Tuscaloosa Nights

When asked to write about the idea that the previously reviewed piece, Tuscaloosa Knights, was a plagiarized version of Tuscaloosa Nights, I was excited, thinking there might be some lines verbatim that would send the previous piece into humorous submission. However, it's hard for me to say that this is a plagiarized piece.

Take an event that seems catastrophic, such as the September 11th tragedies. The film Loose Changes tries to justify their argument of the twin towers being demolished by internal bombs, asking several New Yorkers what happened and their reply being something along the lines of "It was like someone was blowing up the building." Yeah, it's funny how psychology works. Just because word of mouth travels and people repeat what they heard doesn't make it true.

Two people watching the Klan do their thing by the river would probably describe the act in a similar way. Chances are, they might even use the same analogies. Hell, they might even be witnessing the event close to one another and would have the same perspective of the event. A flaming cross and men dressed in white sheets can only be seen so different from two people.

In Tuscaloosa Nights, we are given a much more in depth look at Southern culture than we are in Tuscaloosa Knights. We are told about what the Klan wants and doesn't want, and doesn't understand or acknowledge, giving them more of an immature and ignorant appeal than in Tuscaloosa Knights. That's not to say the Klan of Knights appear to be an intelligent group, but in Nights Howe proposes questions that elude to a better background for the piece.

I can't say that Knights is plagiarized, considering the perspectives we are given from the speaker. There is less of a focus on the Klan and southern culture than there is on the affair depicted within. Nights focuses on the South and the Klan in a college town, less internal dynamics and more on the topic at hand.