One of the suggested topics from the Language A: Language and Literature guide is 'language

and power'. This is a very broad topic and may cover other topics as well. One of the many uses
of language is to exert power over others through the use of language. Power may be wielded for
various reasons, such as creating allegiance to a political stance or decision, defining identities,
or naming categories to include or exclude. What's more, the use of one style of language over
another in various situations demonstrates where allegiances lie and who holds power. As this
topic is broad, it covers aspects of Part 2 as well, where we look at the language of rhetoric,
propaganda and speeches. Here are some of the guiding questions that are explored in the
following pages on langauge and power (see left menu).

Guiding questions

1.
How does one exert power through language?

2. How is language used to propagate ideas and ideologies?

3. Where do we see evidence of linguistic imperialism in the Anglophone world?

4. How do titles, groupings or terminology to identify groups help to promote or hinder a

particular group's interests?

5. Is holding power always to the detriment of someone else?

6. Can language ever be used to gain power?

Language of war
In our studies of language in a cultural context, we can explore the culture of war. Just as
every industry has its jargon, every region has its accent and every social group has its
slang, so too does war have its unique use of language. We are talking about the kind of
language that is used to manipulate people and make them believe in a cause that may not
even affect them. We are talking about the kind of language that political leaders use in
private telephone conversations. We are talking about the use of euphemisms, bias and
epithet used in newspaper reports on tragedy and violence.

The following activities asks you to engage with four texts on the Vietnam War. How much
do you already know about the war? What kinds of questions do these texts raise? What
kinds of stylistic devices do these texts use, which are characteristic of the language of war?
We will ask ourselves these questions in order to meet the learning outcomes for Part 1.
We will analyze how audience and purpose affect the structure and content of various texts.
We should also be able to show how language and meaning are shaped by the culture of
war.

What do you already know?

What do you already know about the Vietnam War? Before you start any unit or lesson on a
topic, it is useful to make a KWL diagram: What do you KNOW? What do you WANT to
learn? And what have you LEARNED (to be filled in after the lesson). Try filling out left two
columns of the following table individually or in a group.

Know, Want, Learned (on the Vietnam War)

What do you already know? What do you want to learn? What have you learn

Asking the right questions

Below you see four texts (A-D) that appear in a random order. They all have to do with the
Vietnam War. Notice that the title of the texts, the authors' names and the year of publication
have all been removed. Place these texts in the order in which they were created (not
necessarily the order in which they were published). In order to do this activity, you have to
play detective and look for contextual clues within the text. Good detectives ask questions.
Make a list of the questions that you had to ask in order to place these texts in the right
order. Your list of questions may start like this list:

Asking the right questions

1. Who are ‘Bob’ and ‘Johnson’?

2. How frequently are they calling each other?
3. Who wrote Text B?
4. Where was Text B published?
5. Why do they refer to the 'American imperialists'?
6. Etc.
Text A

Telephone recording #1
Johnson: Hello, Bob?

McNamara:Yes, Mr. President.

Johnson: I hate to modify your speech any because it's been a good one, but I
just wonder if we should find two minutes in there for Vietnam?

McNamara:Yeah, the problem is what to say about it.

Johnson: I'll tell you what I would say about it. I would say that we have a
commitment to Vietnamese freedom. We could pull out of there, the dominoes
would fall, and that part of the world would go to the Communists. We could send
our marines in there, and we could get tied down in a Third World War or another
Korean action. Nobody really understands what it is out there. They're asking
questions and saying why don't we do more. Well, I think this: you can have more
war or you can have more appeasement. But we don't want more of either. Our
purpose is to train these people [the South Vietnamese] and our training's going
good.

McNamara:All right, sir, I'll…

Johnson: I always thought it was foolish for you to make any statements about
withdrawing. I thought it was bad psychologically. But you and the President
[Kennedy] thought otherwise, and I just sat silent.

McNamara:The problem is?

Johnson: Then come the questions: how in the hell does McNamara think, when
he's losing a war, he can pull men out of there?

Telephone recording #2

Lyndon B. Johnson: I want you to dictate to me a memorandum of a couple of

pages. Four letter words and short sentences on the situation in Vietnam, the
"Vietnam Picture." This morning Senator Scott said that "The war which we can
neither win, lose, nor drop is evidence of an instability of ideas. A floating series
of judgments, our policy of nervous conciliation, which is extremely disturbing."
Do you think it's a mistake to explain about Vietnam and what we're faced with?

McNamara:Well, I do think, Mr. President, it would be wise for you to say as little
as possible. The frank answer is we don't know what is going on out there. The
signs I see coming through the cables are disturbing signs. It is a very uncertain
period.

Telephone recording #3
Johnson: We need somebody over there that can get us some better plans than
we've got. What I want is somebody that can lay up some plans to trap these
guys and whup the hell out of them. Kill some of them, that's what I want to do.

McNamara:I'll try and bring something back that will meet that objective.

Johnson: Okay, Bob.

Telephone recording #4

McNamara:If you went to the C.I.A. and said "How is the situation today in South
Vietnam?" I think they would say it's worse. You see it in the desertion rate, you
see it in the morale. You see it in the difficulty to recruit people. You see it in the
gradual loss of population control.

Many of us in private would say that things are not good, they've gotten worse.
Now while we say this in private and not public, there are facts available that find
their way in the press. If we're going to stay in there, if we're going to go up the
escalating chain, we're going to have to educate the people, Mr. President. We
haven't done so yet. I'm not sure now is exactly the right time.

Johnson: No, and I think if you start doing it they're going to be hollering, "You're
a warmonger."

McNamara:I completely agree with you.

Text B

On November 21, ___ the Government of Cambodia issued a statement once

again rejecting resolutely U.S. slanderous allegations against Cambodia.
The slander campaign has been intensified over the past months. The U.S.
press, radio, State Department and War Department have been coordinating
their efforts to this effect. Of course, the Saigon puppet administration and the
Thai reactionary ruling clique, lackeys of the American imperialists, have taken
an active part in it. As expected, masters and valets have been harping on shop-
worn themes. Recently, on November 10, AP and the Voice of America spread
the news that some American correspondents had ‘discovered’ a ‘Viet Cong
base’ in Cambodia. That same day, a spokesman of the U.S. State Department
threateningly express the U.S. Government’s concern about Cambodia being
used as a base for the ‘Viet Cong’. On November 14, ____, on U.S. orders, the
Saigon puppet administration then circulated a note in the U.S. reporting so-
called Cambodian forms of support to the ‘Viet Cong.’

It must be pointed out that the present slander campaign is a new U.S.
manoeuvre to expand the aggressive war to Cambodia. The November 21
statement of the Cambodian Government has stressed that this sustained U.S.
campaign against Cambodia’s neutrality proves that the United States still plans
to expand its aggression to Cambodia. The truth is that the U.S. propaganda
machine has overtly spoken of destroying peaceful and neutral Cambodia. In its
August 29, ____ statement, the Cambodian Government energetically
denounced the U.S. rulers for having let the U.S. New and the World Report
carry on August 28, ____ an article revealing their scheme to turn Cambodia into
a “new theatre of operations” with a map showing Cambodia territory left of the
Mekong river to be annexed by the United States. In its November 11, ____
statement, the Cambodian Government once again condemned the brazen
scheme for aggression by the American imperialists against Cambodia as
revealed in the New York Times of November 6, ____. The United States, the
paper wrote, cannot guarantee that U.S. troops or Saigon puppet troops do not
encroach on Cambodian borders. There is not a shred of doubt that the slander
campaign against Cambodia is part of the plan to prepare world opinion for
eventual U.S. armed aggression against this country and expansion of the
aggressive war in Indo-China.

As a close neighbour and comrade-in-arms of Cambodia, the D.R.V.N.

Government people remotely condemn the American imperialists and the
henchmen’s repeated violations of the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Indo-China,
gross infringement of the sacred national rights of the Khmer people. The
D.R.V.N. Government and people fully support the November 21, ____
statement of the Cambodian government rejecting the slanderous allegations
against its country and laying bare the U.S. scheme to expand its aggressive war
from South VietNam to Cambodia. United with the Khmer people in the Indo-
Chinese Peoples’ Front, the Vietnamese people consistently and thoroughly
support the just struggle of the Khmer people against the American imperialists
and their stooges in order to defend Cambodia’s independence, sovereignty,
neutrality and territorial integrity. The Vietnamese people determinedly side with
the fraternal Khmer people to defeat the U.S. imperialist aggressors, the common
enemy of the Indo-Chinese peoples. As Samdech Head of State Norodom
Sihanouk point out in his message of thanks to President Ho Chi Minh and Prime
Minister Pham Van Dong on November 2, ____, “Victory will certainly belong to
the nations like ours which are determined to check any foreign attempt to
enslave us once more.”
Text C

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders,
both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings
they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring
offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win
the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the
offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve
their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had
all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of
peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience
of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will
either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every
means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to
invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of
one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops
to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of
cosmic disaster. To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the
face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest
we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that
we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory,
conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the
next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his
last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that
the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an
honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the
best they could.
Text D

Washington, Aug. 7 -- The House of Representatives and the Senate approved

today the resolution requested by President Johnson to strengthen his hand in
dealing with Communist aggression in Southeast Asia.
After a 40-minute debate, the House passed the resolution; 416 to 0. Shortly
afterward the Senate approved it, 88 to 2. Senate debate, which began yesterday
afternoon, lasted nine hours.

The resolution gives prior Congressional approval of "all necessary measures"

that the President may take "to repel any armed attack" against United States
forces and "to prevent further aggression."

The resolution, the text of which was printed in The New York Times Thursday,
also gives advance sanction for "all necessary steps: taken by the President to
help any nation covered by the Southeast Asia collective defense treaty that
requests assistance "in defense of its freedom."

Johnson Hails Action

President Johnson said the Congressional action was "a demonstration to all the
world of the unity of all Americans."

"The votes prove our determination to defend our forces, to prevent aggression
and to work firmly and steadily for peace and security in the area," he said.

"I am sure the American people join me in expressing the deepest appreciation to
the leaders and members of both parties in both houses of Congress for their
patriotic, resolute and rapid action."

The debates in both houses, but particularly in the Senate, made clear, however,
that the near-unanimous vote did not reflect a unanimity of opinion on the
necessity or advisability of the resolution.
Except for Senators Wayne L. Morse, Democrat of Oregon, and Ernest
Gruening, Democrat of Alaska, who cast the votes against the resolution,
members in both houses uniformly praised the President for the retaliatory action
he had ordered against North Vietnamese torpedo boats and their bases after
the second torpedo boat attack on United States destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.

There was also general agreement that Congress could not reject the President's
requested resolution without giving an impression of disunity and nonsupport that
did not, in fact, exist.

There was no support for the thesis on which Senators Morse and Gruening
based their opposition- that the resolution was "unconstitutional" because it was
"a predated declaration of war power" reserved to Congress.

Nevertheless, many members said the President did not need the resolution
because he had the power as Commander in Chief to order United States forces
to repel attacks.

Several members thought the language of the resolution was unnecessarily

broad and they were apprehensive that it would be interpreted as giving
Congressional support for direct participation by United States troops in the war
in South Vietnam.
Answer key

1 - Text A: Morris, Errol: ‘The Fog of War’, 2003. Telephone recording #1:
February 25, 1964. # 2: March 2, 1964, #3 March 10, 1964, #4 June 9, 1964
3 - Text B : ‘Stern Warning to the U.S. Imperialists and Their Lackey’s Schemed
Aggression Against Cambodia’, Vietnam Courier, December 4, 1967

4 - Text C:Walter Cronkite: "Report from Vietnam: Who, What, When, Where,
Why?" February 27, 1968

2 - Text D: ‘Congress Back President on Southeast Asia Moves; Khanh sets

State of Siege’ New York Times, 8 July 1964

The language of war

Below you see several kep concepts and some passages from Texts A-D. What do these
concepts mean? Which passage from the right column illustrates each concept from the left
column?

The language of war

Key concept Example from the text

 1. The silver linings they find in the darkest clouds
1. dysphemism 2. “The votes prove our determination to defend our forces, to prevent aggression an
2. epithet firmly and steadily for peace and security in the area”
3. hyperbole 3. to strengthen his hand in dealing with Communist aggression
4. euphemism 4. “whup the hell out of them”
5. bias 5. As a close neighbour and comrade-in-arms of Cambodia,the D.R.V.N. Governme
6. glittering remotely condemn the American imperialists and the henchmen’s repeated violati
generality 1954 Geneva Agreements
7. expression 6. American imperialists
7. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster
Answer key

1-4
2-6
3-7
4-3
5-5
6-2
7-1

Teacher talk
These activities raise a lot of questions about teaching texts in and out of context. Two of the
three activities rely on an information gap exercise, and one relies on a knowledge sharing
exercise. How do these strategies facilitate learning language in a cultural context?

Language, context and the information gap

Teachers often ask "How do we teach language in a cultural context?" This is a

very large question with many implications. It is interesting, however, to turn this
question around and ask, "Is it possible to teach language out of a cultural
context?" If we define language as anything that constructs meaning, then it is
impossible to leave culture and context out. Even grammar and vocabulary
building exercises teach us something about culture. Even history textbooks
teach us something about language. The two are inseparable.
Nevertheless, the problem is understandable. What if student A has a broader
understanding of the Vietnam War than student B? Must the teacher 'pre-teach'
the history of Vietnam to student B before analyzing the language of these texts?
Perhaps it is better to step back and ask ourselves what our goal is. Is it to give
students a better understanding of the histories and cultures of the word? Or is it
to make them more perceptive readers?

Notice how the final activity asks students to engage with the texts using key
concepts. Wouldn't it be great if students could find examples of these concepts
(bias, epithet, etc.) in other texts about war? This contributes to the aim of
making them more perceptive readers. They may forget about Robert
McNamara, the Gulf of Tonkin and the importance of Cambodia, but hopefully
they will come away from this lesson with some tools that can be applied to other
texts. In fact, their understanding of the Vietnam War, the culture of war and the
history of the US and Vietnam are all great by-products.

To return to the main question "How do we teach language in a cultural context?"

let's focus on the word 'how'. If we aim to develop language analysis skills,
believing that culture and context follow automatically, then what teaching
strategy should we use to actively engage students with the language?

The information gap exercise is an effective tool for several reasons. First of all, it
levels the playing field. Even if student A knows everything about the Vietnam
War, he or she will be working with the same handicap as student B who knows
nothing: They both do not know the origin of each text. They are both forced to
look for contextual clues (i.e. language) within the frame of the text. In fact the
activity is not really about placing the texts in the right order. It is about asking the
right questions.

This brings us to the second advantage of information gap activities: People like
questions that have a right or wrong answer. As simple as it may sound, people
want to get the answer right. Information gap exercises are fun, and they turn
learning into a game.

Finally, it must be said that information gap activities are good from the
perspective of cognitive psychology. They require us to use our working memory.
In order for learning to 'stick' and find a permanent place in our long-term
memory, we have to engage with materials/texts. In other words we have to think
about them for a while. In the case of the last activity, students are juggling
several terms, such as 'bias', 'euphemism' and 'dysphemism'. This forces
students to engage with the passages from the texts for a sustained period of
focus. The end of the activity is clearly defined; seven matches must be made.

Toward assessment
Paper 1 - Text B is an excellent text to analyze as a practice Paper 1 at SL. Even HL
students can benefit from analyzing single texts before doing comparative analyses.

Written task 1 - The author of Text C, Walter Cronkite, received a lot of criticism for writing
that text. It was a very controversial piece in its time. You could write several shorter etters to
the editor of the newspaper that published this piece. Be sure to question his role. Is he
writing as a news reporter or an opinion columnist?

Further oral activity - The telephone conversations can be heard in the 2003 documentary
on Robert McMamara titled, The Fog of War. As you watch the documentary, take notes on
how language is used by both McNamara and others in relation to war. Present your findings
in a presentation.
Pikey English
How do we exert power by speaking differently? People can often include or exclude others
by the way they speak. Word choice, speed, syntax and accent all play a role in how we
exert power through language.
The following lesson looks at an extract from the film Snatch by Guy Ritchie. As you watch
the following film, you will notice that there is a certain power struggle and culture clash that
is expressed through language. Two people who speak a standardized form of British
English come to buy a caravan from some 'Pikeys' (a derogatory term that refers to a group
of lower-class, Irish 'gypsies'). In this lesson you will look for the words that make each
character more powerful in the negotiation of this caravan. This activity ties in to the
third learning outcome for Part 1, where we look for how language and meaning are
shaped by culture and context.

Powerful words
As you watch the extract from the film Snatch, make an inventory of the vocabulary that
makes each person more powerful in the negotiation process. You can go through the
playscript below as well to find evidence of powerful vocabulary. For each word that you
place in each box in the table explain why you think the word makes the character more
powerful.

Pikey English

Boy
Tommy
When Tommy asks, "What are you wa
"Fuck off, I'll find him meself." The cursing and accent ('meself')
the Boy responds with, "the five quid
is a way of exerting power over the boy.
me." This puts the boy in a powerful p
"Oh, dogs. Sure, I like dags. I like caravans more." With these
Tommy.
words Tommy points out two things: 1) the 'proper' pronunciation
"You're a real tight fucker." It is rathe
of 'dogs' and 2) that he is there for the caravan and not the dogs.
bold to make such an accusation to a s
These points of clarification give him more power.
puts the Boy in a powerful position.

Pikey
Mother
"How are you? Weather's been kind." Speaking in such a
colloquial way places a distance between the Pikey and Tommy. "Be no murdering done around here, I
He doesn't let Tommy answer the question either. telling you." The mother seems to be l
"Hey, Mam, come and look at the size of this fella." This focus on the law. By taking the expression liter
the size of Gorgeous takes away from the negotiation process that saying there will be no joking around
Tommy is eager to start. "What does he think we are, thieves?"
accusing Tommy of accusing her of b
"Do you like dags?" This is the Pikey's way of avoiding the
negotiation process. By speaking in such a dialect, Tommy has to
make a greater effort to understand the Pikey than vice versa.

Snatch
Guy Ritchie
2000
Tommy: We're buying a caravan.
Gorgeous: Off a pack of fucking pikeys? What's wrong with you? This will get messy.
Tommy: Not if you're here.
Gorgeous: Oh, you bastard. I fucking hate pikeys.
Boy: That's a flash car, mister.
Tommy: Not as flash as your bike.
Boy: Who are you looking for?
Tommy: Mr. O'Neil.
Boy: Want me to get him?
Tommy: That's a good lad.
Boy: Piss off.
Tommy: Are you going to go get him for me?
Boy: Yeah.
Tommy: What are you waiting for?
Boy: The five quid you'll pay me.
Tommy: Fuck off, I'll find him meself.
Boy: Two fifty.
Tommy: You can have a quid.
Boy: You're a real tight fucker.
Voice over: There was a problem with gypsies.
Pikey: What're you doing? Get out of the way, man.
Voice over: You can't understand what's being said.
Pikey; You Tommy? Come about the caravan?
Tommy: Mr. O'Neil.
Pikey: Fuck, man. Call me Mickey.
Voice over: Not Irish, not English.
Pikey: How are you? Weather's been kind.
Voice over: It's just Pikey.
Pikey: Would you look at the size of him? How big are you? Kids, how big is he?
Boy 2: Big, for sure.
Pikey: Hey, Mam, come and look at the size of this fella. Bet you box a little, can't you, sir?
You look like a boxer. [To Boy] Get out of the way. See if they'd like a drink.
Tommy: I could murder for one.
Mother: Be no murdering done around here, I don't mind telling you.
Pikey: Get your hands out of there. [removes Boy’s hands from Gorgeous’s overcoat] Cup of
tea for the big fella?
Mother: Don't be silly, Mickey. Offer the man a proper drink.
Pikey: You little bugger.
Mother: Is the big fella not coming with us?
Tommy: He's minding the car.
Mother: What does he think we are, thieves?
Tommy: No, nothing like that. He just likes looking after cars.
Pikey: Good dags. Do you like dags?
Tommy: Dags? - What?
Pikey: Yeah, dags. - Dags. You like dags?
Tommy: Oh, dogs. Sure, I like dags. I like caravans more.
Mother: You're very welcome.
Voice over: Pikeys are well-known for their skills of negotiation in business. It's probably why
they talk like that... so you can't follow what's being said. But if Tommy can get the caravan
for less than the price asked... on his return there will be ice cream.
Pikey: Good dog, good family.

Discussion
1. How does language play a role in the power struggle in this scene? Is it true what the
narrator says? Do you think Pikeys are better negotiators because they speak a dialect
that is difficult to understand?

We hear from the voice-over that Pikeys use their language as a means of gaining a
more powerful position when negotiating. This is true to some extent. But we must
consider something very important here. The Tommy and Gorgeous are on the Pikeys'
territory. That is the context that makes the Pikeys more powerful. By
not accommodating linguistically for their visitors, the Pikeys are showing a sign of
 power. The scene with the fist-fight helps reinforce these dynamics. But ask yourself.
What if Gorgeous had won the fist-fight and knocked out Brad Pitt? Tommy would still be
in a very powerless position to negotiate on the caravan.

2. Look specifically at the context of the words 'thieves' and 'dogs' (or 'dags'). How do these
words function as social markers that define an in-group and an out-group? Is Pikey a
slang, a dialect or a different language?

The question already reveals the answer to some extent. Yes, the pronunciation of these
words indicates that the Pikeys separate themselves from standard British English
speakers. Tommy and Gorgeous are part of the 'out-group' and the Pikeys belong to the
'in-group'. Tommy attempts to correct the Pikey, but there is not much point in doing so.
Pikey English is not officially recognized or standardized, thus one could say that it is a
dialect. There are not many slang words surprisingly in this extract; that is to say words
that are not mutually intelligible to native speakers of standardized British English.

3. What would happen if there were a movement to give the Pikey dialect some official
recognition? What if there were a dictionary of standardized Pikey vocabulary and
expressions? What if members of British parliament were permitted to speak freely in
Pikey? Why do these questions sound absurd? Or do they deserve serious
consideration?

The questions sound a little silly because the Pikeys most likely do not want their variety
of English to receive recognition. What defines Pikey culture is an unwillingness to
participate in mainstream culture. Living in caravans, not paying taxes and speaking a
distinct variety of Irish English go hand-in-hand.

4. How are language and meaning shaped by culture and context in this film?
 Again, it is important that we recognize that the context of this scene, a caravan camp,
determines the dynamics, when negotiating for the caravan. Tommy and Gorgeous,
whether they like it or not, are threatened by Pikey culture. And so they really have no
place in correcting the Pikey's pronunciation of the word 'dog'. The tension between
these two cultures is expressed through and determined by language.

Towards Assessment
Written Task 2 - Two of the prescribed questions for the written task 2 that are particularly
applicable for this text read:

 "How and why is a social group represented in a particular way?"

 "Which social groups are marginalized, excluded or silenced within the text?"

Racial profiling
Racial profiling is described as the use of an individual's ethnic appearance or physical
characteristics to decide whether to engage in law enforcement exercises.
This lesson looks at four texts, all related to racial profiling. The texts are all very different in
nature because they target different audiences. Comparing and contrasting the different texts
will help us understand how audience and purpose affect the structure and content of texts,
which is the first learning outcome for Part 1.

Comparing texts
Below are four texts, all of which relate to the topic of racial profiling. Have a discussion on
the different nature of the texts as you fill in the table below. Here are definitions of four
concepts to apply to these four texts.

 Text type is a term used to describe the nature of the text, where its found and what kind
of structural conventions it uses. See also the glossary definition of 'textuality' and the
section of this Subject Site on text types.

 Audience refers to the people targeted by the text. What can be said about the
demographic group that reads texts like the ones you are studying?

 Message refers to the main idea that the author is trying to convey. What is the basic
understanding that the audience is meant to come away with?

 Purpose is often closely related to message. Why is the writer writing this message? In
your answer to this question, go beyond superficial responses that only mention the
purpose to entertain, persuade or inform.

Racial profiling
Text type Audience Message Purpose

1
Lawyers, government officials, The title says it all: Police To define the
Official government police officers, civil rights officers must not clarify the gov
statement. activists discriminate. position on ra

2 To help victim
Any person, African American The main idea is that racial
their rights, ad
Public service or Hispanic, who feels like a profiling is common but not
minorities on
webpage victim of racial profiling. legal.
situations.

3
The message is that racial To spread awa
A combination of Any person, African American profiling happens, and you problem in Am
public service or Hispanic, who feels like a should know how to deal inform and ad
announcement and victim of racial profiling. with it in a smart and minorities on
stand-up comedy effective way. raise support f

4 Americans in general, both

You cannot judge a persone
African American and white.
A public service by his or her color of skin. To raise aware
Readers of the New Yorker
announcement, that Unfortunately it happens common prob
(where this appeared), a
takes the shape of a regularly and action can be support the AC
magazine that targets a higher-
'wanted' poster. taken to prevent it.
educated audience.

4 texts on racial profiling

Use the four texts below to fill in the chart above.
Text 1
Routine Patrol Duties Must Be Carried Out Without Consideration of Race
United States Department of Justice
2003
Federal law enforcement agencies and officers sometimes engage in law enforcement
activities, such as traffic and foot patrols, that generally do not involve either the
ongoing investigation of specific criminal activities or the prevention of catastrophic events or
harm to the national security. Rather, their activities are typified by spontaneous action
in response to the activities of individuals whom they happen to encounter in the course
of their patrols and about whom they have no information other than their observations.
These general enforcement responsibilities should be carried out without any consideration
of race or ethnicity.
Example: While parked by the side of the highway, a federal officer notices that nearly all
vehicles on the road are exceeding the posted speed limit. Although each such vehicle is
committing an infraction that would legally justify a stop, the officer may not use race or
ethnicity as a factor in deciding which motorists to pull over. Likewise, the officer may not
use race or ethnicity in deciding which detained motorists to ask to consent to a search of
their vehicles.

Text 2
Ethnic Majority
2011
What is racial profiling?
The most common example of police racial profiling is "DWB", otherwise known as "driving
while black". This refers to the practice of police targeting African Americans for traffic stops
because they believe that African Americans are more likely to be engaged in criminal
activity.
While racial profiling is illegal, a 1996 Supreme Court decision allows police to stop motorists
and search their vehicles if they believe trafficking illegal drugs or weapons. More traffic
stops leads to more arrests, which further skews the racial profiling statistics against African
Americans. Studies have shown that African Americans are far more likely to be stopped and
searched. Are African Americans really committing more crimes or are they just caught more
often because the police target them? This is a vicious cycle that even the strictest law
enforcement advocates would admit is patently unfair.
What can you do if you are stopped?
Civil rights attorneys advise the following:

1. Know your rights: you are not required to give permission to police officer to search your
car. You can deny the request - but do so politely.

2. Don't argue: the police may try to intimidate you. Do not be confrontational and provoke
an argument.

3. Get the names of the officers: be sure to get their badge numbers, squad car number,
license plate number, and make a note of the location and time of day.

4. File a complaint if you feel you have been mis-treated: contact the ACLU or other civil
rights organizations for legal advice.

Text 3
What to do when you're stopped by the police
Elon White

Text 4
The Man on the Left
ACLU
2005
Discussion questions
To further your understanding of the texts, you can base a discussion on the following
questions.

1. Which two texts are the most similar? Why do you think this?

2. Which texts were the most difficult to understand? How did your understanding of the
text depend on the context of the text?

3. In Text 4 you see two faces. The face on the left is Martin Luther King, civil rights activist.
The man on the right is Charles Manson, serial killer. Knowing this, how does your
understanding of the text change?

Towards assessment
Written task 1 - After reading one of the texts, you can write a letter to its author. You can
write a letter to the US Department of Justice, commending them for their efforts to prevent
racial profiling. You can write a letter to Elon White, commenting on his use of humor to
inform his audience. You could write a letter to the American Civil Liberties Union,
responding to their ad campaign on racial profiling.
Written task 2 - The two prescribed questions for the written task 2 that are particularly
applicable to Text 4 read:

 "How does the text conform to, or deviate from, the conventions of a particular genre,
and for what purpose?"
 "How has the text borrowed from other texts, and with what effects?"