Everything You Think You Know About SDSU’s Aztec Warrior is Wrong

For numerous San Diego State students, graduates, and sports fans, the “Aztec Warrior” is a mere symbol of their beloved team and only ever represents a feeling of bravery or courage against another team. Many, including a majority of alumni, may even love the warrior primarily due to the fact that it has represented them for so long, from 1925 to the modern day, and there is no need to change a part of their history. No matter what excuse there is for a given person’s love towards the “Aztec,” there is no getting around the fact that this mascot is a significant appropriation of a previous prevalent culture in the Americas. San Diego State’s stereotypical representation of an Aztec is being depicted as a figurehead for our distinguished university. How does this establishment represent such a culture, but with a half-naked man running around in some feathers and blowing on a conch shell to entice a crowd during any given sporting event. Using the “Aztec” as a mascot is beyond inappropriate, especially for such an esteemed institution. In fact, San Diego State is probably the worst university to house this type of mascot, as, architecturally, it is designed to look like a mission in San Diego. In their original installment, missions throughout California were used to enslave Native Americans in order to forcibly convert them to Catholicism and put them to work. Any natives who disagreed or tried to escape were executed in front of their loved ones. As a result, a Spanish mission and a native American mascot have got to be one of the worst combinations possible; no school would be permitted if it was designed after a concentration camp with a school mascot of a rabbi. Our Aztec Warrior is a misappropriation of the Aztec culture, backed by illegitimate claims of geography and local history. SDSU needs to act like many others who have made similar mistakes already have; SDSU needs to change their mascot. The Aztec warrior mascot in itself, or even the “Aztecs” as a whole, need a change, and we need it now. With the ever-progressive society that we possess here at SDSU, this change away from native mascots is imminent, so why should it not be us who officially gets the work done and over with for good.

According to Dr. Cornel Pewewardy, a professor at Portland State University, many of those who see no problem in having this type of mascot have developed a form of “dysconscious racism,” which has crept into their minds and impacted their attitudes towards the occurrences surrounding them in their daily lives. These “dysconscious racists” do not believe the Aztec is racist in any way as it does not affect them, nor will it ever. These people refuse to look through the lenses of another, less fortunate person, one who was subjugated and put down by others, and is now seemingly “praised” above all else. The Aztecs were virtually killed off by European colonists, but now, centuries later, we think it is okay to wear this assassinated people’s culture and say it is perfectly fine and reasonable. If for some reason being an Aztec is cool today, why was it not cool to be one a few centuries ago? For those who believe this appropriation is permissible, the question shifts to why Indians, why not wear a representation of a Jew or a “Chinaman?” What would make any of them okay? Nothing. Wearing any of them as a “mascot” is not okay in any way, and is not anything but racist.

The history behind the “Aztec” at San Diego State is a joke in itself. Way back when, before most current alumni were even born, in the 1920s, football coach Charles Peterson chose to take it upon himself to change the mascot, as the mascot then, a Wampus Cat (a mythical cougar-like creature), made his football players seem like “kitties.” So what else did Peterson want to change the mascot to than the most fierce symbol he could think of, an Aztec (Mallios). He, like many others, felt this “savage” character would have the fighting spirit and aggressiveness that was needed to back a strong football program (Davis). Choosing to go with the Aztec for its symbolism was a similar choice compared to what many other universities did, but some other universities were much more up front with their racism. One such example is Eastern Washington, previously known as the “savages,” and, of course, they had a Native American mascot just like SDSU. Unlike SDSU, they realized their mistakes and altered their mascot, replacing the “savages” with a much more neutral mascot of the “eagles.” Choosing to stay with these mascots that can easily be interpreted as figureheads of racism is certainly a thing of the past, significantly due to the fact that depicting cultures like this can notably alter people’s view of a culture and the people within such. As a result of the decisions within our past, people of the modern era are seemingly more likely to view native indian groups as a savage people, as they were only ever known for dancing in circles and hunting with no remorse, rather than being recognized as a significant culture composed of a number of different working parts that was far ahead of its time. What should be a respected piece of North American history is being clouded by our destruction of the representation of their history, similar to our destruction of their culture in the first place. For our university, the Aztec was solely meant to inflict fear into opposition, which apparently is all the Aztec culture can be remembered for in many people’s eyes. With this change, the university saw no problem transitioning into an appropriative program; in fact, to make this original alteration possible, the community of SDSU decided to throw the school mascot, Pete the cat (an actual cat), off Hardy Tower with a makeshift parachute. SDSU pretty much assassinated one mascot to implement a more “fierce” one. They were blind to the fact that they were going from a creative team name to one of heavy racist connotations.

The racism of this mascot has seemingly branched out into the university itself in recent years, affecting the brain power of a number of people. When referencing a ban going across the United States for Native American mascots that entailed racist connotations, Stephen Weber, a previous president of San Diego State University, directly stated that the Aztec was not an appropriative mascot and that it should be banned as it was not actually a Native American (Schrotenboer). For those like Weber, I suggest enrolling in a simplistic history or geography course. The Aztecs were located in Central Mexico, which can be argued to be either North or Central America, but either way is still in America. Would that not make the Aztecs a “Native American” tribe; according to someone like Weber, it would not. Even further, the fact that the NCAA went along with such an ill-geographic statement goes to show how truly ignorant and racist a majority of America still seems to be.

San Diego State needs to take a page out of the notebook already used by many other universities with this very problem. Stanford University, previously known as the “Indians,” were one of the first to realize their faults, formally switching to the “Cardinal” in 1972 (“Eliminating”). Stanford officially made this decision after a number of student and staff came together to lobby the university President to their cause. Upon review, Stanford’s President, Richard Lyman, realized that their mascot was offensive and demeaning to a number of students, and was thereby unacceptable, and, as a result, quickly removed from the school (“Origins”). A number of other schools followed suit, including Dartmouth’s change from the “Indians” to the “Big Green” in 1974 and Miami of Ohio’s switch from the “Redskins” to the “Redhawks” in 1997. These universities and several others have hopped on the train to a better future in terms of both appearing and actually developing into more prestigious colleges due to a now severe lack in serious misappropriation through mascots. And finally it is about time that San Diego State decides to ultimately board that train.

In short, the Aztec is a clear-cut example of cultural appropriation. The Aztec of SDSU needs to be changed. Native American mascots do not reflect true progression in the United States, they only show the constant reliance on the ignorance of Americans. True progression in this sense can not be made until the “white” ideal and mindset of “if it does not affect me, it is not bad” is long gone. Ridding colleges of Indian mascots is a good place to start, particularly at San Diego State University; I would suggest a subtle return to the San Diego State Wampus Cats, or for you fierce people, something like the San Diego State Sidewinders.

Sources Cited

Davis, Laurel R. “The Problems with Native American Mascots.” Multicultural Education, vol. 9, no. 4, 2002., pp. 11-14

“Eliminating the Stanford Indian Mascot.” Indian Country Media Network. 07 Mar. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2017.

Mallios, Seth. Hail Montezuma!: The Hidden Treasures of San Diego State. San Diego, CA: Montezuma, Aztec Shops,, San Diego State U, 2012. Print.

“The Origins of Stanford’s “Tree” Mascot.” The Daily Californian. 10 Mar. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2017.

Pewewardy, C. (1999). From enemy to mascot: The deculturation of indian mascots in sports culture. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 23(2), 176-189.

Schrotenboer, Brent. “NCAA Puts Limited Ban on Indian Mascots.” San Diego Union Tribune, 6 Aug. 2005

Everybody Assumes

For the topic of assumptions, I shall refer to dialogue stated throughout the conversing and debating that took place during last Wednesday’s University Council meeting on the campus of San Diego State. This meeting included a substantial discussion on the resolution of changing San Diego State’s mascot away from the current Aztec. The meeting lasted approximately three hours and ended with a vote on the matter. The vote went 14-12 in favor of the current mascot, and was immediately followed by the resignation of eleven Associated Students’ Board members who took place in the vote. Throughout the discussions that eventually led to the vote, there were many assumptions passed that went unevaluated, and I am here to bring such examples to light.

 

I shall start with an explicit assumption given during the regular discussion of this topic during the meeting. While attempting to come off as a neutral player in this field, one Associated Students’ Executive Board Member stated that there had been bullying from parties on both sides of the argument, and the voting participants should all vote for what they knew was the right thing to do. In such statement, this member stated that there was bullying from both sides, but never provided any evidence of such occurring. Therefore, this can easily be interpreted as an explicit assumption. This was just one example of many from this discussion where a claim was made but never backed up, which is how we got to where we are today.

 
Another assumption that arose from the discussions that took place was that of an implicit, rather than another explicit. On the side fighting for a change in the current mascot, it became a common saying that using the Aztec as our mascot is misappropriating the culture of the Aztec people, or Native Americans as a whole. This example may be more difficult to notice as it is implicit, but there is still an assumption being made here. This pro-change party is arguing that the mascot needs to be changed as it is misappropriating a culture, this thereby implements the assumption that misappropriating is clearly a bad thing, which some people may have been unaware of. It was most likely a suitable assumption for this situation, but whether the parties involved knew it or not, the discussion on Wednesday night was full of unfulfilled assumptions.

My Final Paper Proposal

I plan on writing an academic essay to the community of San Diego State titled, “Everything You Know About Our Aztec Warrior is Wrong.” My essay will be a modern piece and will provide reasoning to the members of this community that their beliefs of the Aztec being a perfectly suitable mascot for our university are completely unjustifiable. My problematic reasonings with their beliefs will include the clear signs of misappropriation and generalization of a culture, clashes with our architecture, and how this mascot genuinely makes no sense in relation to the location and context of San Diego State University.

 

My audience will consist of the students, alumni, and fans of San Diego State and their associated sports teams. I intend to use a number of rhetorical strategies such as cause and effect, prolepsis, support of ethos, and quite a bit of an appeal to logos. I believe cause and effect will surely signify the harms caused on native groups by having such an insensitive mascot as well as prolepsis because this will address a common counterclaim by the opposing party and completely deconstruct it. Both Ethos and Logos will also play important roles in developing my argument as they will assist in construction of the essay and in convincing the audience that my side is the only reasonable side to turn to.

 
I chose to go with this topic as I have gained suitable knowledge on the topic since my arrival at the university, and I feel it is necessary to share the historical context of this mascot and why it needs to go.

What I Have to Say About “They Say / I Say”

They Say/ I Say is an academic writing strategy in which you take the ideals or argument of another writer, contextualize it, and then implement you analyzation and argument on the topic. Graff/Birkenstein are a group that are all for this writing endeavor, as they believe it is significantly helpful in improving one’s writing overall.

 

I was first exposed to the ideals of a They Say/ I Say format in my English class during junior year of high school. Our teacher had us practice this template of writing regularly in preparation for college writing that would be substantially based upon these standards. We each bought a writing and MLA handbook that mentioned this strategy heavily, and we used such with every piece of text we were to write. Using the They Say/ I Say strategy and templates became common knowledge to me at that time, and I incorporated it into most of my analytical writing.

 
As a result, I can clearly see the benefits of using this type of writing strategy in academic literature. Using They Say/ I Say allows the writer to analyze and comment on another’s work while remaining primarily neutral, rather than coming off as somewhat aggressive when denying or disagreeing with the claims of a fellow author. With this strategy, there are a number of transitional templates that allow for a swift change between what you are analyzing and what you personally have to say about it in response. Thereby, this allows for a simple setup for your following text, and, in a way, lays out a plan of attack of what you plan on saying to defend your version of the claim. They Say/ I Say also provides a variety of ways to respond in analysis, including a simple agreement, a disagreement, somewhat agreement, agreeing to disagree, disagreeing in part, but agreeing to another claim made, and so on. Overall, in terms of academic writing, They Say/ I Say appears to be a highly relevant writing strategy when it comes to analyzing the work of others; therefore, I believe learning this strategy should become a notable part of a student’s writing education, but they should certainly also be taught when it is and is not appropriate to use such a strategy and its templates.

The Influence of Rock

Whenever I used to think about Rock music and its start in America, I always thought about big bands like the Beatles, or often something stronger, like Led Zeppelin. I never truly considered that small groups or even single musicians could have such a strong impact on what has become one of the most influential genres of music throughout history.

Then, I learned about Buddy Holly. I heard that Buddy Holly was a pioneer of the Rock genre and one of the most influential musicians for others in the industry. He always seemed to be a short-lived musician who seemed to do decently, but, in fact, in his short run, he helped to develop the genre of Rock as a whole, while getting more and more people interested in it. Although his death cut his personal career short, it significantly assisted in spreading the word of the genre across the globe. In the decades that followed, many musicians followed Holly’s lead and delved solely into the genre of Rock, often crediting some of their major pieces to one of the genre’s most important supporters. Some examples of these references to the great Buddy Holly are included in Don McLean’s “American Pie” and Weezer’s “Buddy Holly.”        

jjj
In general, this argument made through the history of Rock music from Holly’s reign, circa 1950s, never seemed to cease, and, as such, is still found frequently within today’s music sources. I was convinced of Buddy Holly’s importance to the genre through a number of rhetorical devices merely presented through the world’s response to his music. For one, his credibility certainly shines clear, even today, as he is mentioned by a number of famous groups, thereby building his ethos. This also provided substantial logical appeal to myself, as I found it very intriguing that other artists have looked up to him as a role model and use his styles in their music. Of course, there is also the clear emotional appeal, pathos, that comes with referencing Buddy Holly, in reference to his sudden death and the impact it had on the spread of Rock music as a whole. Overall, I am now completely convinced that Buddy Holly, usually a single musician, had one of the most important roles in the creation and spread of the genre of Rock music, ridding myself of my previous ideal that all influence came from big rock bands that were always shown on television. Although these other bands, like the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, are more memorable today, I will always consider Buddy Holly one of the most influential and his song, “Everyday,” one of the best.

The True Context of a Maus

Art Spiegelman’s Maus is a depiction of the life of his father, a Polish Jew, who endured the toughest prisoner camps of World War II and survived to tell the tale. Spiegelman wrote his graphic novel in the 1980s after frequently visiting Vladek, his father, years before and recording the story of his life on tape. Art chose to write in an unique style, including both Vladek’s story and his face-to-face encounters with him. The story began with Vladek as a young man in Poland, trying his best to find his place in the world. Continuing, Vladek discussed how he met his future wife and new family, before eventually leading to the beginning of World War II. From there, he discussed wartime and what he did to maintain both his own life and the lives of those around him. Regularly, the story shifts back to Artie and Vladek discussing modern events, such as the relationship between Vladek and his second wife, Mala. As the story of Vladek’s life during the war progressed, Artie became more attuned to what life was like and began to better understand his family’s history. The story concludes as Vladek reaches the end of the war, is reunited with his lost wife, Anja, relinquishes the entirety of his story to Art, and passes away.

Maus is one of the most popular and efficient graphic novels throughout history. This is not only due to the significance of the actual story of a Jew’s survival, but also to the way Spiegelman chose to demonstrate it. Spiegelman’s choice to write Maus as a meta-narrative, describing the story within another story, is more important and influential than one might have thought. Spiegelman made this decision in order to purely depict what life was like for  Holocaust survivors in day-to-day life after the war, while maintaining the efficacy of emotional understanding within Vladek’s story.

The Holocaust was one of the most dehumanizing and horrific events in history. Many of those who suffered were changed forever. Shifts in both attitudes and lifestyles were prominent and the world was never seen in the same light by these victims. One crucial panel of Maus that gives significant insight into how Vladek treats those around him is found on page 13, and depicts Artie’s first visit to his father’s home in circa two years. He is welcomed in and his coat is taken to be hung in the closet. Mala, Artie’s stepmother begins to hang his coat on a wire hanger rather than a wooden one. Vladek lets her know how displeased he is with this decision even though it was such an insignificant mistake. This panel perfectly describes the relationship Vladek has with arguably the two most important people remaining in his life, his wife and son. First, there is the weak bond between the father and son as they had not met with one another for nearly two years, demonstrating a lack of importance for one in the other’s life. Through the text, we are able to ascertain that Anja’s death created this absence in each other’s lives while also showing how Vladek puts in little effort to keep his dwindling family happily together. This panel also shows the strained relationship that Vladek has with his second wife. Vladek seems never truly satisfied after the death of Anja, and he takes out his displeasure regularly on Mala. This man went through the entirety of World War II with the primary goal of making it out alive with the love of his life, only to lose Anja soon after. Vladek became a completely broken and changed man due to the loss of his wife and the relationship with others. The war had ruined his life, and it was not yet done inflicting pain upon him. This information provides significant insight to the life of Vladek and how it was impacted by the war, but the reader would have been completely unaware of these facts if Spiegelman had not decided to write his novel in this meta-narrative style.

Another panel presenting Vladek’s postwar communicative skills is found at the end of Maus, on page 161. Artie and his father are sitting in the latter’s garden, finishing up another segment of the story. They had begun discussing Anja and some notebooks she had written from the war, telling her story. When Artie inquired about where to find these notebooks, Vladek stated that he had burned them because they upset him. Vladek’s decision bewildered Artie as he knew they would have been critical to the developing story. Artie called his father a “murderer” as he had destroyed Anja’s only remaining memories (161). This panel depicts how selfish Vladek had become after the war, going from doing anything he could to save his family to destroying something he knew was important to his son. He should have known Artie would have appreciated the notebooks beyond belief, but he could not get over the pain they caused him through the memories they provided. This failure to communicate knowledge about the notebooks before their incineration developed a new distance in their relationship and provided grounds for the gap between the end of the first book and the start of the second. This background information provided by Spiegelman’s style is crucial at this stage as it answers many questions for readers. This meta-narrative component bridges all gaps created within the novel, while also providing notable information on the modern life of Vladek and how he interacts with others.

Why the Holocaust? Why mice? Why a comic strip?  Art Spiegelman has been asked these questions and more for years, so he finally decided to compile his responses in MetaMaus. He used the book to explain why he decided to write his father’s story in such an unique way. When he began his project, Spiegelman never considered making a full-length book. His original plan was just to create a 3 page comic strip describing his father’s life throughout the war. Comic artist by day, Spiegelman found the medium suitable because he was already accustomed to the special styles he knew he could interpret. After some drafting of the comic, Art showed several of his friends to see what they thought of his new strip. The extreme emotions they expressed lit a bulb in Art’s mind. From that moment, he knew that the entire story was a necessity, no matter how much space it would consume (40). Spiegelman reckoned that if the emotions elicited from his friends by reading just a few panels could influence him to write a novel, then showing his father’s emotions while telling his story could be quite influential to how readers digest such an emotional tale. Therefore, it can clearly be deciphered that Spiegelman chose to write Maus as a meta-narrative graphic novel in order to provide the most information possible about his father’s story while also pulling the reader closer at the turn of each page. Throughout its rebirth, the story of Maus not only became one of the most important things in Art’s life, but the recurrent storytelling affairs became crucial to Vladek’s, something he looked forward to discussing as it seemed to bring his family together again.

Art and Vladek spent several years together discussing the story, not only assisting in the creation of Maus, but also bringing the duo together and reigniting their relationship. Art had known little of the events that had occurred decades before, but through his father’s words he was able to paint a vivid image both in his head and the novel. This provides yet another reason for why Spiegelman decided to portray this story as a graphic novel, for he was now able to express the imagery passed to him through his father. In “Arena,” a documentary about Spiegelman and Maus, Art visits Poland for the first time, walking the same streets that his father had years before. Spiegelman mentions that even though he knows these are the same streets that his father had walked, he still imagined them the way they had been described. This proves how important his discussions with his father were. Vladek’s words painted an entire world in Art’s mind, a world that stuck with him forever. These discussions were also immensely important to the speaker, Vladek. Through his story, Vladek felt that he was able to contribute, providing positivity in the life of his once neglected son. Telling the story of his life kept him going. Once the story had concluded, he passed peacefully, seemingly no longer angry with the world. His death can be seen on the final panel of Maus II, on page 296, with Vladek’s story ceasing as he fell asleep, seemingly forever. With his story completed, Vladek has now also accomplished his purpose in life and is able to pass. It also permitted Artie to fully understand his father’s life, while also allowing him to move on with his own life. The conclusion of this story and the death of Vladek signify the end of an era, while the creation of Maus signified the beginning of a new one.

In his book responding to the story of Maus, fellow author James E. Young mentions that “postmodern aesthetics might accentuate the dilemmas of historytelling” (666). In shorthand, this describes how stories of history are usually difficult to express with complete assurance of accuracy and lack of alternative facts. Spiegelman’s historical tale decimates these common boundaries as his novel is completely composed of primary resources and tells the perfectly accurate story of the life of a survivor through one of the harshest periods throughout history. Concisely, Art Spiegelman’s graphic novel was an eye-opening piece in the scope of WWII literature. His choice to depict his father’s story as a meta-narrative, telling the story within a story, proved to be the best choice he could make. This decision substantially enhanced the context of the novel as it developed several layers when viewing the life of Vladek. Being able to view both his history and how it has affected him as a person in the present through the meta-context aspect allows the reader to understand how Vladek’s life had really changed. The story of Maus was sincerely important to a modern understanding of the Holocaust, but the way Spiegelman chose to write it is what made the novel truly special.

 

Works Cited

“Arena: Art Spiegelman’s Maus (1987).” Illuminations Films. YouTube, 12 May 2014. Web. 26 Mar. 2017.

James E. Young , “The Holocaust as Vicarious Past: Art Spiegelman’s “Maus” and the Afterimages of History,” Critical Inquiry 24, no. 3 (Spring, 1998): 666-699. Web. 4 Apr. 2017.

Spiegelman, Art. The Complete Maus: A Survivor’s Tale. Pantheon, 2011. Print.

—. MetaMaus. New York: Pantheon, 2011. Print.

The PACES of a Common Maus

PROJECT: Art Spiegelman’s Maus was a project focusing on the lives of Jewish people going through the terroristic period known as World War II, where they were tormented under Nazi reign. Spiegelman chose to interpret this interpretation of the war in a comic book form, which, in turn, depicted the war and the lives of those involved in a totally new light. His interpretation opened many people’s eyes to what it was truly like going through this, and how many people’s lives were affected forever because of it. Spiegelman’s primary intention in writing this was to get some new information out about World War II, specifically that of the entire story of a Holocaust survivor that was very close to him, his father. His intended audience appeared to be those interested in history, particularly that that involved the second World War, those who had a vested interest in the comic industry, and most importantly, himself. Spiegelman wrote this novel as he learned it. He understood the importance of his father’s story, and he knew that it needed to be shared.

ARGUMENT: Throughout his text, Spiegelman is not necessarily making an argumentative assertion, but rather, he is telling an important story about survival during World War II. He is not trying to convince people of any new belief; instead, Spiegelman is conveying the life of his father, Vladek, as he fought for his life many years, like many other Jewish people, trying to get out of a war they had no intention in being in. All in all, I do not believe Spiegelman is making an argument, for he is intending to tell an important story of history to all those who choose to tune in.

CLAIMS: In support of the main story about his father, Spiegelman also includes many outside interactions while gaining the necessary information for the story. Some such instances include Artie’s interactions with his stepmother, Mala, or Artie and Francoisse visiting Vladek at his bungalow and checking in on his current state and life as a whole. These instances are important as they depict what life was like for many survivors of the Holocaust and the permanent impacts they had on a majority of people.

EVIDENCE: Nearly the entire text of Maus is a piece of evidence, a personal anecdote to be precise. Approximately 94% of the text is made up of Vladek’s memories from life in the war, which thereby provides substantial evidence in description of the tough (to say the least) lives of the Jewish people, both inside POW camps and on the streets. Spaced out through the text, there were also many maps implemented to show where everything was located in accordance to one another and to provide significant background for the story being told in chronological order by Mr. Vladek Spiegelman.

STRATEGIES: The majority of Spiegelman’s graphic novel is surrounded by appeals to emotion, as pretty much the story of any Jewish person at this time was extremely emotional. From the death of Vladek’s son, to his father and sister, to eventually his wife after the war, his story was an emotional roller coaster as he lost nearly everyone that was important to him, and he had to keep going for the sake of himself and those who were left around him. This was important in showing how strong of a person Vladek was, while also bringing in the reader closer to the story as a whole. There were also examples of appeals to logos, such as in the determining of how many people would be placed in every barrack in every camp, or with the market trading system of the prisoners in the camps. The establishment of credibility in the text was one that I found most intriguing, as Vladek had many connections with the Jewish council of many cities, providing him with a better chance at bribing, which if found substantially interesting, while also helping Vladek’s story along when he was stuck in near-death situations.

What shall the Maus squeak?

In terms of my eventual essay on the novel of Maus, I have chosen the first of the prompts presented: the Historical Temporal Context. In such, I shall decipher Maus in order to answer the ever-important question, Why does Spiegelman choose to tell Vladek’s story within that of Artie’s, and how does that contextualization allow the story to develop overall?

Fallacies in the Wild

For this exercise on identifying logical fallacies out in the wild, I searched my way through Twitter and eventually crossed paths with a displeased supporter of Hillary Clinton. This supporter, Erika Brock, tweeted out her displeasure in, “Please now try to tell me that Hillary lost this election because of her emails and not that she is a woman.” She is intentionally presenting a slight feel of sarcasm as she clearly sees the email reasoning as a complete joke. Little does she know, or at least realize, that her own reasoning is quite fallacious, as it depicts a sense of post hoc. Miss Brock argued that the reason Clinton lost was due to the fact that she was a woman. In terms of post hoc, this means that Hillary was originally a woman, then ran for president of the United States and lost, completely due to the fact of claim A, that she was a woman. Quite frankly, this is ridiculous; moreover, the gender of candidate Clinton can in no way be seen as the proximate cause for her failure in the election, more than likely it was due to the fact that people firmly disagreed with her ideals and past with similar governmental positions. As a result, this can clearly be seen as a post hoc fallacy.

The Tactics of a Young Austrian Demagogue

Cole Carpenter  

Bruner

RWS – 200

7 Mar. 2017

With the election of Donald John Trump to the American presidency, the theory and principle of demagoguery has surfaced world-wide once again. Demagoguery, as defined by Patricia Roberts-Miller, is polarizing propaganda that encourages the members of an in-group to hate or scapegoat an outgroup for a variety of reasons (Roberts-Miller). Patricia Roberts-Miller is an advocate expeditionist into the world of demagoguery who has found many connection between Donald Trump and some famous demagogues of the past. She has written multiple articles in reference to demagoguery, one and a half of which I shall reference today. These articles include, “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric,” and its condensed version “Characteristics of Demagoguery,” which describe the signs and biases of any descriptive demagogic speaker. The tactics Roberts-Miller has depicted in her articles can easily be seen in the wording of a famous demagogue, Adolf Hitler, in his autobiography, Mein Kampf. To show how realistic demagoguery has been in both present day and recent history, I intend to analyze Hitler’s 1925 text for the certain signs of demagoguery. Hitler’s intentions in writing this book lay with his desire to persuade the German people to rise up out of the ashes to seek revenge on those who had wronged them and caused them so much economic undoing in the previous years.

In analyzing this text, I shall use the definitions and depictions of Roberts-Miller to guide me through my expedition into the world of 1920s demagoguery. The key characteristics she has presented will assist in my analyzation substantially as they will provide a “lens” to discover the demagogic tactics within Hitler’s writing. In his book, Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler implemented a variety of demagogic tactics such as polarization, scapegoating, and a double standard in order to influence his audience, the German people, of the need to rise up and fight for themselves and their future.

Throughout his text, Hitler used many different demagogic tactics in order to persuade his followers to accept and strengthen his beliefs. One key tactic that Hitler laid the basis of his beliefs on was polarization, or dividing a diverse range of people into two separate poles (Roberts-Miller). Through this, Hitler formed two parties: the in-group, which consisted of those who followed his beliefs, and the outgroup, those who sided in any way with the Jewish people. This emphasized his usage of the either-or fallacy, as he knew the people surrounding him had to be entirely with him, or they were all going to be his enemies. His original conflict consisted between himself, backed by the German people, and the Jews, backed by the Marxists, German parliament, and the social democrats. Adolf Hitler sought that the Jewish people and their followers be exterminated from their current presence as they had been the “international poisoners” of the German people (Hitler). His original ideas behind polarization eventually branched out into other in-groups and outgroups. The German people versus the Jews eventually turned into the Axis versus the Allies. Hitler, additionally, held the mindset that the “Strong” would need to rid themselves of the “Weak,” an ideal originally set out by Charles Darwin’s “Survival of the Fittest.” Hitler chose to use the technique of polarization as it easily simplified the situation for his audience, it was us (the German people) against them (the Jewish people and their supporters) and we (the Germans) needed to act before it was too late. Hitler knew this tactic would be perfect in persuading the German audience as they still felt embarrassed after World War I and needed to find a group to blame and retaliate against for their failures. This flows perfectly well into another tactics used by Hitler to express the need for revenge on the Jewish people, scapegoating.

Throughout his text, Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler frequently mentioned the Jewish people as the cause of recent German failures and economic depression. He did such in a matter known as scapegoating, or dumping all the responsibility for a situation on one group, in this case the Jewish society (Roberts-Miller). In his writing, Hitler describes that the Jews, along with their partners in the Communistic societies and German parliament, are the true cause for the downfall of the Germans, and if the Germans were to rise up again, the Jewish outgroup must first be defeated (Hitler). The failures of World War I led to a steady decline of German power and overall economic success on the grand stage of Europe, and Hitler stood to blame this embarrassment on the only party he could find. He knew scapegoating the Jewish people as a common enemy would work to convince the majority of the German population; for they were believed to have been living underneath their noses, tampering with their governmental systems and economic well-being. There had already been a number of myths circulating within Germany that the Jewish people had undermined the Germans and influenced the decision-making of the government, leading to a excruciating defeat in the first World War. They felt as though they had been stabbed in the back by those they thought they could trust, and Hitler felt that it was time for the German people to provide a substantial force of “payback” (Hitler). This appealed directly to the bandwagon appeal already established within the German society, as Hitler had cemented the long-stringed myths about the Jewish backstabbing as an actual traitorous event, which would soon cause an uproar of support for Hitler’s cause. Hitler continued on with his demagogic tactics in his book, as he used ideology such as in a double standard in order to defend his desired rise to power.

Adolf Hitler’s eventual rise to power in the nation of Germany primarily relied on his usage of a double standard against the Jews, originally depicted in his story, Mein Kampf. Hitler used a double standard, meaning something is okay for the in-group but never okay for the outgroup, to demonstrate the need for the his election into the German government (Roberts-Miller). To establish this ideal, Adolf described the Jewish people and their allies as working to eventually take control of Germany through their weak parliamentary system (Hitler). He thoroughly explained to his followers in the German population that he was the only hope to restore the once-great nation of Germany, and destroy the Jewish-controlled parliament, establishing a New Order in Germany. This double standard, that the Jewish should not be allowed to govern, but rather the supporters of Hitler, works perfectly well to persuade Adolf’s audience as they already held a strong bias towards one side. This factor could easily push his followers over the edge in his favor as it dealt with the possibility that their beliefs would become indistinguishable in a world ran by the people who had ruined their successes in the first place. Once again, this shows Hitler’s attraction to the fallacy of bandwagon appeal, as he is playing to the beliefs already present within the majority of his audience, attempting to drive home his argument against the Jews.

Based on my thorough analysis of Adolf Hitler’s book, it is clear that Mein Kampf is a demagogic text looking to persuade the German people of the evils within the Jewish society and how they could ruin Germany forever if an opposing force was not created. It is significantly important that Hitler chose to make this text demagogic as it allowed for the simple persuasion of his audience, the German people. He aimed to have the German population follow his beliefs led by the hatred and destruction of the Jewish society and culture in favor of the redemption of Germany as a supreme world power. Hitler’s text has undermine logical arguments for the most part by playing to the German people’s beliefs that he already knew were there. He sought out revenge for the “backstabbing” that was a common belief among the Germans and to restore the government, that had clearly been undermined by some outside party. Hitler knew his intended audience, knew their needs and desires, knew what he needed to succeed, and he nearly executed it all to his original intention, world domination.

 

Works Cited

Hitler, Adolf, and Ralph Manheim. Mein Kampf. London: Pimlico, 1994. Print.

Roberts-Miller, Patricia. “Democracy, Demagoguery, and Critical Rhetoric.” Rhetoric                              & Public Affairs 8.3 (2005): 459-76. Print.