He examines Boyz n the Hood and Boyhood to demonstrate how one movie laments on the extent of racial segregation in America, whereas, the other simply ignores it, respectively. Kassendorf’s response to Boyhood vastly differs from Siddique 's. Kassendorf refutes Siddiquee’s statement that Boyhood fails to address racial issues in America, by arguing that the movie intentionally fails to address racial issues, because Americans are unable to address them. “The racial problem with Boyhood isn’t a problem with Boyhood. It’s a problem with America.” (Kassendorf). Through the use of retold stories and personal experience, Kassendorf attempts to highlight how easy it is for Americans, even non-Caucasians like himself, to unintentionally ignore race. Additionally, it is pertinent to acknowledge Kassendorf’s tactful use of concession throughout the article, such as when he states, “Siddiquee is correct in saying that Boyhood isn’t universal, but…” (Kassendorf). He respectfully introduces and acknowledges Siddiquee’s claims before continuing to refute them. However, a strong demonstration of concession alone is not enough to overpower the numerous other shortcomings in Kassendorf’s …show more content…
Due to his use of personal experience in place of concrete, related evidence, and oversimplification of the issue, Kassendorf unsuccessfully refutes Imran Siddiquee’s article “Not Everyone’s Boyhood”. Despite discussing the existence of inadvertent racism, Kassendorf fails to provide a solution to it or explain the importance of addressing the problem; considering that he also failed to adequately refute Siddiquee, it is acceptable to deduce that Kassendorf article presents an insignificant argument. Just as we do not address racial issues in America, Kassendorf fails to address the gravity of continuing to ignore racial