Names: ___________________________________________________________________________

William Apess (pp. 639-645) – Group Analysis

1.) What is Apess’ Purpose (Aim, Goal, etc.) in Writing?

• "To critique the pervasive race prejudice of the period" (640).

2.) Who is Apess’ Audience?  (Be as Specific as You Can.)

• "my fellow creatures"
• "friends"
• "reader"
• "white man"
• "my brethren in the ministry"
• "you"
• "ye noble-hearted"
• IT SEEMS TO SHIFT

3.)What Rhetorical / Oratorical / Argumentative Strategies Does Apess Use?  Go Through the Text Carefully.  Make a list:

1. Rhetorical questions
2. Parallelism -- the list of "reasons"
3. Pathos / example
4. Repetition of key words and phrases -- e.g., "principles" or "I would ask"
5. Tone -- various changes, from challenging to almost servile -- at other times, almost taunting or threatening
6. Statistics
7. Emotionally-charged language -- e.g., "white man"
8. Quotes scripture / Bible
9. Extended example of Jesus, a Jew, his teachings
10. Well-known racial theories of the time -- e.g., in the footnotes on pp. 643, 644
11. Irony
12. Three main, extended examples -- outsiders visiting an Indian village (640); whites as minorities (641-642); Jesus as a Jew (642-643); inter-marriage (644)
13. Logos -- slow movement and connection from point to point, hopefully slowly leading the reader along and convincing him/her point by poitn
14. Faith-based arguments

4.) Describe or Characterize Apess’ “Persona” (his Self-Image, his “Ethos”) in this Text.  How does He Present Himself to His Audience?

• Concerned
• Knowledgeable of Bible / Scripture
• Many examples
• Skilled in rhetoric
• Etc.

5.) What is Apess’ Ultimate “Thesis” (his Message or Central Idea)?  Be as Clear and Specific as You Can:

• Practice what you preach.
• Race prejudice is incompatible / inconsistent with Christianity.

6.) Does Your Group believe that Apess’ Argument was Ultimately “Effective” (Convincing, Persuasive, etc.) for His Chosen Audience?  Why or Why Not?  Give Clear and Specific Reasons:

• He's in a very precarious, awkward position -- he is "arguing his case to the same audience (white Christians) that devalues him and native peoples, no matter their religion, and from whom he was received little monetary compensation for his work" (editors). Sounds like Occom!