Rhetorical Analysis of Political Cartoon

stop-the-oligarchy.tumblr.com

     In the above political cartoon, the artist depicts the Pilgrims of the 1600s attempting to land in North America to start their colonies. However, the Native Americans, who already inhabited the continent long ago, refuse to allow the Pilgrims to enter the land, claiming that they are not accepting refugees. This is a satire on modern Americans, of whom some wish to keep immigration under tight regulation out of fear for possible refugees' being terrorists in disguise (in recent developments, Syrian refugees believed to be agents of ISIS). Obviously, this artist is poking fun at those who want to tighten immigration laws and regulations to keep fleeing refugees away from America (most likely the Republicans) and seeks to show them the absurdity of increasing immigration control by making them wonder what would have happened to America if the Indians did the same to the Pilgrims. Therefore, to achieve that purpose, he or she declares a strong message--if you drive out people that could make a country stronger for fear that they will blow up buildings or slaughter people, you may not reap the benefits of extending compassion to those who were given none; to advance society, you must forgive and forget and give refugees a chance to integrate with society. Although many know the story of Pilgrims and Indians, to fully appreciate the comic, it is recommended that a person (a) be aware of the current immigration crisis (which is, honestly, very hard to miss) and (b) be aware that, after 1492, when Christopher Columbus discovered North America, he began a massive conquest for Spain for about a decade, treating Indians as his slaves, introducing them to new diseases (syphilis, for example) that decimated a large number of Indians, and forcing them to search for gold and valuables to bring back to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, his sponsors for the journey. The second point especially enhances the viewers' understanding of the comic since they are aware of why the Indian is intent on shooing away the Pilgrims from his land.

Thesis Statement for Project 3 Rhetorical Analysis

It took a while, but here is my thesis statement for "Is Television Dying? A Look at the On-Demand Culture of the Social Millennials":

To bring awareness to millennials who use social media and online streaming that the new culture of instant gratification brought about by such new entertainment innovations led to a manipulated viewpoint wrought by impatience, which could lead to exploitation in the future if not corrected, I proved that TV is dying because of man's tendencies to look for more convenience and control in information, found in the changes to entertainment technology and exacerbated by social media and online streaming, and subsequently related that argument to our "on-demand" culture. Based on the nature of this positional argument; its reliance on quick, yet viable logic; the target audience itself (the "tech-savvy" millennials); and my authority as a fellow millennial, I argue that using a blog advertised in social media was "the best available means of persuasion in my chosen rhetorical situation."

api.ning.com

Link to My Project 3 for Friday, Nov. 20, Presentation

Here is a link.

http://theevolutionofentertainment.blogspot.com

You know you want to click it.

Click it.



It be blue.

Venn Diagram for Project 3

Here is a Venn Diagram of my argument concerning TV and its place in today's entertainment.

Pretty circles...

Background Research

www.youtube.com

     Here is some background research for my upcoming argument entitled "Like, Tweet, Comment, and Subscribe: Why Television Is Slowly Dying."

     Enjoy, ladies and gents. 

Note: I commented on Kat's and Dee's research. Excellent work, you two.

Note 2: I thought it would be good if I posted a revised draft of my background research--I made some alterations concerning the sources from which I used information.

The Five Types of Public Argument

 

38north.org

     For my own argument that I will be presenting in a couple of weeks, I am thinking about making a position (pro/con) argument. What is a position argument, you may ask, and are there any other types of argument out there? Yes, there are--five, to be exact.

     The first is, as I mentioned, the position argument. This is the bread-and-butter of all arguments; you simply take a topic, weigh the benefits and the consequences of the topic, and determine the better position based on the data provided. Therefore, I would analyze my topic, find out if I can extract the pros and cons of said topic, elaborate on both, and implement them to defend my position (which will be on the pro side or the con side).

     The second is the causal argument, in which you take a topic and argue what specifically caused that topic to arise. For instance, if I were to argue about the causes for alcohol addiction, I could argue that addiction comes from a sense of lingering desire, a feeling of loneliness or emptiness, or an effect of very bad choices. My goal, then, would be to prove that those are the primary causes for alcohol addiction by bringing information, most likely from psychology related sources.

     The third is the evaluative argument. This certain argument focuses on a course of action taken for or against a topic. The goal is not to evaluate the topic itself, although it still is open to commentary; instead, the goal is to analyze the actions taken and determine if they were effective or not. In this case, following the alcohol example, I could argue that Prohibition was not as effective as the U.S. government initially intended, and I would then bring evidence to support my claim.

     The fourth is the proposal argument. A cousin of the evaluative argument, this argument encourages a person to create his own actions toward a topic instead of analyzing another's actions toward that same topic. To successfully use this style, I would have to study the "surroundings" of the topic: who was involved, what was happening, what alternatives were present, etc. Afterward, based on what I learned, I would concoct my own plan to solve that situation and defend why my plan is the best plan for it.

Yeah...sorry, Captain Kirk.
www.everseradio.com

     The fifth and final one is the refutation argument. A cousin of the position argument, this is the one that many will find in debates or even normal conversations. For this argument, one has to take a particular stance on a certain topic (usually "for" or "against") and draw up evidence to disprove the possibility of the antithesis's being correct. For example, if I wanted to prove that Star Wars is a million times better than Star Trek (and I do think that the Force and lightsabers can beat phasers, any day), I would bring evidence to support my own claim while to also further convince my audience by listing all of the things that Star Trek does worse than Star Wars.

     Because each argument has its own subtle eccentricities, each one will appeal to different aspects. If I wanted to use the position argument, I would probably resort to using a PowerPoint presentation to make it easier for my audience to see the pros and the cons or to making a short video to get the points across in the most efficient yet effective way possible. Continuing with the Star Wars/Star Trek debate, both the PowerPoint presentation and the video will interest Star Wars and Star Trek fans alike (and maybe even some Battlestar: Galactica fans who would want to say that that show is better than the two "Stars" shows/movies); however, the PowerPoint presentation may be more suitable for an older audience, and the video will appeal more to the younger ones, since the younger ones cannot easily digest a PowerPoint presentation as well as the older generation. In regard to appeals, this argument will heavily rely on logos--this argument is a constant stream of information tailored to convince the audience by using factual evidence that may or may not be somewhat biased (depending on how reliable the source is). In that case, ethos will also be vital to prove that the information provided is valid.