In Stephen Lewis’ lecture Pandemic: My Country is on It’s Knees, Lewis paints a gruesome picture of the decline of a once newly freed and opportunistic Africa to what is the present: a continent that is being consumed by HIV/AIDS.
I believe that the purpose of this essay is to make the audience really think about Africa and their state of emergency and spur a change which will be beneficial to the people who are in dire need.
When I read Lewis’ lectures I cried. I was able to project his experiences into my own life. I have two children and the thought of having to endure a lifetime of pain, loss and suffering while the developed world flourishes would be devastating to say the least. I think that with the reaction it created for me Lewis’ intended audience is income earners who have families. His lectures have many references to the connections made, friendships created and family changes with regards to children that it seems like the logical choice to make since families incorporate all these aspects. From my personal reaction, I think Lewis executed his purpose effectively by using rhetorical appeal.
When starting to read this essay, it was hard to focus. I found the words to be very descriptive for something I had a hard time envisioning. It felt like I was reading a text book rather than someone’s personal history. As Lewis made his way into Africa, the language stayed descriptive but it seemed to fit better since he was describing, with great detail, each circumstance. I was able to visualize myself there with him.
I think that Lewis described his personal history and experiences so descriptively and honestly to create an ethical appeal. First off Lewis discloses information about his personal upbringings, family values and choices he made in his early life which shows that he is headstrong. Secondly Lewis describes why he is interested in Africa. “Although the conference lasted only seven days, I stayed in Africa for a year; I was crazy about the continent from the moment I set foot on its soil-the music, the energy, the kindness, the generosity, the camaraderie, the purposefulness of everything… the sense of possibility was everywhere.” By explaining why he is interested in Africa, Lewis comes across as sincere without having an ulterior motive. Thirdly Lewis discloses his personal experiences when immersed in the African countries which shows he made personal connections and a life there. And finally Lewis’ timelines are easy to follow since they are sequential. All these examples build credibility for Lewis. He opens himself up to the audience fully in an easy to follow manner.
I also believe that Lewis’ experiences were descriptively written to create not only an ethical appeal but also an emotional appeal. Facts are facts and remove the faces from the African people. By re-telling his experiences Lewis is able to bring the reader into his memory which causes the reader to then evaluate their beliefs, thoughts and emotions. The one interview that made me breakdown was Lewis hearing Agnes‘ story. “There was one woman, seventy-three years old, sitting slightly apart from the rest , who refused to speak…And then Agnes spoke. She took mo more than a couple of minutes…She had buried all five of her adult children between 2001 and 2003 -all five- and was left with four orphan grandchildren. That was it. She wept… I learned as I left that every one of her four grandchildren is HIV-positive. How much can one grandmother endure?” Sitting here on my computer, I am teary eyed and wrenched with the pain that one woman has been through. What a reality painted right in front of the reader! Lewis also used a comparison between the western societies and the African societies. “All of us who live in privileged western societies experience death from time to time, but in much of southern Africa that’s all people know. Their lives consist of attending funerals; if I may mangle a phrase, they go on a graveyard crawl every weekend.” I believe this comparison to be effective since we do take many things for granted and these lines bring it down to a very current level that almost everyone can relate to.
At the end of the lectures Lewis uses inductive reasoning to formulate an argument for help. Lewis focuses on the progress organizations like UNICEF, Umoyo and Doctor’s Without Borders have made in helping people in Africa live with HIV/AIDS and helping the people recognize that HIV/AIDS incorporates everyone, not just women. These specific examples and organizations are having a positive impact everywhere they go. I believe Lewis feels that these organizations are the forwarding steps bringing Africa back to the continent Lewis remembers and loves.
Also at the end of his lectures, after portraying a very gruesome and realistic picture of many countries in Africa, Lewis gives hope. “It’s hard not to be in a near stupor of anger. And yet I’m sustained, as so many Africans are, by the memories of what the continent used to be, and the conviction that the present will one day reunite with the best of the past.” Just when the problem seems too far out of control to handle and too depressing to think about, the resiliency conveyed left me with the drive to help. All of the examples provided in my analysis show how Stephen Lewis wrote a fantastic rhetorical appeal which really made me think with a different perspective and want to make changes to help stop this pandemic.
So my question is how close to home does a pandemic of this magnitude have to hit before we take notice and help? Also, why is it once the media stops covering stories such as these, do we just forget about the people who desperately need our help?
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
O'er the Land of the Free, and the Home of All That is Fair?
After reading Margaret Atwood’s “Letter to America” I felt as if I could not relate to it fully since it conveyed a life from the forties and fifties which is far before my time. I did not read the Disney comic books, listen to radio shows, or watch any of the movies she mentioned. To be honest, I have only heard of one out of the three movies. I was raised in a time where the works Atwood describes are part of study material assigned throughout grade school. I am clearly not her intended audience when it comes to this letter. I can debate that the letter was written for the older audience who grew up during these times and I can also debate that the letter was written for the younger generation. I believe though, that this letter was intended for an older audience: an aging society who grew up in the United States during this era which was full of economic growth. The average American, at this time, held white-collar jobs and were able to afford education and luxuries such as books and movies. This is who Atwood is catering to.
Now that I know who Atwood was writing for, I wanted to find out why she wrote it. This letter was first published on March 28, 2003 in the Globe and Mail newspaper. This is after the September 11th attack on the Twin Towers, after the shock the whole world endured from this blow and after the United States sent troops over to Afghanistan. This letter was written at a time when the “War on Terrorism” started to show it’s true colors; many innocent American soldiers were dying and quickly. I say this because the American people were so fueled by hurt, loss, anger, humiliation and revenge that they made a decision based upon those feelings and when the war did not end as quickly as anticipated those emotions calmed which lead many American’s to question whether this was the right decision; is the loss worth the gains? Atwood’s purpose, to me, is to have Americans start to focus positively on themselves instead of negatively about the surrounding world. She says, “Anyway, when did you get so scared? You didn‘t use to be easily frightened.” I think she is challenging the American people to change their thought paths, put their money and efforts into supporting their own people to do greatness instead of dumping it into security, national defense and war.
Atwood’s “Letter to America” fuelled a lot of controversy and left room for others to refute her thoughts. To me, I think that this letter could be more effective if she didn’t just focus on childhood memories but focused on true life events during the time. There was war - World War 2 ended in 1945 and The Cold War started in 1953. This is all during the era she is mentioning about as being a “better time.” I find it unfair for Atwood to write about only the good aspects of the era and fail to mention that there was war. I wonder if any of her childhood memories included the brutalities caused by those wars? The people who grew up during this time remember it and that is why I think many find it hard to accept her thoughts. They seem incomplete.
If she had incorporated a realistic picture of her era, the letter would be extremely effective, if not at the time, later that year. I am talking about Operation Red Dawn and the capture of Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2003. Had Atwood mentioned the wars in her letter, the American people might be inclined to dissect the US’s approach to values, morals, and beliefs. I say this because during the Gulf War the United States government, who was supposed to be neutral in the war, funded Iraq which was lead by Saddam Hussein. When Iran and Syria stopped Iraqi oil production and movement through their territories, the United States started funding the use of chemical weapons and turning a blind eye. Are those not crimes against humanity? Many families and individuals were brutalized by this act and even though it was a breath of fresh air to the whole world that Hussein was captured, what does that say about the USA when it can accuse Hussein of such heinous crimes and act like they had no part what so ever in any of it. By being able to analyze this, the American people might see how their current ways are destroying what is beloved and great about the United States of America.
So I pose a question - Does Margaret Atwood write a fair piece or is she holding onto a childhood memory that is inaccurate due to egocentricity of youth?
Now that I know who Atwood was writing for, I wanted to find out why she wrote it. This letter was first published on March 28, 2003 in the Globe and Mail newspaper. This is after the September 11th attack on the Twin Towers, after the shock the whole world endured from this blow and after the United States sent troops over to Afghanistan. This letter was written at a time when the “War on Terrorism” started to show it’s true colors; many innocent American soldiers were dying and quickly. I say this because the American people were so fueled by hurt, loss, anger, humiliation and revenge that they made a decision based upon those feelings and when the war did not end as quickly as anticipated those emotions calmed which lead many American’s to question whether this was the right decision; is the loss worth the gains? Atwood’s purpose, to me, is to have Americans start to focus positively on themselves instead of negatively about the surrounding world. She says, “Anyway, when did you get so scared? You didn‘t use to be easily frightened.” I think she is challenging the American people to change their thought paths, put their money and efforts into supporting their own people to do greatness instead of dumping it into security, national defense and war.
Atwood’s “Letter to America” fuelled a lot of controversy and left room for others to refute her thoughts. To me, I think that this letter could be more effective if she didn’t just focus on childhood memories but focused on true life events during the time. There was war - World War 2 ended in 1945 and The Cold War started in 1953. This is all during the era she is mentioning about as being a “better time.” I find it unfair for Atwood to write about only the good aspects of the era and fail to mention that there was war. I wonder if any of her childhood memories included the brutalities caused by those wars? The people who grew up during this time remember it and that is why I think many find it hard to accept her thoughts. They seem incomplete.
If she had incorporated a realistic picture of her era, the letter would be extremely effective, if not at the time, later that year. I am talking about Operation Red Dawn and the capture of Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2003. Had Atwood mentioned the wars in her letter, the American people might be inclined to dissect the US’s approach to values, morals, and beliefs. I say this because during the Gulf War the United States government, who was supposed to be neutral in the war, funded Iraq which was lead by Saddam Hussein. When Iran and Syria stopped Iraqi oil production and movement through their territories, the United States started funding the use of chemical weapons and turning a blind eye. Are those not crimes against humanity? Many families and individuals were brutalized by this act and even though it was a breath of fresh air to the whole world that Hussein was captured, what does that say about the USA when it can accuse Hussein of such heinous crimes and act like they had no part what so ever in any of it. By being able to analyze this, the American people might see how their current ways are destroying what is beloved and great about the United States of America.
So I pose a question - Does Margaret Atwood write a fair piece or is she holding onto a childhood memory that is inaccurate due to egocentricity of youth?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)