice for the cause. Racists weren't compelled to accept equality, but the laws supporting segregation were struck from the books with extreme prejudice. Many of those die-hard segregationists still haven't accepted the notion that people should be treated equally and with justice. I doubt that we will ever see a time when all prejudice is wiped from the human heart. But, indeed, the laws did change.
The drum beat of successive sentences beginning "He...." might be appropriate if your paper was about Dr. King's leadership, but it was the Civil Rights Movement that accomplished all of those things, not any single individual. Indeed, there were many who repudiated the whole idea of non-violence and advocated Black Power based upon physical force and terror. Not all Blacks of those years wanted full integration anymore than the Grand Dragon of the KKK. The Nation of Islam led by Malcom X didn't believe integration was a worthy goal, and Huey Newton et. al. were strongly influenced by revolutionary Marxism. Che Guevera was, and is still a cult hero to many. The fact is that none of those factions had the same power to move national audiences and sentiment as the television pictures of brutality, the bombing of churches, the lynching of uppity folks who for some strange reason didn't appreciate second-class citizenship. The extreme racist elements in the South were their own worst enemy, Dr. King and the thousands of protesters of all ethnic backgrounds just helped the world see the ugly face of hate.
Now let's look at your thesis statement. "Nonviolent direct action was the most powerful method for Blacks to gain liberty and equality during the time." Define these terms, at least in your own mind: Most powerful method", compared to what and why?; "liberty", is liberty an ideal that is lost if not complete, or can there be degrees of liberty? How un-free were Blacks during the time period you're writing about? The political freedom of Blacks of the time was certainly restricted, and that made them vulnerable to attack by racists. Restating your thesis: Nonviolent action was the most effective strategy to overthrow the Jim Crow Laws of the Southern States.
Be clear, and concise. That will make it easier to spot the faults in your analysis. It's really easy to lose sight of your goal, especially if you make it complex and then wrap it in words that are emotionally charged and unclear.
Now, I've taken your first paragraph apart sentence by sentence. I don't expect you to use any of the suggested alternatives I've made above. You can do better. I hope that I've been of some use to you, but I can't write the paper for you. Keep posting, and I'll do what I can to help.
Caldus, It's not easy to ask for help in writing a report, because suggestions are often taken as attacks on our ability to write, and we make it 'personal.' I have often felt that my writing skills were 'above average,' because I have been complimented by bosses and others for my writing. I now serve on the Grand Jury, and was responsible for writing a report. After I submitted the first draft to the committee, they made recommendations about grammar and content. I finally submitted the third and hopefully final draft to the committee last week. My ego was a little bit crushed, but I know that the report is submitted by the whole Grand Jury, and not by me. Grand Jury reports are different than anything I have written during my working career, so it's been a challenge, but a learning one. Take suggestions positively, and you'll do fine.
Caldus,
You've had time now to write a new draft. I'd very much like to see how much you've improved upon the First Draft. When is the paper due? Of course, we are intensely interested in how it is recieved.
Asherman wrote:Caldus,
You have two problems to address: writing clear, interesting prose that keeps a reader with you from start to finish, and secondly providing analysis to support your thesis. If the reader gets tired, confused, or bored they just wont hear you out. Even if you have discovered the cure for the common cold it will be useless unless you can effectively communicate your discovery. Writing can never be as "pure" an expression as mathematics, but you do have to strive for the "purist" expression of your thoughts as possible. That means mastery of grammar, and discipline in how you structure your written, and oral, communications.
A clear thesis supported by well-structured subordinate points/elements is essential to academic writing. Who, what, where, when and why are the foundations of journalistic writing, and they can also be used to write the informative piece ... except the "why" should come first in the sort of writing you are going to be doing for the next few years. "This is so", you will say "because A, B, and C are so". You might use a negative, "This is so, because A is not so". These "proofs" must be free of logical fallicies. In the Thesis you are making an assertion, in the body of your essay you then give the reasons to support your assertion and in fairness and intellectual honesty you should at least outline the arguments that tend to disprove your thesis. In mathematics the integrity of the work is clear because each element must clearly fit into the whole. Writing is much more demanding of us.
Is nonviolence really always the best strategy? Would a non-violent opposition have any chance of success in Hitler's Germany, or in Stalin's Soviet Union? Isn't it possible that the successes of non-violence are confined to its use against only those authorities who have already accepted the idea that opposition can be legitimate, and should be handled justly? What did the conditions surrounding the foundations of the United States have to do with your thesis that centers on the use of non-violence? Where and when did non-violent strategies and tactics begin? Are you going to suggest a revisionist history that says non-violence could have/should have been used at the beginning of the 19th century to eliminate slavery? Non-violence as a real alternative to the Late Unpleasantness? I don't think so, but if that is part of your analysis you will have to prove it much better.
I think that you need to probably throw out almost everything before the 20th century, except as background to demonstrate perhaps how power was used prior to the mahatma. What brought about the end of the Jim Crow Laws? Was it the Civil Rights Movement, or was it the discovery of Hitler's death camps at the end of WWII? How would non-violent strategy work today in the Middle East, and if it is a viable strategy why isn't it used instead of feuding acts of violence? If you are to convince anyone that your thesis, as I understand it, is correct then you certainly haven't established it nor have you shown any analysis to support the notion.
Given the choice of losing your personal or national liberty, or using extreme violence, which would you choose? If punched in the nose, is it better to run away or to fight even though you may lose? The thing is, Caldus, there is no single answer that is right in every occasion. The world is not black and white, but grey. Sometimes and against some enemies it is better to step back a pace and to stand on the high moral ground. In other cases, that strategy will lead to defeat and annihilation. Though we generally recognize that the use of force is riddled with bad consequences, it is sometimes not only the best, but only course of action for men of honor.
I look forward to your rewritten essay. Stick with it and let's get that "A+" that your hard work should earn.
I would pay for you to read my essays. At least, if I wasn't broke. I am a first year journalism student and your commentary is twice as revealing as any editing my professors have done.
Caldus,
I'm flattered. However, your professors have many students work to supervise and comment upon, and I have very few.
As a journalism student you need to learn very early to be extremely concise and clear in your writing. Use short, active sentences aimed at a very low grade-level. Get the important stuff in the first paragraph, so that your editor can cut from the following as necessary to make it fit the space. No editorializing in straight reporting, just the facts. Check your facts at least twice, and it isn't a fact unless two or more independent sources say it is.
Remember the five Ws, but the "why" in reporting is often so elusive as to fade into nothingness. Events in the real world are really tough to accurately describe, and root causes are often beyond human kin. There is a difference between proximate cause and the "thing" that may have started a series of consequences that ultimately resulted in the event you are reporting on. Ask any law student about "proximate cause".
I'm sure that those who have commented here would like to read your finished product. It it is to long, then please Email it. I will PM my Email address so that you may send along your finished article.
Asherman wrote:Caldus,
I'm flattered. However, your professors have many students work to supervise and comment upon, and I have very few.
As a journalism student you need to learn very early to be extremely concise and clear in your writing. Use short, active sentences aimed at a very low grade-level. Get the important stuff in the first paragraph, so that your editor can cut from the following as necessary to make it fit the space. No editorializing in straight reporting, just the facts. Check your facts at least twice, and it isn't a fact unless two or more independent sources say it is.
Remember the five Ws, but the "why" in reporting is often so elusive as to fade into nothingness. Events in the real world are really tough to accurately describe, and root causes are often beyond human kin. There is a difference between proximate cause and the "thing" that may have started a series of consequences that ultimately resulted in the event you are reporting on. Ask any law student about "proximate cause".
I'm sure that those who have commented here would like to read your finished product. It it is to long, then please Email it. I will PM my Email address so that you may send along your finished article.
This would be much more effective if Caldus was a journalism student, undoubtedly.
IronLionZion wrote:
I would pay for you to read my essays. At least, if I wasn't broke. I am a first year journalism student and your commentary is twice as revealing as any editing my professors have done.
That's the great thing about this site!
