In the United States, Muslims have become the target of an alarming rise in hate crimes and verbal abuse. As the country continues to reel in the aftermath of the horrific acts conducted by ISIL, Hezbollah, and Hamas, Anti-Muslim sentiment has become widespread and accepted. Muslim-Americans report an increase in verbal and physical abuse. There has been an increase in the number of news stories which report women who wear hijab being spit at and having their veils torn off. Similarly, mosques are being burnt down more frequently. It has become impossible to not wonder how attacks on Islam and Muslims seem to be accepted as a natural response in America. Public opinion directly affects the treatment of Muslim-Americans. Some argue that Islamophobic
…show more content…
Not Really,” Jonah Goldberg argues that there is not an overwhelming anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S due to the media. Goldberg supports his claim by evaluating a report released by the FBI. The report contained data which displayed a rise in anti-Islamic incidents. Goldberg finds a correlation between the rise in hate crimes and the 9/11 attacks. Goldberg reveals his bias when he writes “Now, that was a hate crime.” With the use of context clues the reader can come to the conclusion that Goldberg finds the rise in anti-Islamic incidents justifiable (because of the 9/11 attacks). Goldberg’s argument becomes definitional. Goldberg states, “Sure, even one hate crime is too many. But does that sound like an anti-Muslim backlash to you?” An analysis of the article reveals a bias which affects the readers’ view of Goldberg. Throughout the article, Goldberg writes in an angry, almost frustrated tone, which will lead to a passionate response from an audience sharing his views and an equally strong reaction from those opposed to his claim. Goldberg uses charged words and phrases such as when Goldberg describes Muslims as fanatics, which further reveal his bias. Goldberg misrepresents data which clearly supports the claim that Islamophobia is on the rise. Goldberg’s argument suffers from Goldberg’s bias which heavily saturates his writing. Goldberg’s argument is further weakened by the lack of evidence presented. While the evidence that is presented is comprehensive, it is not relevant to Goldberg’s claim. In fact, the evidence presented displays data which supports the opposite of what Goldberg is arguing. Goldberg’s angle of vision impacts Goldberg’s argument in the way he presents data. Goldberg attempts to manipulate data to serve his purpose. Ultimately, Goldberg presents a weak argument which uses qualifiers such as “probably” to ensure Goldberg does not strongly attach himself to his
Not Really,” Jonah Goldberg argues that there is not an overwhelming anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S due to the media. Goldberg supports his claim by evaluating a report released by the FBI. The report contained data which displayed a rise in anti-Islamic incidents. Goldberg finds a correlation between the rise in hate crimes and the 9/11 attacks. Goldberg reveals his bias when he writes “Now, that was a hate crime.” With the use of context clues the reader can come to the conclusion that Goldberg finds the rise in anti-Islamic incidents justifiable (because of the 9/11 attacks). Goldberg’s argument becomes definitional. Goldberg states, “Sure, even one hate crime is too many. But does that sound like an anti-Muslim backlash to you?” An analysis of the article reveals a bias which affects the readers’ view of Goldberg. Throughout the article, Goldberg writes in an angry, almost frustrated tone, which will lead to a passionate response from an audience sharing his views and an equally strong reaction from those opposed to his claim. Goldberg uses charged words and phrases such as when Goldberg describes Muslims as fanatics, which further reveal his bias. Goldberg misrepresents data which clearly supports the claim that Islamophobia is on the rise. Goldberg’s argument suffers from Goldberg’s bias which heavily saturates his writing. Goldberg’s argument is further weakened by the lack of evidence presented. While the evidence that is presented is comprehensive, it is not relevant to Goldberg’s claim. In fact, the evidence presented displays data which supports the opposite of what Goldberg is arguing. Goldberg’s angle of vision impacts Goldberg’s argument in the way he presents data. Goldberg attempts to manipulate data to serve his purpose. Ultimately, Goldberg presents a weak argument which uses qualifiers such as “probably” to ensure Goldberg does not strongly attach himself to his