Posted in Curriculum
|
We've been studying logical fallacies in our little homeschool this year, and Obama gave us a great example to look at some of them up close. In his speech on race, he had a paragraph that is now being called the "throw grandma under the bus" argument. Basically, he said he realized that what Pastor Wright said was wrong, but he could no more dismiss Wright than he could his grandmother, who, when Obama was a child, said that she was scared to walk outside near black men. This is what is termed the "Red Herring" fallacy. It really makes no difference whether Grandma was a racist or not (and from what I knew of her, she definitely was not). What matters is whether or not Pastor Wright is racist and someone whom a presidential candidate should align himself with. By introducing Grandma, he's trying to deflect attention. It's a fallacy of relevance. Grandma has no bearing on Pastor Wright. But there's something else going on here. In the Grandma analogy, Obama is implying that she is wrong. But was she? Jesse Jackson said the same thing at one point. And in his book Dreams of My Father, Obama tells the story a little bit differently. It turns out that Grandma was being aggressively panhandled by an Africa American. Her fear, then, seems justified. I'm certainly scared of walking in some urban areas at night. Aren't you? But if Grandma's feelings were justified, and Obama is equating Grandma with Wright, then is he also saying that Wright's feelings are justified? That one really can say God **** America? That whites really are all evil? That's the subtext here. Anyway, I had fun going through all this with the girls. They got it all on their own, too. I know Obama speaks well, but the benefit of homeschooling is that we get to see beyond the words and the style to the argument. Can you take apart his argument? What is he really saying? And is this justified? It's a good real-life example in logic. Why don't you try it with your kids? |
Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
