PB2A

Kassandra Sanchez

ENG 101-108

PB2A

11/09/2016

In this PB I will be analyzing moves made by historian Kevin Gannon in his article “I Will Not Argue About The Confederate Flag”

“Introducing an ongoing debate” is one of the first moves Gannon uses in the beginning of his article. I say this because the constant use of the words ‘besides’ and ‘also’ creates a second perspective of a problem and or introducing the problem. “Besides being a monumental tragedy, also gave us the absurd spectacle of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (a woman of color) telling us “that we’ll never understand what motivates anyone to enter one of our places of worship and take the life of another””

He also -in parenthesis- points out that South Carolina’s Governor is a woman of color, This move would be referred to  as “signaling who’s saying what”. He is quoting what someone else has said and he does this throughout the entire article because although he is a historian and can openly write about this topic, he uses examples and quotations from others. This use of quotation helps amplify and solidify his argument and or claim. It also allows him to give his input about the quote. As to if he does or does not agree.

”But I am a historian of the Civil War and Reconstruction Eras, and I am qualified to engage with the arguments marshaled in defense of the Confederate Flag now intensifying in reaction to the critical voices emanating from throughout the country.” ‘I am’ is used consistently in this paragraph and it’s used in a very defensive tone. He is stating that he’s qualified to debate and weigh in on this kind of taboo subjects. Which is why I would say that this move falls in the category of  “Introducing Objections Informally”.It creates a sense of trust in the author for the readers. Because he does know what he’s talking about and what he’s saying. And instead of referring to a textbook or historical event, he can create an argument and use whatever evidence or experiences he wants.

The fact that he took an actual stand on such a taboo topic and was able to back it up in his writing was very professional. “When I was completing my Ph.D. at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, the flag actually flew atop the state house dome, along with the US and state flags. In 2000, me and fifteen thousand or so of my closest friends marched on the capitol to demand the flag be removed.” The wording like ‘march on the capitol’ and ‘demand the flag be removed’ gives his tone more spice or as some would say ‘edge’. Since he has already fought in opposition to the flag he is qualified to write in opposition to the flag.

“It is here and now that I will formally make my stand. And I urge my fellow historians to make theirs as well.”  Gannon is establishing his point and standing for what he believes in. This move separates him from other historians who stick to standard ‘formal’ writing. He begins his arguments then separately explains why he believes in it, in another paragraph. And it's very strange yet very cool. He uses pictures and memes in his article too which grabs my attention.

In conclusion Gannon’s moves are strange yet very intentional. It allows the reader to dig deeper into the author's meaning and it makes the readers question “why did he do this?”.


Cites
Gannon Article