Questions For Secondary Source Analysis #2(Please Choose Only One Article from those listed below, all are in the course pack)Joan Hoff Wilson, The Illusion of Change: Women and the American Revolution (p. 152).Thelma Jennings, The Sexual Exploitation of African-American Slave Women (p. 190). Brenda Stevenson, Distress and Discord in Slave Families (p. 256).Peter Kolchin, Antebellum Slavery: Slave Religion and Community (p. 280).Ira Berlin, Who Freed the Slaves? Emancipation and Its Meaning (p. 364).Based on your reading of one of the five above articles (all are in the course pack), answer the following questions in detail, save as a .doc, or .pdf file, and submit by clicking on the blue "submit" button by the due date.ANALYZING A SECONDARY SOURCE1. Who is this author and what are his/her credentials? (you may have to do a little research here)2. Who are the key people in this article?3. What are the key events?4. What are the key subjects?5. Is this article based on primary sources or other secondary sources?6. Name one primary source the historian uses.7. What is the main argument or thesis?8. How does the writer build her/his argument?9. How would you critique or question this argument?*Remember, you will be graded on the depth of your analysis and the detail of your answers.

“Maybe [They’re] Crazy:”Madness, Manifestos and Rhetorical Analysis____________________________________________________This unit is comprised of a collection of texts (a speech, a short story and two manifestos) designed to make social interventions. The authors of these texts were either accused of being “mad” (Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Malcolm X), or exhibited signs of serious mental illness (Ted Kazczynski and Valerie Solanas) in their lifetimes. The goal of this unit is to conduct close rhetorical analysis to interpret how their rhetorical strategies relate to the purposes of their texts. For Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Malcolm X’s texts, you will additionally evaluate the effectiveness of their rhetorical strategies. For Ted Kaczynski and Valerie Solanas’ texts, you will evaluate the social value and/or relevance of their manifesto(s) today.UNIT TEXTS•Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper” (1892)•Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” (1964)•Valerie Solanas’ “SCUM Manifesto” (1967)•Ted Kaczynski’s “Industrial Society and its Future” (1995)PROMPTFor ONE of the above texts, select 1-2 rhetorical strategies that the author employs. Create an argument that interprets how that strategy or strategies serve the author’s purpose. If you select Perkins Gilman’s short story or Malcolm X’s speech, please additionally evaluate the effectiveness of the rhetorical strategy or strategies you identify. If you select Solanas’ or Kaczynski’s manifestos, you will instead evaluate the social value and/or relevance of their work today.REQUIREMENTS➔ Final argumentative essay must offer an original thesis in response to the prompt question, andsupport that thesis with subclaims, evidence from and analysis of unit texts.➔ Essays must incorporate close rhetorical analysis of the selected text.➔ Tip: Do not just summarize your text. Instead, develop an argument structure that accounts for 1)how your author uses the rhetorical strategy or strategies you identified; 2) how that strategy or strategies relate to the overall purpose of the text; and 3) the effectiveness of that strategy or strategy, OR the relevance of the text, depending on your selection (see prompt above).➔Final argumentative essay draft must be 4-6 pages long (or 1500-2000 words), double spaced, 1” margins, 12 point Times New Roman or 11 point Arial. Essays that do not meet minimum length requirements will not receive a passing grade.➔Use in-text citations and include a works cited page according to MLA standards.

Please answer the three questions posted on the bottom of the page: Background:DarwinismToday the theory of evolution is a well-supported, unifying principle in biology, which explains how life on earth began and developed. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.Charles Darwin, a British naturalist, is the person most remembered for his contribution to how the process of evolution works. He wrote a book, published over 150 years ago, called On the Origin of Species, which was very controversial at the time.His scientific explanation of how evolution occurs was essentially correct, but incomplete. On the basis of newer knowledge, and particularly advances in genetics and molecular biology, many of Darwin's concepts have developed into the more complete modern theory of evolution.Science and religionIn the 19th century, Darwin's discoveries made an enormous impact in England, Western Europe, their colonies, and the USA, where Christianity was the dominant religion. Darwin's theory was seen to be in conflict with the literal interpretation of special creation to be found in the Bible in the Book of Genesis, and even today Darwin's work raises emotional responses among fundamentalists.It can be argued that religion does not explain how the world works. Religion is about faith and hope and answers questions about 'why'. Science on the other hand, is rational and evidence-based and answers questions about 'how'. Religion and science should not be seen as two different worldviews as they do not provide solutions to the same questions.What is Social Darwinism?Darwinism and Social Darwinism have very little in common, apart from the name and a few basic concepts, which Social Darwinists misapplied. The theory that there is a hierarchy of human species into 'races' has affected international politics, economics and social development across the globe.Social Darwinism is a false application of Darwin's ideas such as adaptation and natural selection, and does not really follow from Darwinian thinking in any way. Social Darwinism is a belief, which became popular in England, Europe and America, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher in the 19th century was one of the most important Social Darwinists.Social Darwinism does not believe in the principle of equality of all human beings. It states that:◾Some human beings are biologically superior to others◾The strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society◾The weak and unfit should be allowed to dieThere was a constant struggle between humans and the strongest always would win. The strongest nation was the fittest, therefore the best, and consequently had an inherent right to rule.Social Darwinism applied the 'survival of the fittest' to human 'races' and said that 'might makes right'. Not only was survival of the fittest seen as something natural, but it was also morally correct. It was therefore natural, normal, and proper for the strong to thrive at the expense of the weak. White Protestant Europeans had evolved much further and faster than other "races."So-called 'white civilized' industrial nations that had technologically advanced weapons had the moral right to conquer and 'civilize' the 'savage blacks' of the world. Social Darwinism was used to rationalize imperialism, colonialism, racism and poverty.The beliefs associated with Social Darwinism were discredited during the 20th century, as the increasing knowledge of biological, social, and cultural phenomena does not support its basic tenets.The concept of 'human races' is scientifically invalid. Physical characteristics do not relate in any way to mental or behavioral attributes. Many people argue that the word 'race' should no longer be used for the following reasons:◾Most scientists today would say that there is no such thing as race.◾The misinterpretation of the term 'race' to classify people has gone hand in hand with contempt for human rights.Social Darwinism is by no means dead, as traces of it can be found in the present.Prompts:1) In what ways does social Darwinism still exist?2) Should we still be using the word race when it has been scientifically proven to not exist?3) How have you seen 'race' be used to justify behavior?