third close reading

Lies My History Teacher Told Me About the War on Terror

a little bit of context: this article is a sort of addendum to this article, focusing on one particular excerpt of the textbook quoted in the latter (actually about the patriot act and less the war on terror).


Julian Sanchez, in his article "Lies My History Teacher Told Me About the War on Terror", mocks the textbook examined, but also the legislation it's writing about. The details he includes to contradict the book show a distaste for the Patriot Act as well. His colloquial diction creates a laid-back, indifferent tone that belittles the book, and the Patriot Act, to little more than jokes in the reader's mind; things to be mocked. Syntax elements also emphasize the problems Sanchez sees in the Patriot Act.

Sanchez begins the article describing the textbook as a "disturbing catalog of hilarious propaganda," suggesting to the reader that the topic is almost not worth serious consideration. Serving the same purpose is the obvious sarcasm used when he says that the section on the Patriot Act "manages to get a truly impressive number of things wrong in a short space."

 

Sanchez, while writing this article

Instead of simply saying that the book is poorly worded or incorrect, Sanchez turns his criticisms into vehicles for comical jabs. A prime example of this is the first sentence after the first quote: "I suppose in some strict sense all events “take time,” but this is a very strange way to describe a 342-page piece of legislation amending more than 15 complex federal statutes, the first version of which was introduced on October 2, and which had been signed into law by October 26." This is a very strange way to point out fault in a textbook. Unfortunately it's one of those things where I know I don't like it but can't explain why. This is not the only example; the mockery throughout the piece is almost tangible. Sanchez also says that instead of asking for approval, the administration "decided to simply ignore the law and order the National Security Agency to launch its now-infamous program of warrantless wiretaps." The word "simply" is included sarcastically; it's comparable to saying "Duh!" when somebody makes an obviously stupid suggestion.

Sanchez's details not only show flaws in the textbook but also in the American government. He says that legislators probably didn't even read the bill before it was passed, that most prosecutions through the provisions granted in the Patriot Act weren't even for terrorism, and also that the government "simply ignored the law" with its warrentless wiretapping program.

Finally, some syntax elements are used to convey Sanchez's distaste for the Patriot Act. Well, they probably are. I can name one particularly strong example: In the penultimate paragraph, Sanchez lists controversial points the textbook overlooks in separate sentence fragmens, each beginning with the word "nothing." These sentence fragments are emphasized in that they are short and they share their beginnings. Beginning each sentence fragment with "Nothing about..." groups them together in the readers' minds and increases the idea cluster's sticking power.