Minorities are not looking for 'payback'

The northern US has always been dominated by Caucasians, but it has changed over time. Now it is Asians, African Americans and Latinos who form the bulk of the US population. Even the President is a foreigner. But will this affect the white peoples' lives, or will everything remain as it is? On May 24th 2012, Ruben Navarrette Jr., a CNN contributor and nationally syndicated columnist, published the commentary "Minorities are not looking for 'payback'" on CNN.com. In the commentary, Navarrette argues against that the increasing percentage of coloured people in the US will have any consequences for the white population, but is he right or is his argumentation unsound? The commentary is composed like an article with a headline, picture, by-line, body text and so forth. It is, however, a commentary, as it shows a certain persons points of view. It is therefore very subjective and expresses his opinions about an actual topic. As soon as you read the headline, "Minorities are not looking for 'payback'", Navarrette's opinion is revealed. By saying that, he defends the minorities and makes them innocent. The picture of a coloured woman, who has just given birth, helps him emphasize his statement, because she smiles, the flowers in the window are beautiful and it all looks harmonious. It appeals highly to pathos. He wants the receiver, mainly women, to empathize with the newborn and its mother. Navarrette uses the body text to argue and to comment on several quotations from an expert and from a radio host, who he violently disagree with. Navarrette's main contention is that the conservative radio talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, is wrong. Limbaugh claims that David Bostis' statements, "The Republicans' problem is that their voters are white, aging and dying off." and "there will come a time when (Republicans) suffer catastrophic losses with the realization of the population changes," are stated to warn the republicans, even though David Bostis is an expert in his area, which Navarrette also emphasizes to uplift his ethos. Navarrette disagree with Limbaugh's statement, and he argues against it by saying that it is a fact, and not a threat. This appeals to logos, which he uses diligently through the whole text. He also supplies by saying, "Elected officials, media companies and the business communities can put of thinking about the future, but they can't escape it.". By that he means that it is not something that can be discussed. It is becoming a reality. Navarrette's excessive use of subjectivity can also be seen later. He states another contention relating to Limbaugh's comment, where he argues for that the minority want payback. But Navarrette clearly disagree, which can be seen in the following part,

"What needs to change is this kind of thinking. It's total nonsense. In nearly 25 years of writing about politics, race and ethnicity, I've never heard any member of a minority group talking about how they're looking forward to 'payback' once they're in the majority, Not one."

He prove his argument by using his high ethos, saying that he has been in the politic, race and ethnicity business for many years. He wants to make sure that his status is underlined, to promote his reliability, but also to make up for his poor argumentation, for it has not been properly reasoned. Navarrette understands how to make the receiver agree with his points of view. He use effects such as rhetorical questions, "what's wrong with that?", negative connotations such as "threat" and "he went ballistic" , disproof, "(...)he has it all wrong", but also the three appeal forms that I mentioned earlier. All these tools helps Navarrette to convince the receiver that he is right. The main problem with Navarrette's commentary is his poor argumentation. He keeps arguing that Limbaugh is wrong, but he does not say why. I also think that it is important to mention that Navarrette is a minority too, as his father was Mexican, and we therefore want to read the text carefully, for he might be partial, which can also be seen when he claims that companies will keep appealing to the white population, even though they are becoming the minority. I consider him wrong as he has no proof for his argument and furthermore will companies always strive for their own interests, or they would not be able to compete. He is, however, right in many of his statements as he includes actual facts such as birth rate and median age to argue from and the numbers say it all. The minorities are becoming the majority, so if you read the text while paying attention to his subjectivity and at times poor argumentation, the commentary works fine. In conclusion, the increasing percentage of coloured people might actually have an influence, on the white people's lives. Navarrette's argumentation skills are therefore not perfect, but he manage to do it in a way that makes the receiver adaptable to his own points of view, which is why you have to be critical while reading it. He does, however, present some sensible argumentation with actual facts as a support. Now only the future can determine whether Navarrette is right or not.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. pp. 2 l. 16-17
[ 2 ]. ibid. 17-18
[ 3 ]. pp. 3 l.5-6
[ 4 ]. ibid. 13-15
[ 5 ]. pp. 3 l. 20
[ 6 ]. pp. 2 . 19
[ 7 ]. ibid.
[ 8 ]. pp. 2 l. 30