Destruction of Security and The Instillation of Fear

     In Japan’s Kamikaze Pilots And Contemporary Suicide Bombers: War On Terror the author, Yuki Tanaka, shares the connections which drive suicide warfare. Tanaka first talks about the Japanese Kamikaze pilots during World War II. He gives much background information to the source and training of the kamikaze pilots. This effectively creates ethos early in the essay because the reader senses Tanaka’s knowledge of the fighter pilots. Tanaka also keeps an unbiased stance when he mentions the two differing views regarding the kamikaze pilots. This allows Tanaka’s article to be accepted by more people since he does not take the side of the military or the families of the dead pilots but just states the facts of WWII.
     [Tanaka] also uses pathos in his article when he talks about the psychological themes that allowed for a kamikaze pilot to accept their mission. (Tanaka 296) This helps the reader connect on a cognitive level with the pilots. Most people can relate to the pilots’ views regarding sacrificing their lives for their family and friends. These themes also help the reader see that these fighter pilots were not unstable and wishing to die. They were people who needed support and comradery to see through a mission of this magnitude.
     Tanaka starts to create logos when he talks about the contemporary suicide bombers. He starts off by talking about the differences between the kamikaze pilots and the suicide bombers: the introduction of civilian targets. Tanaka shows how the two wars, under different circumstances, can be the same. That is if Japan had the opportunity of civilian targets. This lets the reader easily accept the comparison when some of the major elements are different. Tanaka starts to form his purpose at this point in the article with the introduction of the United State’s military actions brought into the comparisons as well. This forces the reader to see the mentality of the current warfare and how it is no different than that of kamikaze pilots or suicide bombers. Once the reader makes that connection, Tanaka’s next lines are the most important when trying to break the reader’s current opinion of the US’s war practices. “This similarity is not surprising. This is because the indiscriminate bombing of civilians conducted by military forces is nothing but state violence against civilians, that is, it is state terrorism.” (Tanaka 298) Tanaka has successfully stripped the possible high opinion the reader may have of the United State’s actions and shown them to be on the same scale as the opposing side.
     At the end of the article is where Tanaka states his purpose and challenges the reader to think. He brings it back to the beginning to show that the contemporary warfare is not new but has been adapted from its origins. Japan’s desperation to end the war created kamikaze pilots. US’s response was Hiroshima. Now the cycle is continuing and we are so willing to accept that our end is not the problem because it’s “legitimate military operations.” (Tanaka 300) In the end it is still the same and we need a change; terrorism is terrorism no matter if it’s civilian driven or military driven and Tanaka’s purpose is to challenge the reader to think of a more effective way to deal with warfare so needless people do not have to suffer. After reading the article and following Tanaka’s logical connections I am able to see the desperation and fear on both sides of the war. Finding a solution though is not easy. If you were to be the leader for change on the war against terrorism, what would your solution be?

Can Outsourcing Create a Safer World?

     This week we read Thomas Friedman’s essay 30 Little Turtles. The essay’s purpose is to persuade the reader to look at the outsourcing of jobs from the perspective of the people who gain employment in less wealthy countries. Friedman talks about the “self-confidence, dignity and optimism” (Friedman 177) that comes from outsourcing low-wage jobs to other countries. The intended audience are people who are against outsourcing. [Friedman] says we should look at the positive aspects outsourcing has for less wealthy countries. (177) Outsourcing to Friedman means creating a safer world since it gives many less fortunate countries another option for employment and life.
     Friedman tries to have the reader look through another lens at the situation and does so through the use of pathos. He creates the emotional appeal by talking about his personal experience reading a paragraph to a room full of young Indians. Friedman’s experience paints a picture of enthusiastic young adults eagerly trying to acquire the skills required to help the Canadian or US consumer. [Friedman] also says how the Indian workers will go as far as to change the way they talk to better serve their client base. (176) This gives me the sense that the Indian people are respectful of their jobs and strive to do the job to the best of their abilities.
     Friedman’s use of ethos creeps up again in the essay when he interviews a few of the Indian workers. Their responses are very positive which leads the reader to think that the outsourced jobs are “dream jobs.” The quotes being used seemed very un-natural and westernized though. I became unnerved when reading the quotes because they made me feel as if the Indian people idealized our society of independence and wealth but could not obtain this by any other means than our outsourced jobs. These lines were meant to make the reader feel good about the help North America has given less fortunate countries. 
     In the last paragraph [Friedman] says that outsourcing is one way to make a safer world since countries like India and Pakistan can benefit from our low-wage, low-prestige jobs. (177) How will outsourcing create a safer world if people who already have jobs lose them to a competitor who is willing to work for far less than the cost of living in North America? This creates resentment and hatred; a gateway for violence. This essay is also a contradiction of its purpose because it is littered with stereotypes such as, “They say you people are really good at what you do. I am glad I reached an Indian.” Even though this is a positive response it still is very stereotypical. Not to mention Friedman’s example about the Palestinian men who “talked about having no hope, no jobs and no dignity, and...they were all ‘suicide bombers in waiting.’” (Friedman 177) So without the help from our outsourcing, apparently, all Indian and Palestinian people have nothing to look forward to except suicide bombing?  These two examples display Friedman's lack of sensitivity towards the people he is writing about.  Making broad statements about the young Palestinean men is just reinforcing stereotypes which also foster hatred and violence.
     I hear the point that Friedman is trying to convey and see the means in which he delivers it. Where the problem lies for me is in Friedman’s logic for creating a safer world. I may be wrong but I am under the impression that many of the suicide bombers do so for religious purposes. These are very radical religious people who commit these acts. If this is the case how will an outsourced job deter a radical’s religious standpoint? Also, what about our immediate safety if our low-wage, low-prestige jobs are outsourced and only the medium to high wage and prestige jobs remain? Would that not just create a larger gap between the rich and poor?  Areas where physical safety is in constant jeopardy are usually linked with poverty.  By outsourcing jobs overseas we are raising the unemployment rate which simultaniously increases the poverty rate.  Since unsafe demographics can be linked to poverty, outsourcing directly undermines the thought of a safer world.  And with the occurance of poverty linked violence far outweighing suicide bombing percentage wise wouldn't it seem more productive to keep the jobs in North America so poverty stricken people have a hope becoming secure and stable?  Maybe we should look at it this way; North America can not effectively help other areas of the world unless we can look within and strengthen ourselves first.