Atlanta Compromise

I decided I might as well try to get some AP Exam prep in, so this week's reading came from a mock test.
Booker T. Washington is widely regarded as one of the most influential leaders in African American history; his work inspired freedmen of the late 1800s, as well as several later Civil Rights figures like Martin Luther King Jr. As an educated freeman himself, and the creator of the Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute, Washington was held in high esteem by blacks and even some whites. His speech The Atlanta Compromise argues that freedmen should do the best they can with the horrible living and social conditions of the South, and focus mainly on excelling in their low-paying, labor jobs, rather than fighting for immediate change. His controversial moderate approach to racial integration gained support in this speech because of Washington's style, tone, and use of an allegory to drive his point home.

Washington uses intense imagery throughout his argument, especially when referring to the bucket being "cast down." He writes, The captain of the distressed vessel, at last heeding the injunction, cast down his bucket, and it came up full of fresh, sparkling water from the mouth of the Amazon River" (lines 35-39). This imagery develops into an allegory about a lost ship saved by the passengers' utilization of what was around them, to convey that freedmen needed to be independent and determined to save themselves from the troubles of the South. The repetition of the phrase "cast down your bucket" continues to impact the audience and lends the passage a tone of urgency to his speech; it keeps the audience hanging onto his words.

It was also very important for Booker T. Washington demonstrate his own education and control of language throughout the essay, in order to gain support from white legislators who might begin to push for change on the blacks' behalf. His own oration proved that the black race was not the inferior one mentally, but that given the right oppurtunities blacks could be helpful and productive members of society. Overall, his call for newly freed slaves in the South to seize the limited opportunities they had and excel at them, rather than complain and demand more immediate change, was extremely effective, demonstrated by the wide support for Washington amongst the black community of the time.

IRB: Freakonomics: 2

It's clear that Steven Levitt knows how to make his economics book practically jump off the shelves; rather than discussing the tax returns or typical organization of a franchise, this chapter was all about drugs and the gangs of Chicago ghettos. The following chapter, arguably Levitt's most controversial one in all of his works, combines two topics that Americans are so interested in that they seem to jump off the page: abortion and its potential to decrease crime rates long-term. But these topics teach more than just obscure connections between seemingly unrelated, yet fascinating, stories. The collection and synthesis of the data displayed demonstrates Levitt's overarching message: how to ask the right questions. He writes, "If you can question something that people really care about and find an answer that might surprise them—that is, if you can overturn the conventional wisdom—then you may have some luck" (89). Accordingly, this chapter's title is: Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live With Their Moms?
Rhetorically, Levitt goes beyond asking intriguing questions. Rather than displaying several tables of statistics on the operations of drug gangs, he takes his readers on a journey with a relateable and extremely intelligent man named Venkatesh, who actually lived with and studied a Chicago gang first-hand. This gets the audience interested in the story at hand, and makes the reader emotionally invested in the statistics later explained. And this drug gang has more than one layer: it acts as an analogy to the corporate world. Levitt writes, "So how did the gang work? An awful lot like most American businesses, actually, though perhaps none more so than McDonald's. In fact, if you were to hold a McDonald's organizational chart and a Black Disciples chart side by side, you could hardly tell the difference" (99). Thus, Levitt is able to connect the obscure topic back to something his middle-class audience can relate to.
This book is extremely interesting, but I don't honestly feel like it has drastically changed the way I consider the world around me. I feel like I may have failed Levitt, but to be fair I'm not a professional economist or question-asker. (How cool would that job title be, by the way?)