How To Improve My Argument - Class Discussion

At this point, I have read all my sources and decided which parts of each to use in my paper, but I have not yet figured out how to incorporate these quotations into a cohesive argument.  I need to review my sources and determine the intended audience of the author.  A few of my sources were printed in British Periodicals in the mid 1800's and have very specific target audiences.  If I was not in the target audience, I need to be aware of this as to not let my emotions block the message from the author.  

To improve my paper, I also need to not only show how boycotts have failed, but equally prove that there have been successful boycotts.  Not all boycotts are failures.  Some of the sources I have read talk about successful boycotts, but I do not see the success in them and I want to explain why they are not necessarily "successful".  I need to express my own opinion about what creates a successful boycott and well as dictate what many critics think qualifies a boycott as successful.  

I can explain why I feel certain boycotts failed - what held them back?  Was the initiator to blame?  I need to show how such boycotts would have succeeded without changing their purpose.  

I need to relate the slave-grown sugar boycott from the 1700-1800s to a current problem.  One way I could do this is discuss the hate of dining hall food, but that our boycott cannot ever exist or be successful because we choose to eat bad food in order to keep a separate aspect of our lives on a high pedestal.

Also, I'd like to interview some people I know who have tried to boycott a certain restaurant in my hometown.  Their outlook may be drastically different from that of the restaurant owners'.  

Do people have cohesive reasonings for their boycotts?  

Kantz Article Annotations

p 40  -  "examine her sources as she read them for discrepant facts, conflicts, or other interesting material" - This was very clear and a good guide to helping me find a new, original, and cohesive argument for my essay.

p 41 - "every communicative situation has three parts: a speaker/writer (the encoder), and audience (the decoder), and a topic" - I think this is so important to keep in mind.  So frequently, our own voice is lost when we try to incorporate outside sources.  Also, we forget our target audience and this deters people from continuing to read if they do not understand what is being said.  Sometimes, even the topic of intent disappears unintentionally. 

p 43 - "a fact is a claim that an audience will accept as being true without requiring proof...An opinion is a claim that an audience will not accept as true without proof" - I hadn't really though about this in this sense before.  Even thought this is not the best explanation, it will help me decide how to argue or communicate each of my ideas.

Research Note

Article Title: "Politics"

Article Type: Review

Journal Title: "Critic of Literature, Art, Science, and the Drama"

Issue: 1:8 (1844:May) p 167

2 pgs / Monthly Publication / Published in London

http://britishperiodicals.chadwyck.com/articles/results.do?querytype=articles

Page 167

Article: "By giving to the West-India islands a monopoly of the home market for their sugars we, in fact, make the consumers in Great Britain pay somewhere about three millions annually for that commodity more than they would pay for it were they permitted to resort to other markets."

My Own: So are they saying the boycott isn't worth it?  Do they want us to forfeit what is right so we can afford things?  Since when did that matter?

Page 167

Article: "by taking the sugars of other countries we should be encouraging slavery.  To this it is replied, that in practice we do buy slave-grown sugar though not for the use of our own poor, but to send it abroad, partly for the use of the very emancipated negroes for whore sake it is pretended that the monopoly is maintained, and that we take slave-grown cotton and coffee in abundance, without any such scruples on conscience."

My Own: Are they making up reasons to justify the fact that they don't want to pay as much?  And to use slave-grown coffee and cotton too?  It's just absurd that they would exploit the abolition process just to save money.

Page 168

Article: "Mr. Laird...proposes to abolish the duties on colonial sugar, imposing merely a nominal one"

My Own: This makes so much more sense.  If the tax is flat, people will be encouraged to buy products that are not slave-grown.

Page 168

Article: "the price of sugar at home would fall"

My Own: What? Is this supposed to encourage them to not purchase slave-grown sugar?  It's about time!

Reflection - Response to Gallery

QUESTION #2

-A question that was suggested:  Did any failed boycotts lead to successful protests?

-How I will use it:  Well, I don’t currently know of any boycotts leading to protests, but I do know about boycotts leading to effective changes.  After so many slave-grown sugar boycotts allowed other countries to monopolize the industry, a law was passed in 1846 trying to rationalize this.  Obviously if people felt they were losing control, they would resort back to doing whatever necessary to make money, even if it meant hurting the slaves.  In 1846, it was decided that taxes on slave-grown sugar should equal the taxes on free-grown sugar.  This would remove the tension to be in the majority and therefore people would be able to go about their daily lives without worrying who or what would be affected by their purchases.

 

QUESTION #3

Combining Questions:

-Does the age of the boycott’s initiator relate to the successfulness of the boycott? Is there a consistent correlation between the ages?  (i.e., do younger people have a higher success rate than older people, or visa versa?) (created from “What about age groups?” and “What were the reasons behind failed boycotts?”)

-Are all boycotts classified as either successes or failures based on the impact on the economy? (created from “Focus on what major boycotts and what effect money had on the certain event.” And “What were some failed boycott and why did they not succeed n changing their movement?")

Essay - Using Materials

I am writing about the effectiveness of boycotts and I want to talk a lot about the slave-grown sugar boycott.  I'd like to explain that when the boycott started, while there were many people involved, there were still those who used the sugar.  Also, the hypocritical coffee houses (where people would meet to speak out against slavery) that supplied this sugar.  I'd then like to move on to the rival of the boycott with Elizabeth Heyrick and how she made it more widespread.  How she encouraged people not to support vendors who sold the sugar - regardless of where their other products were from.  Heyrick created a new awareness in people and helped bring about the change more quickly.

Summary pg 324-354/365-6

This section of pages begins as we are introduced to Elizabeth Heyrick, a woman who thought the men abolitionists were not active enough and took too long to initiate change.  Heyrick began a new boycott - attempting to eliminate all slave-grown products from the economy.  Her boycott was effective as women in support stopped buying slave-grown sugar and abandoned the vendors who sold it.  We then come to John Smith, a minister who taught slaves to read.  The members of his Church started planning a rebellion and when they were caught, everything was blamed on Smith.  

Next, we learn of the requirements to vote and that candidates for Parliament could only be chosen from very select groups meeting certain requirements.  The Agency Antislavery Committee was formed.  This group caused fear amongst slave owners because they thought another rebellion might occur.  A revolt began and this triggered more British voices hoping to eliminate slavery.  In 1833, the Bill passed Parliament - but this did not mean slavery was to end immediately.  In 1834, the slaves were to work full time for 6 years without pay.  Only after this was completed were they officially free.  In 1838, the were freed for good.  

Chapter 21 - Summary

In Chapter 21 of Bury The Chains by Adam Hochschild the abolitionists are still determined to eliminate the British slave trade despite the fact that the trade was helping the economy prosper.  We are then introduced to James Stephen who helped draft a bill trying to eliminate two thirds of the British slave trade - something which became a problem.  Finally, in 1806, the Bill passed and no one had any reason to disagree with it.  In 1807, a Bill passed eliminating the British slave trade in its entirety.