دانلود کتاب Critical and Comparative Rhetoric: Unmasking Privilege and Power in Law and Legal Advocacy to Achieve Truth, Justice, and Equity

فهرست مطالب :

Front Cover\nCritical and Comparative Rhetoric: Unmasking Privilege and Power in Law and Legal Advocacy to Achieve Truth, Justice, and Equity\nCopyright information\nTable of contents\nDetailed Contents\nList of Figures and Tables\nAbout the Authors\nIntroduction\n Notes\n1 What’s Wrong with Aristotle?\n The power of legal rhetoric\n The troubling roots of traditional legal rhetoric\n Classical thought patterns: Aristotle and Plato\n What’s wrong with Aristotle?\n Classical thought, rational thought, and White supremacy\n Classical thought and White supremacy in U.S. law\n Aristocratic and Aristotelian legal methods: categorizing from Olympus\n Legal formalism: a classical style of legal reasoning\n Problematizing the classical roots of traditional legal rhetoric\n Traditional legal rhetoric is based on aristocratic and patriarchal norms\n Traditional legal reasoning ruthlessly divides things, oftentimes unfairly\n Traditional legal reasoning incorrectly occupies a privileged epistemological space\n Future directions: “the last shall be first, and the first last” (Matthew 20:16)\n Why we need to get rid of traditional rhetoric even though it has produced some good legal outcomes\n Why we need to get rid of traditional rhetoric even though the classical norms relate more to the political than the rhetorical\n Notes\n2 Problematizing Aristotle: Renovating and Remodeling Traditional Legal Rhetoric\n Introduction: legal education’s role in maintaining oppressive feedback loops\n Legal education’s preservation of White patriarchy is a feature, not a bug\n Indoctrination versus education in teaching law students legal reasoning and analysis\n Interrupting traditional legal rhetoric\n Boldness\n Empathy\n Shame\n Invisibilization\n Exasperation\n Flattery\n Conclusion\n Notes\n3 Shifting the Focus from the West\n Contested terrain: challenging foundational narratives\n Building the legal framework for White cultural hegemony\n A compelling but unsuccessful challenge to the racialized nomos: Jamison v. McClendon\n Crafting justice based on the lived legal experiences of people of color: Washington v. San Kim Sum\n Conclusion: the need to critically engage with legal genres and analytic paradigms and to infuse legal reasoning with inclusive frameworks\n Notes\n4 Multicultural Rhetorics\n The making of multicultural legal reasoning and analytic paradigms\n Types of multicultural rhetoric\n Indigenous rhetorics\n Background\n Indigenous rhetorical strategies\n African Diasporic rhetoric\n Background\n African Diasporic rhetorical strategies\n Guidance for Maat as it functions in the nommo\n Asian Diasporic rhetoric\n Background: Chinese and South Asian rhetorics\n Asian Diasporic rhetorics\n Asian Diasporic rhetorical strategies\n Latine rhetoric\n Background\n Latine rhetorical strategies\n Acknowledgments\n Notes\n5 Reproducing the Canon, Reproducing Inequity (Traditional Rhetoric)\n United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 43 S. Ct. 338 (United States Supreme Court 1923)\n Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222 (7th Cir. 1993)\n Grand Upright Music Limited v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)\n Luke Records, Inc. v. Navarro, 960 F.2d 134 (11th Cir. 1992)\n Baxter v. Bracey, 751 Fed. Appx. 869 (6th Cir. 2018)\n Sequoyah et al v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 620 F.2d 1159 (1980)\n6 Interrupting the Canon\n Gideon v. Wainwright, 373 U.S. 335 (1963)\n Summary of Gideon v. Wainwright\n Excerpt from Petitioner’s Brief in Gideon v. Wainwright\n Traditional legal rhetoric in Gideon v. Wainwright\n Interrupters in Gideon v. Wainwright\n Empathy as an interrupter\n Invisibilization as an interrupter\n Boldness as an interrupter\n Flattery as an interrupter\n Loving v. Virginia, 188 U.S. 1 (1967)\n Summary of Loving v. Virginia, 188 U.S. 1 (1967)\n Excerpt from Petitioner’s Brief, Loving v. Virginia\n Traditional legal rhetoric in Loving v. Virginia\n Interrupters in Loving v. Virginia\n Boldness as an interrupter\n Shame as an interrupter\n Exasperation as an interrupter\n Conclusion\n Notes\n7 Disrupting the Canon: Multicultural Rhetorical Strategies in Action\n Rethinking how we “do” law\n Multicultural rhetoric in action\n Multicultural rhetorical strategies in various legal genres\n The Complaint\n The Memo\n The Trial Brief\n The Appellate Brief\n The Judicial Opinion\n Notes\nReferences\nIndex