Communication Rhetoric and Reasoning paper

Communication Rhetoric and Reasoning

Since time immemorial individuals in different nations have always been faced with the challenge of inequality, discrimination and social or racial classes. As a result of these issues many of these individuals have ended up being treated unequally and at other times even unfairly. The governments and states are put in place to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens, or at least that is the notion that many citizens have until they realize that it is not the case, and that in many cases, it is the government they put in place to protect them that acts against them or deprives them of their rights, or lets other individuals violate the rights and freedoms of its citizens. In this paper, we are going to look at a number of articles whose main themes are inequality and how the government has let individuals violate the rights of individuals or how the government itself has furthered inequality in the nations. However, the main article of interest that is going to direct this paper is the one by Carolyn Allport, an article titled Not all can be treated equally. The article was published in the Australian on 14^th of January of 2009.

Need Help Writing an Essay?

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper.

Write My Essay For Me

The main focus of the paper is on how difficult it is to maintain equality and quality of opportunities individuals are able to access especially with the task the government has of expanding the sector based on markets through direct subsidies. The article argues that the government has an essential role to protect the interests of the public. Another essential point covered in the paper is how to reconcile the issue of expanded opportunities in education for those groups and communities that are disadvantaged socially. The author takes issue with the unrestricted voucher system and argues that it can be useful in ensuring everyone in the society has access to educational opportunities no matter their social class by offering them the capacity to undermine those national disciplines that are planned like science, math and language. The article argues that the current system, full fee, is inadequate in ensuring that everyone gets quality education because it directly undermines the student’s equity and access to educational opportunities and it is at odds with some of the policies by the government to phase out full fee. The article also points out that these inequality issues in education has made Australian education institutes fall behind other countries such as India and China. The report gives such recommendations as full research funding, improved and more efficient operating grants, improves payment for infrastructure, increased access to university education, and increased support and collaboration between institutes as ways of ensuring that equal opportunities are provided for all individuals to access quality education (Allport 25).

The basic argument of the article is that there is significant inequality in access of opportunities for the socially disadvantaged individuals in Australia and that he government is not doing enough to address this challenge. The argument is that the government has the power to eliminate most of the socially- related challenges such as poverty and crime rates affecting the society by making education accessible to all but it has not done so (Allport 26). Education is only accessible to those individuals who have enough money for the full fee system, and those who do not access meaningful education. As a result of this, individuals end up joining the disadvantaged in society because they were not treated equally by the system.

The issue of inequality

The issue of inequality and the disadvantaging of individuals in the society by policies, systems and sometimes the government can also be seen in other articles. One of the articles is the one by Bob Carr. The article was also published in the Australian in 2009 on the 27^th of January. The article is about the issue of an Australian holiday usually held on the 26^th of January. One of the main issues about this holiday is that it has been put in place as a celebration, a celebrations that most indigenous Australians see as an insult to their pain, anger and dignity. According to the article, the Aborigines lived peacefully in their lands for more than 60, 000 years until the 26^th of January when their resistance and dispossession begun (Carr 7).

Anzac day is on the same 2th of January and it is a remarkable celebration that all Australians celebrate for a number of reasons. For example, the author argues that they celebrate it to recall a tragedy; others celebrate the day to commemorate the day when the alleged British civilization arrived in the land priory occupied by cultures that only survived on hunting and gathering.  They celebrate the day because the arrival of a ship brought about the application of the common law of Britain to Australia, government, and eventually law, and written language; what many like to call civilization (Carr 7). What the celebrations do not include, however, is the mourning of the many Aborigines who died in the hands of the civilized British invaders. What the celebrations do not indicate or tell is how the indigenous people were treated badly and unfairly by these people who are claimed to have brought about civilization. The indigenous people of Australia feel that they are treated unequally by their government and by the policies governing their country because of the fact that their government does not realize or recognize their anger towards that day. Instead of it being a day of apologies to these individuals who lost numerous lives and property, the country celebrates the very thing that brought about such pain to the people.

This is another good example of how inequality can be diverse in countries and nations. The Aborigines were treated unfairly then and they are being treated the same today, with the full knowledge of the government. The 26^th of January should not be a day to celebrate when civilization came to Australia, but a day to celebrate the resilience of these people through exploitation, shootings, alcohol, and disease, and their determination to survive through all this. As it follows, they should be entitled to their right to pride, grief and anger (Carr 7).

The same issue of January 26^th is discussed by another article, a date to remember, which was also published on the 27^th of January of 2009.  The author writes the views of one of the Aborigines who feel that the January 26^th holiday should be moved to another date to ease sensitivities of indigenous people over the issue of the founding of the NSW colony by the British governor.  The government, however, has not bothered to move the holiday with some of the arguments for remaining adamant with retaining this date being that the date has been vastly mischaracterized by those individuals who still feel that they have been locked out of the Australian civilization. The fact, however, remains that most of these indigenous people object to the beginning of the colonization by the British as a national day, because to them it represents the vast harm that was caused to numerous indigenous people centuries ago. The fact still remains that most of these people feel that the day is an exclusion for all the indigenous people (Editorial 8). What is essential to note in this case is that inequality in Austria is vastly spread, especially when it comes to the indigenous. It is clear that they want the government and the rest of the individuals to recognize and acknowledge the pain and harm that were caused to them by the coming of ‘civilization’, but it is clear that no one is concerned with offering them any of this. In fact, it seems like their pain and anger is being ridiculed and reduced to mere mischaracterizations.

In 2007 Max Venables came up with an article titled for some wounds will never heal that was published in the Sunday Mail on the 18^th of March. The article is another essential indication or proof of disregard of the rights and the equalities of certain citizens by the government. The article indicates how the Australian prime minster prepared and signed an agreement with Japan for regional co-operation and to create a relationship that was closer between the militaries of Australia and Japan. The issue here was that veterans like Changi felt that this move was an act of disrespect and disregard of the harm the Australian soldiers went through in the hands of the Japanese soldiers. The signing of the agreement came only a few weeks after the country had commemorated the fall of Singapore, the Australian soldiers internment in the PoW camps and the Darwin bombing, tragedies that were one way or another connected to the Japanese. It, therefore, came as a surprise that the Australian government was ready to form any form of alliance with a country that had caused so much damage to the Australian people (Venables 28). This is further evidence that inequality and disregard for the rights of individuals do exist in some societies. The government in this case chose to disregard the pain and anger towards the Japanese and went ahead and made a coalition with the enemy. This is to show that the civilians are in most cases never treated equally by the government because the government is in the pursuit of something that will be of benefit to those individuals in the government.

Janet Albrechtsen writes an article that furthers and supports the argument that the government at times imposes situations on individuals that violate their equality rights. Her first argument is that political leaders at times tell lies that are both calculated and deliberated, and in most case to gain some advantage or benefit from it (Albrechtsen 28).  Ross Guest is another writer who points out the presence of equalities especially when it comes to price caps, and how they affect individuals from the lower socioeconomic classes. The picture he paints in the article is that price caps gives institutions and individuals opportunities to compete less on price by not offering niche packages whose prices are based on their costs (Guest 23-24). Discrimination and inequality, however, do not usually have to happen with the government in regards to the people; at times these issues arise from other sectors that have nothing to do with politics. For example, Georgina Safe highlights the issue of discrimination and inequality in the fashion sector where a model is discriminated against because of her size and weight (Safe 40).

These articles have provided us with enough evidence that discrimination and inequality does exist in our societies.  It is clear from the analysis of these articles that discrimination does not always have to result from the government or systems or policies; that it can be present in other areas, as well.

Works cited

Albrechtsen, Janet. ‘Blessed Change in the Climate.’ The Australian (2009): 29- 30. Print Allport, Carolyn. ‘Not all can be Treated Equality.’ The Australian (2009): 28- 29. Print

Carr, Bob. ‘The day that tells the Nation’s Story.’ The Australian (2009): 7. Print

Editorial. ‘A Day to Remember.’ The Australian (2009): 8. Print

Guest, Ross. ‘For Equity’s Sake, Take off that Cap.’ The Australian (2009): 23- 24. Print

Safe, Georgina. ‘Scales of Justice Simply Don’t Apply.’ The Australian (2009): 40- 41. Print

Venables, Max. “For Some Wounds Will Never Heal.’ The Sunday Mail (2007): 28. Print

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH GRADE VALLEY TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT

The post Communication Rhetoric and Reasoning paper appeared first on Brook Writers.