Akatiff, Clark. “The March on the Pentagon.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 64.1 (1974) : 26-33. JSTOR. Web. 6 Feb. 2016.
Akatiff, a participant in the March on Pentagon, speaks on the protestors’ rising tensions and their culminating effects during the March. He concentrates on the different levels of tensions among the protestors, and how this polarization inevitably precipitated into the formation of factions. Akatiff’s larger claim is that the March marked a “step from liberalism to radicalism” (26). He compared the March to a battle between the federal army and the protesters, who he viewed as an “army of rabble” (26). In the process, he divided the March into five stages from the departure of home to the protest on …show more content…
His view, despite being biased in favor of the protestors, tends to focus on psychological and geographical factors, allowing Akatiff to stay objective regarding the protest. Akatiff’s article “The March on the Pentagon” conveys the underlying emotions of the individuals in the movement, but never attempts to excuse their actions, even calling the actions “militant” at one point. Unlike other accounts of the March, Akatiff speaks as though he was an observer, rather than a protester. In comparison to the typical summary, Akatiff delves into the sensitive topics of the situation - that the leadership was disorganized, that the protesters were at times, unreasonable. Akatiff’s perspective in his piece helps to demonstrate his theory about the progression of events at the March. The analysis is largely a summary, but is secondarily a theory. The validity of the source is only brought to question through his occasional bias. For example, in his view that the March was the turning point, the main “battle” of the Anti-Vietnam War movement. However, his validity is of no question, though it is a secondary …show more content…
As a protester and an observer, Akatiff lends a unique take on the importance of the movement. The article has shaped my understanding of the rhetorical choices used by the march’s participants, particularly the purpose of the radical protesting, which I had previously dismissed as a true act of civil disobedience, and thus, not a rhetorical strategy to be considered. Certain key points of the analysis, particularly the protestors’ strategies of attempting to “break the discipline” of the federal troops, will be used in the
Akatiff, a participant in the March on Pentagon, speaks on the protestors’ rising tensions and their culminating effects during the March. He concentrates on the different levels of tensions among the protestors, and how this polarization inevitably precipitated into the formation of factions. Akatiff’s larger claim is that the March marked a “step from liberalism to radicalism” (26). He compared the March to a battle between the federal army and the protesters, who he viewed as an “army of rabble” (26). In the process, he divided the March into five stages from the departure of home to the protest on …show more content…
His view, despite being biased in favor of the protestors, tends to focus on psychological and geographical factors, allowing Akatiff to stay objective regarding the protest. Akatiff’s article “The March on the Pentagon” conveys the underlying emotions of the individuals in the movement, but never attempts to excuse their actions, even calling the actions “militant” at one point. Unlike other accounts of the March, Akatiff speaks as though he was an observer, rather than a protester. In comparison to the typical summary, Akatiff delves into the sensitive topics of the situation - that the leadership was disorganized, that the protesters were at times, unreasonable. Akatiff’s perspective in his piece helps to demonstrate his theory about the progression of events at the March. The analysis is largely a summary, but is secondarily a theory. The validity of the source is only brought to question through his occasional bias. For example, in his view that the March was the turning point, the main “battle” of the Anti-Vietnam War movement. However, his validity is of no question, though it is a secondary …show more content…
As a protester and an observer, Akatiff lends a unique take on the importance of the movement. The article has shaped my understanding of the rhetorical choices used by the march’s participants, particularly the purpose of the radical protesting, which I had previously dismissed as a true act of civil disobedience, and thus, not a rhetorical strategy to be considered. Certain key points of the analysis, particularly the protestors’ strategies of attempting to “break the discipline” of the federal troops, will be used in the