Contrastive Rhetoric: Shortening the gap between cultures

What is Contrastive Rhetoric?
It is a template for educators to use to help non native speaking people to be able to write in English. In order to explain the concept fully, I will use a few examples. Language is not the only thing that makes cultures different. The communication process is different between different cultures as well. Talking about violence in the United States is something that is done every day. It is plastered across the television news programs and newspapers. Violence in the movies and video games is not considered out of place. If we were to play one of our "action movies" in a theater in France, the audience would come out of the theater horrified. If we were to ask one of the audience members to write a paper on how violence can be useful, they might not have any idea what you were talking about. Violence, and the glorification thereof, is simply not part of their culture. Some writing styles from other cultures do not translate very well into English, either. Subjects across borders are not always the same, nor are they viewed in the same way in each culture. The point of Contrastive Rhetoric is to provide a way for all students to be able to write "from the same book".

The Alexie "I Hate Tonto" reading was a good example of Contrastive Rhetoric because it was an explanation of how the Native American culture has been completely misunderstood and misrepresented by another culture. Alexie explained, "recently, I watched the film for the first time in many years and cringed in shame and embarrassment with every stereotypical scene". Everyone wants to see a piece of themselves in the movies, but his entire childhood was spent idolizing a stereotypical character that was completely fictional. Nothing except maybe skin and hair color was like the actual Native American culture in these movies. They had settled for "close enough" (Alexie). The reasons behind the actual Native American traditions were not explained correctly because they did not translate across cultures and no one corrected this, choosing instead to accept and even idolize the character that was nothing like real life. I think that sometimes it is easier to accept the wrong message rather than try to fix the stereotype. Why else would stereotypes exist for so long and be so hard to change?

Toulmin analysis and my thoughts

As the United States continues with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, more soldiers are becoming wounded than ever before. Because of the continued military efforts, care of our newly wounded veterans is being scrutinized by researchers of all types, and each of these researchers has been asking the same questions about the care of the wounded veterans returning home. These questions are addressed by Dan Ephron and Sarah Childress in their article “How the U.S. is Failing its War Veterans”, originally printed in the March 5th, 2007 edition of Newsweek.
The major claim that Ephron and Childress make is partially stated in the title. They want the audience to believe that the United States is failing its war veterans because the VA is not providing immediate and necessary care for its wounded. By stating the claim in the title, they set the tone of the article. They try to make the VA seem incompetent and the wounded soldiers into proven heroes. The soldiers returning home from war deserve the best care and because of this hero status the VA and the government in general should not be making the process of filing a disability claim difficult. Indeed, they insist that one idea that could work is granting the veterans benefits right away, then later auditing the claims to make sure of the accuracy (Ephron www.msnbc.msn.com). This idea originally came from Linda Bilmes, a Harvard professor and researcher from whom other ideas in this article are also taken. Bilmes herself states “…the existence of so many veterans, with such a high level of injuries, is yet another aspect of this war for which the Pentagon and the Administration failed to prepare, plan and budget” (Bilmes 2). The many ideas that are presented in Ephron and Childress’s article parallel the reports that Bilmes has been researching. Using Linda Bilmes as a source of information also builds credibility because they highlight Bilmes credentials to establish their own expertise on the subject.
Within their forum, using examples of personal stories to support their claim, Ephron and Childress strongly leaned toward pathos in their article by encouraging Americans to determine for themselves that veterans are not being treated right. They blatantly use an emotional example of a soldier crying out for help before ultimately committing suicide. This message was placed at the very beginning of the article to create outrage at the fact that one veteran tried over and over again to get help for his mental health condition without ever receiving the necessary care. The statement made by an unindentified VA representative explained that the VA does not treat any mental health concerns with the same urgency as they treat other concerns (Ephron www.msnbc.msn.com). That statement was yet another emotional appeal to the audience. Over half of the article refers to soldiers with mental health problems as their primary real-life examples. This statement makes the VA looks worse than it might have if the authors were only using examples of physical wounds sustained in combat.
The appeal to logos was created with the many statistics and facts that were littered throughout the article. An example of this was the statement that this is the first war fought with an all-voluntary military. They explain, “Already the war has made it harder for the military to recruit new soldiers and more expensive to retain the ones it has. If we fall down in the attention we provide [the soldiers and wounded veterans], who’s to say volunteers will continue coming forward?” (Ephron www.msnbc.msn.com). The point that they were trying to make was that if the military cannot find people to volunteer, the draft might need to be reinstated. Otherwise, there might not be enough people to continue military operations and we might not have “the greatest military in the world” which is how the military refers to itself at the present time.
One thing that gives this case such a strong emotional appeal are the warrants associated with the article. Although none of the three warrants are completely disclosed to the audience, each are partially stated rather than totally implied. This makes a stronger case to the audience as it helps to create a picture in the reader’s mind about how things should work. For example, one of the warrants implied was that the VA should instantly (or as soon as possible) upon return from deployment or discharge provide necessary and immediate care for its wounded veterans. The use of this warrant was shown in the very beginning when the story related to the young veteran with probable Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and his trouble with not receiving prompt care from the VA even after he tried to self admit to an inpatient program. The warrant implies that if he had gotten the care that was necessary and due to him, he might not have hung himself and died needlessly. If he could survive the war, he should not have had so many problems with life after war without the help that was supposed to have been his without problem or question.
Another warrant implied in the piece was that disability claim filing should be easy and wounded veterans should begin receiving benefits immediately after filing those claims; no waiting time should ever happen. Again, this is brought up by one of the personal stories of a wounded veteran. This young man’s first application was lost by the VA and then it took over a year to start getting his disability checks. By that time, he was in school and his mother was forced to take a second job at McDonalds to help support him during that time. Ephron and Childress explain that “…for many returning servicemen burdened with wounds, it is, initially at least, their sole income” (Ephron http://www.msnbc.msn.com). That statement is an attempt to provide proof that the money is necessary for those disabled veterans and, thus, should be given to them as soon as possible.
A last warrant that was implicated throughout the article was the idea that the VA should be able to plan accurately for the future, no matter the circumstances, so that each wounded veteran has the care that is needed as soon as it is needed. Although the first two claims are repeated in this statement, it is necessary to point them out because each of these warrants are interconnected. In order to provide adequate care, the VA needs to be able to plan for the future, however, they seem to imply that planning for the future should be more akin to seeing the future somehow, and that, as we know, is not possible. The implausibility that they assume the VA could know so much and plan for it is like those who think that the President of the United States could know how this war would turn out. To plan for the possibilities of each situation is only possible to a certain extent; no one knows the future.
Although the article has a very strong warrant use, it was found lacking in the area of possible solutions for this problem. There is only one place that listed Linda Bilmes’ ideas, but by and large the solutions were absent from the argument, making it a claim of value. Ephron and Childress do not use their article as a tool to provide solutions, but as a place to generate emotion within the public and possibly stir a public outcry. Public outcry is a poor solution to a problem as it does not usually generate action, and it only raises the emotional awareness of the situation.
According to Ephron and Childress, we should value our wounded veterans and prove that value by caring for them in the best way available. Our Veteran’s Administration is the government agency that takes care of those wounded veterans coming home from deployment. The VA is not doing its part in preparing for the sheer numbers returning with physical and/or mental problems, and those in VA care are not being treated promptly. The soldiers are also left waiting for disability approval so they have some income to support themselves and, often times, a family as well, but are not receiving this in a timely manner. The American Government, as the title of the article indicates, is not doing its part to take care of its war veterans. The point, however, is clear; veterans are coming home are not being given the respect they deserve in the form of adequate mental and physical care directly upon return from the dangerous wars in which the United States is participating.







Works Cited
Bilmes, Linda. "Soldiers Returning From Iraq and Afghanistan: The Long-term Costs of Providing Veterans Medical Care and Disability Benefits." Faculty Research Working Papers Series RWP07-00101 Jan 2007 1-20. 1 Oct 2007 .

Ephron, Dan, Sarah Childress. "How the U.S. is Failing its War Veterans." Newsweek March 5, 20075 Mar, 2007 1 Oct, 2007 .

My thoughts:
I liked the article that I was reading and analyzing, so this paper was much easier to write than the last one, but I still started out with work to do. My first copy was sorely lacking in a strong conclusion. I stated many things that I did not explain very well or at all. For my second draft, I changed the conclusion so that it made more sense, but there were still some things that I left in that were not properly explained. I tried to put each part of the toulmin model in the paper, even if it was not used in the paper, but I abandoned that tactic for my third draft, instead making the points that were in the article stronger. I was supposed to edit more out to make the paper shorter. I did some editing, but it is still too long and I liked what I had for most of the paper so I was not sure what to take out. It just seems so much stronger together. I guess that is why professional writers have editors.

Paper analysis

I liked the 3rd draft of my paper for a few reasons. In my first, draft, I did not really have a grasp on some of the concepts. I was trying to understand the entire context of the advertisement as taught in the C.R.A.P. principles. This advertisement was not simple and each piece of the ad was like a puzzle, contributing to the entire message that the company was trying to portray. I also had a hard time with the flow of the paper and I had weak or non-existant transitions. My language was not very professional, owing to the fact that I was still trying to understand exactly what I was writing about. I had a very weak explanation of pathos and logos intertwined in the paper vocabulary, and I did not include many other terms that could have been used. Initially, I had a poorly worded conclusion, which was strengthened with each draft written. For the second draft, I worked on improving the flow and strengthening the transitions. I also improved the conclusion and my explanations of pathos and logos so that my paper sounded more professional. I reworded some of my sentences and removed others so that the paper's overall tone remained more consistant. The comments of my fellow students and professor helped me to determine the mistakes that I made in the first two drafts, which helped me to correct things that I did not notice before they read my paper. I still don't like my paper much, and I found gramatical errors that I need to correct before I turn it in for my portfolio, but overall I think that I was able to use the drafting process to renew and complete my understanding of some of the concepts taught in class. I also think that since I have not really written a paper for an English class for about ten years, the practice allowed me to return to where I left off in writing professional papers. Honestly, I never really liked the drafting process, nor did I ever really use it before this class, but I can see how it has its uses now, and I will be able to use it in other writing projects in the future.

Paper 3rd draft

The Santa Fe Tobacco Company is not really interested in selling cigarettes based on the advertisement for American Spirit cigarettes in the October 2007 issue of Mother Jones Magazine. This deduction was made because of the layout of the full page advertisement, the logos focus of the advertisement, and the intended audience. If they were trying hard to sell cigarettes, the entire advertisement would have to be reconfigured in order to make it work for sales purposes. The advertisement is forgettable at best and at the very least uninteresting and not eye catching at all. The problems that the ad has can be summed up using the elements of TRACE as explained in the Essentials Of Argument (Wood 23).
One of the main problems that this advertisement has is a bad layout. Normally, a designer of an advertisement would be interested in drawing the reader’s eye down a specific portion of the page to a place where the main message along with the logo or a picture of the product is prominently displayed. In this ad, however, the first text that you see is a drawn “sign” which is supposed to look like wood with the message “Natural Tastes Better”. The entire advertisement seems to be meant to symbolize an organic field so the sign is meant to look like one that you would see posted outside that field. Next your vision is drawn down to another sign which could be stapled to a fence post with the message “Organic Field Do Not Spray”. Surrounding these pseudo-signs are four flowers. Three of these flowers are sunflowers and on two of these are pictures; more symbols detailing the message that the company wants to send. One is a bee, possibly to remind the audience of the message in the fine print in the center of the page telling them that sunflowers are grown with the organic tobacco crops so that beneficial insects are drawn to the field to protect the crops. This is not how crops are normally grown and the bees would pollinate the tobacco flower without the sunflowers presence. The other picture on the smallest flower is the recycle icon. We have all seen it and know what it stands for, but this has no written connection to the ad. It seems to be there to promote company image. The fourth “flower” is still a sunflower, but superimposed over the top of it are dried tobacco leaves in the shape of a flower with the silhouette of a smoking Native American man in a headdress which is the company’s emblem in the center of the “flower”. That is where the reader’s focus is centered. Keeping this in mind, the flower is not naturally found in nature and is not organic at all, but it is a symbol and it makes the tobacco seem that much more friendly and inviting. The colors are all muted organic colors from nature; greens, browns, and yellows. On the right side of the page is a red box of American Spirit cigarettes. It should be the final message that is given in the ad if the company wanted to sell the product, but the colors and the layout just do not draw the focus to that box. Also on the page are a variety of warnings such as, “No additives in our tobacco does not mean a safer cigarette” and the every popular, “Surgeon General’s Warning: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide”. All this together makes a very busy page that is not simple or direct. It does a better job at confusing possible interest in the product because the person reading the advertisement has no idea what is actually being promoted in this picture. What they do promote, however, is that they are a socially responsible company.
An important fact to consider when analyzing this ad is the reader or intended audience. The magazine that this advertisement rests in is Mother Jones, a politically charged environmentally concerned collection of articles that tend to lean toward a more liberal point of view. The person who this magazine is named for, “Mary Harris ‘Mother’ Jones was a feisty labor activist who died in 1930. She became an activist after losing her family to a yellow fever epidemic and her sewing business to the great Chicago fire. Known as the "miners' angel," she worked extensively on behalf of coal miners, but was also a staunch and effective opponent of child labor.” (motherjones.com faqs). She was a political activist, which is what the magazine claims to be as well, using her as their ultimate example. Every ad in the magazine has some reference to taking care of the earth, including the ad for natural cigarettes that is being analyzed. Being politically minded means taking care of the earth and those around us according to the editors and writers of Mother Jones magazine. The recycle symbol would not make as much sense in another context because another audience might not believe that recycling is as important as the readers of Mother Jones, but it was placed there purposely in order for the company to appear more earth-conscious to the readers of this magazine. The recycle symbol has absolutely nothing to do with this ad or the sale of these cigarettes, but it could be a selling point within the parameters of the specific audience.
The author of this ad, being the Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, actually has many disclaimers on their webpage showing them to be a socially responsible company, the ethos of this ad, and minimizing the fact that they are trying to sell a product that is potentially fatal if used. On the initial page they ask for the viewer’s birthdate and ask whether they are a smoker or not. If the person trying to view the website checks the non-smoker box, a disclaimer pops up telling the intended viewer “if you are not a smoker, please don’t start. We do not even encourage smokers to smoke more”(www.nascigs.com). The settings on the webpage will not allow non-smokers into the site. Once on the actual webpage, the same disclaimers that are on the magazine ad are right at the top of the page. There is a place to click if you want to quit smoking that has dozens of website links to help people quit smoking. They also emphasize yet again that smoking is not healthy no matter what type of cigarette you smoke. This adds to the personality that the company wants people to believe that they have, irrelevant to what they are selling.
American Spirit Cigarettes have made a very large appeal to logos with the advertisement and the web site. Just the “Natural Tastes Better” sign on the top of the page alone has a message appealing to logic. The use of words and pictures of flowers rather than pictures of people make a much stronger appeal to logic than emotion. There will not be a huge emotional response while looking at this advertisement because there was no intentional attempt to strike the emotions of the reader. Most other cigarette advertisements picture one or more people having a great time doing something fun, but smoking is now equated with unhealthy lifestyle and carcinogenic possibility, the advertising world has slowed its desire to even make cigarette advertisements. This company chose to take a different approach. Their advertisement makes the world appear peaceful and right because things are just natural. The pathos is virtually silent, making a much stronger case for a better earth by just using natural products.
This advertisement would not work at all if it were located in another magazine, and it is not well laid out for selling cigarettes. What it does appeal to is the idea of “natural”. It apparently tastes better and in all other ways is better to farm without the use of pesticides. The ad makes the Santa Fe Natural Cigarette Company seem responsible towards the welfare of humanity and the earth. In a larger way this ad is an appeal for people to like and support the company rather than the product. This might draw people to the product because if a person supports the company and what the company is doing, they might as well buy the product. Nothing about Mother Jones magazine is traditional, so for this audience the non-traditional advertisements might sell cigarettes.


Works Cited
"Natural American Spirit ." Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company. 2007. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company. 5 Sep 2007 .

"FAQs- Frequently Asked Questions." Mother Jones Magazine. 2007. Mother Jones Magazine. 5 Sep 2007 .

Wood, Nancy V.. Essentials of Argument. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.

Adultolescents

The predominant claim in the article "Bring up Adultolescents" by Peg Tyre, originally printed in the March 25, 2002 Newsweek is "parents across the country are trying to provide their twentysomethings with the tools they'll need to be self-sufficient-someday. In the process they havd created a whole new breed of child-the adultolescent" (134). The article explains that as these children go off to college, more and more of them are coming back home to live after graduation and living off their parents again. Many parents are trying to help their children become self-sufficient by paying for college and even graduate school in order to give their child that little extra push that they need so they can do things like pay for rent and cook for themselves. Tyre does explain at the end that "psychiatrists say it's tough to convince a parent that self-sufficiency is the one thing that they can't give their children," but these parents are willing to give up retirement money just to feel like their child is that much closer to having the life of their dreams (136). There might be more to this idea than Tyre explains. The parents have spent their entire adult lives trying to give their children opportunities that they did not have as children and this seems to have spread into the adult lives of their children, but the cost of living is more than it was when these kids were growing up and having a job that will pay the bills and at least some of the extravagant lifestyle that they grew up living means that they will need better paying jobs. In order to get these jobs, they need to go to school, something that was not necessary even one generation ago. Let's face it, minimum wage is less than minimum life these days. You can't even rent a small apartment for the paycheck that you can get from a minimum wage paying job, let alone buy food and other necessities. These parents have been protecting their children from poverty all their lives, why would they stop as their children reached adulthood?

Warrants; a case for shared ideas

Warrants describe what someone believes and generally assumes the reader will understand and hopefully agree with when reading a piece of rhetorical writing. They are not normally written in words, but are implied in the writing. It can be advantageous to the author to let the reader fill in these assumptions themselves because often the reader will agree with the writing more. The warrent is what makes or breaks the claim in a paper because if the value system is not shared, the claim may not even make sense to the reader. Warrants are formed by the way that people are raised and experiences that they may have had. "Shared warrants are crucial to the success of an argument because they are the most significant way to establish common ground between the reader and writer in an argument (Wood 103). If I were trying to write a paper that assumed people agreed with the decisions of the president because of his office and no other reason and my audience was a group of hostile president haters my warrant would fall short of the common ground that I am trying to establish. The more common ground that I establish, the more likely I will be able to convince the reader to agree with my point. Going back to the president, if my warrant was that the government was responsible for making sure that the president made good decisions and my audience was the government officers involved in the decision making process in the U.S. I might have better luck because they might have pride in their jobs and they may very well beileve just that. This just explains why you would want the audience to share some common ground with you when you write. The warrant, especially the unspoken warrant, gives that little extra power you just might need to convince your audience.

Visual argument

The most important part of visual argument included in our reading is, "when compared to written or even oral argument, [visual argument] is immediate and concrete, can appeal powerfully to the emotions, and can enhance an argumentative message by making it more convincing than words could alone" (Wood 211). When including visual images along with other rhetorical arguments, it can solidify the point that you are trying to make. The only problem with this method is that you need to pick the right visual or the intended message may be unclear or misconstrued to mean something else entirely. In that case, the point that you may have been trying to make may be misunderstood by the audience. Since the point of argument is to make the audience agree with the message you are trying to send, it would make sense for you to make sure your visuals match your intended message. A second point that caught my attention was "adding a few words to your visual argument [can] enhance or extend its meaning" (Wood 216).

From the online reading, I was taught that icons can be very important. In this case, an icon is something that symbolizes something else. McCloud asks his readers in a comic book-like setting, "would you have listened to me if I looked like this?" (207). He was referring to a drawing that makes him look more true to life; like a person talking to you rather than a comic character. He responds to his own question saying "I doubt it! You would have been far too aware of the messenger to recieve the message" (McCloud 208). He goes on to explain that as the simple character that he has drawn himself, people are more likely to listen to him because they identify themselves with him more. He could be anyone and simplifying makes him more like "a little voice inside your head" McCloud 208). He concludes, telling us "but if who I am matters less maybe what I say will matter more" (McCloud 208). From this I gather that simplicity sometimes means more because a greater number of people will be able to identify with the message more because it could have come out of their own mind. That is the most important thing that I was able to gather from this reading.

What is argument?

I never really thought about argument before I took this class. I have argued. I have come across the various forms of argument listed in Essentials of Argument. Nancy Wood has defined argument, stating that "the goal of argument is to bring about a change in an audience's initial position on a controversial issue" (4). She goes on to explain the two types of argument that she will explain later in the chapter. Although I never really considered mediation to be an actual argument type, Wood classifies it as such (8). I always thought mediation was pursued instead of an argument, but the way that argument is defined in this text includes negotiation and mediation with respect to the way the ends are achieved; with pursuasion. The ultimate goal is to cause someone to think about an issue the same way that you do, so each of these methods make sense. Actually, I think that it is funny how we learn this from such a young age. I think that my children might have been born with the ability to be pursuasive. Babies are able to communicate with adults by crying. If the baby is hungry, he cries. If the baby is tired, she cries. Crying is the only means of communication that an infant has, but every parent soon realizes that the crying will stop if the problem is corrected. Feed the hungry baby and he soon is content and falls asleep. Even with the limited communication, parents soon learn to recognize different cries for different problems. Infants learn that varying sounds will help a problem to be taken care of more efficiently. That is the dance of parenthood. By the time my daughter had turned three, she had already learned effective means of getting what she wanted from her Dad. She would beg and cry. She also learned that these tactics did not work on Mommy. She knows that she will not win an argument as easily with Mom, so she tries to pursuade her most vulnerable audience first. If it does not work on Daddy, it will not work on Mommy. I believe that we are born understanding how argument works, and that life is a negotiation.

I chose the October 2007 issue of Mother Jones for my magazine. There are three reasons that I chose this magazine and all of my reasons are circumstancial. The first reason is that I went to two stores and was offered a selection of three magazines from the list. Thus, the selection was quite limited. Reason number two arrived with the limited selection as well. I do not read sports magazines of any kind. I have before, but for this assignment I would have to choose something that I would spend a great amount of time with for the remainder of the semester and I could not bring myself to choose that magazine. I was left with two choices. Athough there was a really good looking guy on the cover of one of the magazines, I could not bring myself to use that fact as my primary means for choice in this case. The third reason and deciding factor in my magazine dilemma were the cover stories. I thought that School of Shock sounded much more interesting than anything that I could find in a music magazine. These decisions, of course, were based on my opinion and not on any other fact whatsoever. I am happy with the choice and I think that I might even learn something useful.

Blog #1 What is rhetoric?

According to Foss, rhetoric is "the human use of symbols to communicate" (1). She travels deeper into her definition, explaining that "humans construct the world in which they live through their symbolic choices" (Foss 2). What she is trying to define is the actuality that we, as humans, choose how we define the truth by how we percieve the facts surrounding the truth. For example, If I sent a card to someone and it just happened to be Valentine's day it might be seen by the card recipient as a proclamation of love when I just wanted them to know that I really liked the shirt that they were wearing on Tuesday. This example might be a large exaggeration, but the point is clear; not every situation is see by every person the same way. Another example could be seen in the way a person dresses. If a woman shows up in a nice business suit for a job interview, she is likely to be seen as a successful canidate for the position. If another person shows up to interview for the same position wearing sweats and a baseball cap, that person will be seen as a less qualified prospect whether they are or not. This is because of the symbolism that we have attached to certain styles of dress. In many cases like this one, the symbols that we have attached to things mean more than the the thing that we claim is important.
Just as symbols define how we view our lives, "changing our symbols changes our worlds" (Foss 2). This is how new slang changes perfectly good words into unrecognizable definitions for something entirely different. A fantastic example of this is the word gay. It used to be another word for happy. Now our culture has redefined it to mean homosexual. Most homosexuals I know are not necessarily happy so the word has completely lost its original meaning. No wonder people from other countries trying to learn "American" English have such a hard time understanding what we say when they come to visit the U.S. We are speaking an entirely different language.

Andrea Lunsford: "Rhetoric is the art, practice, and study of human communication." http://www.americanrhetoric.com/rhetoricdefinitions.htm

I. A. Richards: Rhetoric is the study of misunderstandings and their remedies. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/rhetoricdefinitions.htm