The readings that had the biggest impression on me were the "What is Poverty?" essays. It was interesting to see a side by side listing of two contrasting ideas on the same topic. Dalyrimple was the cold, rational author and Parker was the biased, experienced author.
Dalyrimple seemed to have a factual set of ideas towards poverty. His ideas were basically against the poor. He was saying that they put themselves there through a lack of work ethic and pure laziness. The justifications for his attacks were that there are government programs and charity organizations out there dedicated to help those in need.
Parker seemed to have a much more aggressive tone in her essay. She used blunt, first-hand experiences that no other author can provide. The fact that she is in a state of poverty gives her essay a much greater sense of credibility. Parker can give something that no other critic of poverty can give--in depth insight.
If it were a contest of who had the better essay, the impoverished Parker would get the gold. Dalyrimple simply didn't get his point through. Parker, on the other hand, made us feel as she feels. There is no doubt that Parker's ability to appeal to the audience is better than that of the wealthier, more educated Dalyrimple.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment