Into the Wild
Topic: The ideologies communities have that Chris breaks throughout the film (“ideologies live on because we perpetuate them in our discourses and in the ways in which we build and structure our world (physically and socially)” – here they do not)
- Money – burns money when is completely opposite to our beliefs… most people work for this and save it and treasure it
- New car – rejects nice items when normally people love getting the newest things especially for free
- Social security card – burned government form of identity
- Family – leaves family without saying much, people normally believe that family is who you should stick with/trust/depend on
- New name – Chris to Alexander Supertramp: usually people stick with their birth name and keep this as their sense of self
- Getting a permit to kayak- does not do this: breaks rules the community has that people normally follow
- Personal hygiene- constantly dirty which is not really accepted in society, those that are homeless and unkept are outcasts
- Job- creation of 20th century & doesn’t want one
- Google: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy
- Our book: a set of presuppositions that influences most everything – people’s family lives, their political choices, their intimate and professional relationships” (185/86)
Upon doing a peer editing session in class today on April 7th, I received, thankfully the feedback that I am headed in the right direction. Those who looked at my paper said that they liked the structure I have set up, and that I do a good job weaving the background story together with the picture’s details itself. They also liked some of the specific observations I made, such as how the doctor is sitting shows it is the “calm after the storm.”
One thing that they noticed, and that I need to change, is the way that I word some things. To be exact they say it is “funky” sometimes. For example, “As a doctor in Poland, a country that believed heart transplantation to be impossible, he was against the majority in deciding to try the transplant once given the okay in August of 1987.” I think that to reword this would be a good idea because it will make it sound more clear and thus highlight my point in a better way. I may change it to say, “Rigela is a doctor in Poland, where the majority of people believed a heart transplant to be impossible. Once he was given the “go ahead” for the surgery in August of 1987, he had many skeptics.” Another example is when I worded something strangely so it made the doctor seem like the surgery was successful because he was a smoker, but I fixed that immediately!
I plan to read through to make sure everything sounds more smooth before submitting a final copy!
This photograph of Dr. Zbigniew Religa was taken after a 23 hour heart transplant, depicting a tired Religa watching the vital signs of his patient. As a doctor in Poland, a country that believed heart transplantation to be impossible, he was against the majority in deciding to try the transplant once given the okay in August of 1987. When he finished successfully, and the patient felt better than ever, he was the first to accomplish this in his country.
“I never let him out of my sight, never turned my back on him,” he says. “This was the payoff.” (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/100best/multi4_interview.html)
Religa was also the Head of Cardiovascular Surgery Clinic in Zabrze. The patient’s name was Tadeusz Zitkevits and he actually went on to outlive the doctor, who had lung cancer from his habit of cigarette smoking, proving the surgery’s success. National Geographic released this photo as one of the 100 most important pictures in history after American photographer James Lee Stanfilnt captured it. Stanfilnt was originally looking for an image that would show the critical state of Poland’s free health-care system, and he had bonded with Religa while being a quiet being in the surgeon’s operating room. Both the patient and the photographer attended Religa’s funeral in 2009.
Things that make the image have more meaning, help to narrate a story, and add drama:
- Religa’s colleague sleeping in the corner
- Blood on the ground
- Mess of tangled cables
- Outdated equipment
- Dimmed lighting
- Subject still on surgical table unconscious
- Small, unprofessional looking room
- Looks like the “calm after the storm”
- Gaze- no one is looking at the camera, two are unconscious and the other seems to be preoccupied and unconcerned with the photographer
George, the kisser, and his now wife, Rita, were on a date to the movies when they found out that the Japanese had surrendered. George, then 22, was a Navy quartermaster on leave from the Pacific. He apparently had seen a lot of action, he said, and was nervously waiting to go back. Leaving the theater, beaming, they went to a bar where George and Rita drank. They went to Times Square, and when George saw a women in a nurse’s outfit he remembered watching with awe as the nurses worked on the patients of war, so he kissed her. The woman he kissed was actually a dentist assistant, named Greta, and George said he was too drunk to even remember the kiss. Rita said she was never upset about it!
The photo was originally conceived as a magical fleeting kiss, showing the happiness of winning the war. Today, we know that the woman, Greta, did not actually like the kiss nor was she a nurse. The photo became an icon for how differently the story was viewed then versus what the actual truth behind it was.
This photograph brings your eyes straight to the kiss as the center of the photo. This is a moment that is stopped in time amongst several people moving in the background. The people in the photograph seem to see the kiss as well and take note of it. The sailor and nurse outfit help to create meaning for the photo- that it is of two people involved in war celebrating the fact that it is over.
Reverends Frazier and King
In a short rhetorical reflection I will focus on the ideas that Rev. John Frazier brought to the table during the time that he spoke today during the performance. He began his speech with an introduction to what he was going to talk about and a background on himself. Frazier incorporated information on the time period as well as on information of his personal encounters with what was happening. By doing this, and sharing that if we google his name we could learn more information, he gained credibility. This can be identified as an ethos appeal.
One major trend I saw in his speaking was his inclination to use repetition to emphasize ideas and phrases. For example, he said “Ultimately _____ will not stand,” over and over, filling in the blank with different points. This drew my attention because I thought it must be important if he kept repeating it. Secondly, he had a similar repetitive strategy with the phrase “we have a right to ___.” Finally, he repeated the idea of change – change in our minds and environment – by explaining different ways to get to this, repeating the idea through different wording.
Frazier’s talk was full of personal experiences which evoked pathos from the audience in feelings of sympathy and being upset with what we are hearing. One story which he keened in on was when he was taken to jail where he was beaten and bloody. After this, they poured whiskey into his wounds. This personal story highlights the agony and suffering he went through. No one would say that this event was “okay” or “justified,” which is why it so easily evokes feelings of sympathy.
Finally, toward the end of his speech he made an allusion to God through a scripture from the Christian Bible. It was here that he told us that we are all created to be special and that we can all make a difference.
In Frazier’s speech alone there was an abundance of rhetoric which helped to make the speech run smoothly and persuasively. I learned more about what African Americans had to go through during this time and how unwilling the government was to step in and help.
Progressive Elements: favoring progress, change, improvements, going forward, passing from one member of a series to the next.
- “This great Nation will endure, as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.”
- Progression of USA away from the Great Depression
- “Recognition of that falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit…”
- Progression of the American citizens beliefs from one idea to another
- “There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped by merely talking about it. We must act. We must act quickly.”
- Progression in that it signals a change from only talking about it to actually acting in ways to make it better
- “It is the way to recovery.”
- His ideas are progression for the country in themselves.
- Progression of ideas in a chronological way… FDR first presents the issue, then how/why it happened, then discusses solutions for the future
Repetitive Elements: doing, saying, or writing something again; reiteration.
- Word “failure” is repeated a lot at the beginning mostly – emphasis on the current conditions and how bad they are, thus helping to prove the importance of moving away from this through his solutions
- In one paragraph “It can be helped…” is repeated several times, reassuring the audience that this issue will not remain around forever and that there is hope for the future
- “My friends” is how he constantly addresses the audience, pressing it into their minds that”we are all in this together” and that they have a familiarity with each other
Rhetorical Fallacies: “Logically illegitimate argumentative moves that a critical thinker should reject.”
Example One: Ad Hominem (irrelevant attack on person instead of on the argument itself)
Here, Donald Trump is attacking Mort Zuckerman. We do not know his argument against the New York Daily News, all he is saying is an attack on Zuckerman rather than on his argument to why the paper is bad.
Example Two: Bandwagon (arguing for an idea on the grounds that a large number of people agrees)
This implies that because 18 million Americans have gained coverage, everyone wants Obamacare, when that is not the case.