Comparative Analysis Of “Ain’t I Woman” By Isabella Baumfree And “Lynching And The Excuse For It” By Ida B. Wells-barnett

Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “It is true that the law can’t make a man like me, but I believe it can stop him lynching.” This quote conveys both his emotions and his reasoning in regards to lynching. He accepts his color may not be acceptable, but he is glad that laws are in place to prevent hate crimes. This quote shows that we humans are cognitive thinkers. We reason logically. And our legal system is designed to give everyone a chance at a fair court trial. Ida B. Wells Barnett used ethos and pathos to effectively convey her arguments and support them in the article ‘Lynching And The Excuse For It.’ Isabella Baumfree on the other hand, relied heavily on emotion to express her argument in the “Ain’t I Woman” article. This essay will compare the two readings and pay attention to pathos, ethos, and logos as we support both authors’ argument.

In the first place, let’s examine these two interpretations in terms ethos. Over the course of 15 years, lynching led to the unethical killing of two thousand individuals. The accused individuals’ crimes were not proven by any convincing evidence. Jane Addams made a statement in support for lynching at that time. She believed that it was the best way to deal effectively with criminals. As civilized, responsible citizens, it was indisputable that lynching was unethical.

In their articles, both authors appeal to the pathos. Ida B. Wells Barnett fought against racial inequality and unscrupulous acts of violence directed at her own people. Being an African American in an age of high racial politics, she risked her life when she published this article. Isabella Baumfree’s writing also had an emotional resonance to encourage the reader to join the women’s movement. In the article, Isabella Baumfree described both the women’s and African-American’s preferential treatment during that era. Isabella Baumfree took an active role in the fight for women’s equality. She wanted to make everyone aware that African American women are treated differently than Americans in a male-dominated society. African Americans are portrayed as inferior to white males in a number of ways. She tries to convince the audience that women’s rights are important by focusing on these men.

Ida B.Wells Barnett used statistics to prove racial bias was behind lynching. These lynchings have been documented in detail, including the names of victims and their nationalities. Also included are details about the crime committed, location, and alleged perpetrator. Isabella Baumfree defended women’s rights against erroneous preconceived notions. She used cups as a comparison to show that everyone deserves the capacity of their cup and that it is unfair to judge someone for what they hold in their cup. She countered Christianity’s rationalization and reason for why men are better than women, saying: “Where did your Christ originate? She also countered the Christianity religion’s reason and rationalization of why men are superior to women by saying “Where did your Christ come from? “Man had nothing to with Him.” This strategy of counter argument was the most effective in providing support to historical religious perceptions that men should be better than women due to biblical teachings.

Isabella Baumfree’s article was more pathos driven, with a tone of authority, and expressed a greater passion in its expression. Both women displayed courage and fortitude in their stand against racism. Many would have remained silent to avoid the issue. Even though lynching still occurs in South America on a regular basis, we have made progress as a country in preventing lynching from being used as a method of legal justice. Many people would say that there is still gender inequality today. This includes the gap in wages and the leadership roles in our society. In our modern age, it seems irrational to judge someone’s ability in a given task on the basis of their race or gender. Finally, we need to continue learning from our mistakes in the past.