The Bravery of Fear Tactics

Prioritization of individuals in the United States has become a very controversial issue. Since the inception of the united states there has been an unbalanced system that does not provide for the rights of all the citizens that chose or were forced to live in this country.”American constitutionalism developed in its own national climate, and was nurtured and maintained by home-grown institutions” Henkins is describing how progressive American ideals had been for their time. American law in terms of providing a more interactive law system was ahead of other countries. The legal system in America was also very reactive to horrors seen around the rest of the world and tried to appease the majority of citizens. Historically the American way of life has been in conflict with the ideologies of fascists and in that way America can be characterized as one of freest countries in the world.  The dehumanization of non white christian males is evident throughout the country’s existence and many still feel that burden today. There has been many movements of individuals working to fix the rights of those who have been denied the promise of a better life through biased and unrealistic thinking.

Its clear that no one looking at the country from a historical lens can defend this kind of blatant apathy towards certain individuals. However, there is a sentiment throughout the country that feels these complaints are unoriginal and views these calls to action as unnecessary harping on a subject that has been long settled decades ago. The gist of their argument is that searching for an ideal situation such as rights for everyone is unrealistic because complete equality is unnatural. They have strong attraction to white American nationalism which they believe is the true nature of American. Groups fighting against the rights of the non stereotypical American citizen tend to not be a minority, male and see no reason for the uproar because they do not feel their rights being trampled on.

It is easy to characterize the opposition of my position by saying they simply do not understand the issue and that to solve the problem all that is needed is education for the matter at hand. Although that is true for certain individuals there is a far more sinister motivation in others. The best way to understand this motive is to understand what it means to have privilege in the United States and to understand how privilege is given out. With equal and fair treatment given to individuals in this country that means the country becomes more aware of distribution of power in the country. There are certain powers that exist to keep this shift from happening out of fear that they will held in judgement for their actions and their power will diminish.

This criticism are never described in this telling of a way. They instead appeal to certain urges within the individuals they are trying to convince in order to justify their non balanced views of the way American should be ran. This is very easily viewable in how the republican party handles how their policies are written. There is a clear need to protect christian rights and identities that are not controversial. Politicians constantly use fear as a motivator to convince certain people that others are not as deserving of rights because their way of life contradicts the American way. This however is untrue because America at least in a modern sense carries itself as a secular country and gives thee appeal of everyone having the same chance to work in a capitalistic system to be successful.

Work Cited

Henkin, Louis. “Rights: American and Human.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 79, no. 3, 1979, pp. 405–425.,

Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2010). Immigration and religion in america: Comparative and historical perspectives. Contemporary Sociology, 39(2), 139-140. Retrieved from

This entry was posted in 123 Archive. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Rebuttal-studentwriter

  1. davidbdale says:

    As with your other essays, this one suffers from lack of specificity, SW. Virtually every claim is a conclusion that should be drawn from evidence but is instead declared as a fact. At a bare minimum, you need to cite a particular source that makes the “rebuttal claim” you say exists. Quote directly from the best “opposition” article you can find. Then, instead of baldly claiming that “Republicans write their policies to protect Christian values,” find and share the evidence. No paper will ever earn top grades that fails to cite the evidence gleaned from academic research.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s