TOW #23 "Getting A Degree in Victimhood" excerpt

     In 2011, UCLA altered its requirements for English majors. Instead of being required to take courses on Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton, English majors must take a total of three classes in classes like: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, Disability and Sexuality Studies; Imperial, Transnational, and Postcolonial Studies. Victoria Mac Donald, a journalist at the Wall Street Journal, is outraged at this curriculum change, and notes how it exemplifies just how obsessed our society is becoming with "victimhood". Especially in schools, we have been focusing too much on the oppression of the past, and the circumstances of certain people rather than the great work they have produced. In her article"Getting a Degree in Victimhood" Mac Donald use negative diction and testimonial to condemn UCLA for focusing too much on victimhood rather than the more important aspects of the humanities.
     Mac Donald is not shy about using extremely negative words to attack UCLA's decision to change their curriculum. She writes, that "Course catalogs today babble monotonously of group identity" and "The UCLA coup represents the characteristic academic traits of our time: narcissism, an obsession with victimhood, and a relentless determination to reduce the stunning complexity of the past to the shallow categories of identity and class politics.". With negative words like "babble monotonously", "narcissism", "shallow categories", the author talks about the change in an extremely derogatory way, belittle the board at UCLA and their decision. The audience gets a feeling about just how foolish their decision to change the curriculum was, as well as the ridiculousness of the movement in education that it is reflecting. Thus with her negative diction Mac Donald condemns UCLA.
       Mac Donald also uses testimonial to show UCLA's mistake in the ciriculum change, by quotes W.E.B. Du Bois. She quotes him saying: "Du Bois, living during America's darkest period of hate, nevertheless heartbreakingly affirmed in 1903 his intellectual and spiritual affinity with all of Western civilization: "I sit with Shakespeare and he winces not. Across the color line I move arm in arm with Balzac and Dumas. . . . I summon Aristotle and Aurelius and what soul I will, and they come all graciously with no scorn nor condescension." With the inclusion of this quote, Mac Donald asserts that UCLA's decision is not only foolish, but unnecessary. If they are doing out of a case of white guilt, well even prominent African-American rights leader, during a times of segregation no less, advocated the merit in these writers. Quoting Du Bois gives Mac Donald's argument more backing, helping her condemn UCLA.
      Mac Donald's article explores a very interesting trend in education, one that she is not happy about. Her discontent is evident throughout her article with her use of negative diction and testimonial. 



Shakespeare=Empire? 

TOW #22 PETA

PETA is known for creating outrageous ads that are meant to outrage people, or guilt them into being more environmentally and animal friendly. In this ad, PETA uses appeals to guilt and celebrity endorsement to convince people that wearing fur clothing is wrong.
     The ad uses guilt by featuring a picture of a bunny, along with the caption "Try telling him it's only a fur trim". Bunnies are often viewed as a symbol of innocent, or if anything, universally acknowledged as cute. The ad implies that in order to have a fur trim on clothing, the bunny must be killed. Most fur-wearers would just shrug this off by saying "it's just a little fur trim." By putting the bunny in the ad, PETA asks the fur-wearers to confront the bunny, putting a face to the fur, and making them feel more responsible for the murder of an innocent creature. By making the audience feel guilty, PETA makes them less inclined to wear fur.
     PETA also uses a celebrity endorsement, Natalie Imbrugulia, an actress and singer. By having her in the ad, PETA asserts that she is an advocate against the use of fur for clothing. Since people look up to celebrities, having one tell them directly that something is wrong would make them less likely to do the thing, like wear fur.
     This ad is one of PETA's less graphic and dramatic ads, but it still heavily plays with people's emotions. Through guilt and celebrity endorsement, this ad forces people to address the issue of fur in fashion, and hopefully makes them less inclined to support animal-cruelty businesses by boycotting fur clothing.

TOW #21 Political Cartoon

Writing goal: Strong tie to thesis
Reading goal: Political Cartoon

     It is shocking that even today people hold prejudices and are filled with hate. Though they have gained rights in many states, members of the LBGT community face discrimination each and every day. Unfortunately, this discrimination extents to brave men and women who are willing to risk their lives in the military. Gay and lesbian soldiers often have to serve "in the closet", or keep their sexuality a secret out of fear of being discharged or demoted. This political cartoon attacks the prejudices faced by gay soldiers. It uses symbolic imagery and a rhetorical question to establish that a soldier's sexual orientation is not important.
      The cartoon features three coffins, each covered in an American flag, a powerful symbol of service to the American military. The covered coffin is a symbol of sacrifice in America, as it represents a serviceman or servicewoman who has died in the line of duty. Showing them in the cartoon is intended to generate feelings of admiration and respect for the fallen heros of our military. Since these people gave the ultimate sacrifice, their life, it shouldn't matter whether or not they were gay. The only thing that should matter is their bravery and loyalty to their country.
     However, this powerful conclusion would not be reached without the aid of the rhetorical question at the bottom of the cartoon, which reads: "Which is the gay one?". The question is effective because it cannot be answered. There is no way to tell which of the three soldiers was gay, and that is the point. In the end it doesn't matter if they were gay or not, as they did the same service and gave the same sacrifice as straight soldiers.
     This cartoon shows through symbolism and rhetorical question that a soldier's sexuality does not matter. A person should be judged by their character not by the gender of the person they love. It's sad that people who are willing to risk their lives are scared to be themselves because of some of the very people they protect. Hopefully someday we will live in a world without this kind of discrimination.

TOW #20 JFK Speech Following MLK assassination

Reading goal: something different and new. Maybe a speech?

Writing goal: identify several and applicable devices.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/rfkonmlkdeath.html

    On April 4, 1986, a great American hero, Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed in Memphis TN. Many Americans were shocked at this act of violence and hatred aimed not only at King himself, but all African Americans who were fighting for their civil rights. The death of MLK may have made the split between black and white seems even larger. President Kennedy delivered a speech later that very day to address the assassination, and rally the American people. Throughout his speech, Kennedy uses collective pronouns and repetition to unify Americans in the face of this tragedy.
     Kennedy's use of pronouns like "we" and "us" exemplify unity. He says Americans have two choices: "We can move in that direction as a country, in greater polarization" or " we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand, and to comprehend, and replace that violence". Through the use of collective pronouns he represents Americans as a collective unit, one united people, and tells them they can react to the death in a certain way. Of course the more appropriate way to act is to allow the tragedy to bring Americans together at the united people we are, as exemplified by Kennedy's collective pronouns.

     He reminds Americans of the goal they should be working together unified towards through the use of repetition. He repeats certain words throughout his speech, like understanding, justice, love, and compassion. These words all coincide with King's teaching. By repeating them, he reminds Americans that what King wanted was for people to come together peaceful for justice. In doing so, he calls Americans together to continue his teachings so that he will not die in vain. By using the words, he helps unite the people.

     With such a tragic event, it would have been hard for many black Americans, as well as white Americans, to remain true to King's nonviolent teachings. People would ave been angry, and blacks would have felt even more separate than white. So, JFK felt the need to unify American people, and encourage them to keep moving in the right direction of civil rights. He does so in his speech with the use of collective pronouns and repetition..