This article’s main claim is that violent language in speech should not be regarded as the instigation that orator asks adherents to commit violent, but it supposes to be reviewed as a medium to capture public attention. D.J. Mulloy supports his argument by explaining how the element of violence had been infused into revolutionary-style rhetoric in progressive political movement in America and researchers also found that violence was contextualized with some speeches of democracy during the 1960s. He finds that justice, freedom and equality are linked with patriotism and American culture. He then points out those radical people who follow this kind of ideology are “false patriots” as they “intend to disguise a deeper racism and religious bigotry.” American patriotism was considered as an effective language; however, it has been categorized as political weapon against opponents. To support this, he introduced what Malcolm X did when he leaded his adherents to compete with his opponents in the political war. Based on radical activity that was organized by Malcolm X, he concludes that misunderstanding of American …show more content…
It is a scholarly journal. The author, D.J. Mulloy is working as an associate Professor of American History at Wilfrid Laurier University. His research is mainly centered relationship between violence and political movement. The source is credible that it contains detailed analysis of issues in fields of American history, political changes in America and violence. This source is compound by neutral language and it does not show any bias to any parties. The targeted audiences of this article are patriots and liberals in America. Mulloy’s purpose of writing this article is to tell American citizens not to blindly follow the American patriotism and he also wants American people to revise the definition and function of violent language used in speech or other forms of