Black Man Peace Haters

In this article from the exponent, the writer is trying to convince all the people who believe that President Obama shouldn’t have won the Nobel Peace Prize. The article was written by Kenneth Head, and his audience for this article would be Purdue students. He believes that Obama rightfully deserved the prize because of his commitment for peace and not being like former presidents.

In the article written by Kenneth Head, his first line reads, “To all you naysayers and black man haters take that.” The obvious problem with this sentence is that he is assuming that everyone who doesn’t like president Obama is a “black man hater.” Perhaps, just maybe, people who oppose Obama are Republicans. For other people who don’t like Obama, maybe they just don’t like his views on some issues. Usually the first sentence in an article contains the main point or something interesting that will lead into your main point. His first sentence insulted everyone that wasn’t in favor of Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Another mistake the writer made with his opening sentence was by bringing race into the argument when race clearly does not play a role in it. The argument that the author is trying to make is that Obama deserves the Peace Prize. His goal was not to convince people that other people hate Obama because he is black. By using the terms “naysayers and black man haters,” he has put those two groups together as if they were one. The author makes it sound like everyone who disagrees with Obama is a black man hater.

The author’s next line is, “I want to stop any harsh criticisms about this before letters get printed and people start fighting.” In the previous line the author was the one to use harsh criticism by calling the non supporters black man haters. He can’t expect for people that write back not to use harsh criticism when he use harsh criticism and racially inspired tactics. The author needs to read his own writing before asking people to not do something. Asking your audience to do something when you don’t is very hypocritical.

In the next line, he refers to Obama winning because he is not George Walker Bush. I, like the other 6 billion people on the earth are not like George Bush, and would also like a peace prize. This does not mean that I or the other six billion people actually deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. The author also states that it’s not for what Obama has done but what he’s about to do. In years past the award has been giving to people who have accomplished a great task, not just talking about doing it. Giving someone an award for talking about doing it is insane; I don’t get an A for talking about how great this paper would be. I actually have to write it and then have it graded. The accomplishments that have been done should be the thing being graded, not just the political words that have been spoken.

In the middle of the article, where supporting details should be, the author lacks support for his main claim. He talks about the war and how it is killing American soldiers. To this day Obama has not brought anymore soldiers back home, and he is in the middle of deciding whether or not to send my troops overseas. Clearly someone deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize should be removing soldiers and encouraging peace.

The author contradicts himself once again before his lack of closing arguments. He says “I’ll be the first to admit that Obama is no Roosevelt, Wilson, or even Carter.” Those are all previous presidents who have won the Nobel Peace Prize. All three of those men have done great things to improve peace among nations. The big question is if Obama isn’t like one of them, why should he deserve the award then?

In the authors closing arguments he refers to Obama saying that he wants a better world for our children to grow up in. I don’t know of too many people in the world who want to have their children grow up in a bad place. The way the author makes this article sound, is if you’re not George Bush and want a better world you deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. The author has extremely broad view on what he means in this article, and should narrow it down to the precise topics he wants to talk about.

One of his last sentences is, “give Obama the respect he deserves.” Within the whole article he fails to mention why Obama deserves respect. The whole entire article gives no clear logical reasons to why Obama should have won the Nobel Peace Prize. Facts about what Obama has accomplished in his presidency would have boasted his main point, and made his overall article much better. The use of overgeneralizations and stereotypes compromises his credibility as an author.

If the author chooses to rewrite this article he could have started it off with a much less offensive introduction. By doing this he would not offend people and turn them off to reading his article from the very beginning. After a smoother introduction, he should talk about precise details that Obama has accomplished, not just saying general information such as; he’s not George Walker Bush. The reader already knows his personality is not of that of George Bush. Eliminating fallacies would give the author more credibility and strengthen his overall claim.

The author should have talked how Obama deserved the prize because what actions the president is about to take. He promises to do a lot of hard work and change many things. Obama said that the Nobel Peace Prize was more of a call to action, then for his achievements so far. The award might jump kick him into further action to pursue peace. He has tried to promote peace between nations by talking to foreign officials. He is also trying to stop other countries from having nuclear weapons.

The con side of the argument is that Barack Obama hasn’t physically done anything yet. Although he has talked to foreign nations about peace he has yet to fulfill anything. Obama was nominated when he was in office for only eleven days. Many people wonder, what he could have possibly accomplished in eleven days to deserve such a prestigious award. Past winners of the award have been working for decades to better society. The fact of this is that he was awarded for the things that he said he was going to do and not on his actions.

The author by no means came anywhere close in his argument to actually say why Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. His argument was filled with fallacies, and delivered no clear point to what he meant. He would have been much better off giving facts about why Obama deserved to win the award. By rewriting the article and using the suggestions I have just talked about the author can turn the article into being a credible piece of information and may be able to influence people that didn’t believe Obama should have won the Nobel Peace Prize.