Commentary #3

First off I really enjoyed the quote as an attention grabber for the argument. It really fits with your argument that we should be able to see real-world images. However, you tend to lose the reader when you make the statement hoping for a perfect utopia with no violence. At the end of the introductory paragraph, there is no clear direction in which you go. From your thesis you believe that real-world images should be shown, but you never justify this claim with reasons. I suggest that you make an argument why the public should see the images. Talk about certain principles that censorship violates and why this is morally problematic.

            The second paragraph offers more of a solution than stating a violation of a certain principle. This should be included more in the proposal argument. The paragraph also lacks a criteria that is associated with your thesis. To improve this, a suggestion could be to layout a principle on why we should not censor, explain it, and defend it with some research you have found on this issue. You could also weigh this issue, making your argument that much more effective.

            The criteria in the third paragraph is very ambiguous. I have a tough time seeing where you are trying to go with this paragraph. It also does not really relate to your thesis that there should not be any censorship. My suggestion would be to have a second criteria that defends the public's right to see these violent images. To bolster this paragraph you could include another piece of evidence that is pertinent to this criteria.

            The piece of evidence used in the fourth paragraph is one that could be challenged by a skeptical audience. The biggest problem readers could find in the piece of evidence is that it does not have anything to really do with your thesis. How the media covered the Iraq War, from the perspective of the smaller countries involved compared to that for more prominent countries, does not enhance your argument that we should see real-world violent images. The analysis of the quote focuses more on the corruption in the media, which could be a criteria you are trying to argue; however that criteria is not clearly addressed in the paragraph. If that is your criteria, you might have to defend it because everyone might not agree with it.

            What could greatly benefit your argument is an inclusion of the opposing views to your position. Once doing that, discredit them and your argument would be that much better. Another improvement could be to also better your conclusion. It is an abrupt stop to your argument. I think you should wrap everything up succinctly.

            If the thesis is improved, you argument will be that much better. Give an explanation on why we should not censor violent images for the public. In your body paragraphs, present certain principles that relate back to your thesis. Use compelling evidence to argue your thesis. Once this is done, your argument will be that much more compelling.

 

For Soudabeh Sabour    

"Vivisection" by C.S. Lewis

Questions that the author attempts to answer:
1. What are some of the holes in the arguments of both sides of the debate on vivisection?
2. Is human life more important animal life?
Question for the author?
3. What do you believe is the status of humans in the animal kingdom and does the Bible affect your belief?

Throughout our anthropology, we grown accustomed to this idea of the superiority of man over animal.  We have domesticated animal for humans, we use them for sources of entertainment, and they constitute a great majority of our food supplies. In addition, with the dawn of the scientific revolution in the 18th century, animals have been used in experiments. Vivisection refers to the scientific experimentation on living animals. In his piece "Vivisection", author C.S. Lewis discusses the arguments of the proponents and those against vivisection. He shows the justification of both sides and then rebukes them; however it can be concluded that Lewis is in favor of vivisection from his belief that man is more important than animal.

            After presenting the theological argument that man is more important than animal, Lewis presents the "naturalists" with no theological background. He describes them as individuals "who will most contemptuously brush aside any consideration of animal suffering if it stands in the way of research will also, on another context, most vehemently deny that there is any radical difference between man and the other animals" (226). Lewis points out the hypocrisy of the naturalists who experiment on animals in the name of science that only really benefits humans. He feels we should not hold animals in captivity to research them and their behavior just so we can have a great understanding of these animals. This way of thinking is very similar to the religious idea that man is more important than animal since they are subject to our research.

            Lewis believes that the perception that animal is inferior to man must be in place or dangerous consequences could ensue. If that is abandoned, then why not experiment on men that we could consider inferior, such as "imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists" (227). This leads to s slippery slope in that the definition of inferiority becomes subjective in the eyes of who wants to do the experimentation on the men that they considered inferior. Nazis could experiment on non-Aryans, colonizers could experiment on slaves from Africa. Lewis argues that there is an innate relationship between humans in that we are also the same species. We should respect it. I do not believe that Lewis does not have any empathy towards animals, he just has a utilitarian view that the well-being of the human race is of the upmost importance.

"Shooting an Elephant" by George Orwell

Questions that the author attempts to answer:
1. What is the perspective of individuals who work on behalf of the colonial power?
2. What role do the natives play in how an officer does their job?
3. What effects does colonialism have on the colonial power?

In looking back on the history of the colonial period, much of the attention is focused on the colonial power and the subjects under the colonial rule. We discuss how the interests of the colonizing country came to fruition, from the extracting of natural resources to using coerced workers to create cheaper costs. We also look from the perspective of the natives, seeing the horrible working conditions they had to endure, the destruction of their native culture, and the deaths of many family members. However, not as much thought is given to the people who worked on behalf of the colonial power.

            In his piece “Shooting an Elephant”, George Orwell recalls a personal experience when he was a police officer for the British Empire in Burma. While a majority of this exposition was about his story killing an elephant, he states his position on the colonial circumstance as thus, “I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British” (1). Orwell comes to this conclusion from all the atrocities that he has witnessed during his tenure as the police officer. He says that he could “see the dirty work of [the] Empire at close quarters” (1). He is very critical of the British and towards the colonialist model that had been used by so many nations in Europe.

            Although Orwell shows his disdain for European colonialism, he also realizes that it is going to be difficult to demolish it. The elephant in this piece is used not to just tell a story, but is symbolic of the beast that is colonialism. One shot was not able to kill the elephant. It took multiple shots for the elephant to then collapse, but it still did not die. Orwell describes the beast as “powerless to move and yet powerless to die” (7). All of this is a metaphor of a system that is going to be hard to eradicate. Colonialism greatly benefitted the European countries that they will not give them up so easily, just like how the elephant was holding on for its life. Orwell fears that colonialism, amidst all of its egregious aspects, will sustain. However, just like the elephant, it will be gone.   

           

Commentary #2

The author has a good beginning but the thesis needs to be improved. I feel the thesis has nothing to do with your position on the rhetorical effectiveness of the piece, it is just regurgitating the argument that Hitchens makes. The thesis needs to show your position on how successful the piece was at using rhetorical strategies to makes the argument. For the thesis, I would consider finding what you thought of the piece and how these strategies affected your opinion of it. 

The paragraph of ethos is off to a good start, but it can be expanded more. The topic sentence does not really refer back to your thesis. Also the content that follows in the paragraph does not really relate to the topic sentence. Your first example was really strong in how Hitchens alludes to ethos by building a bridge and relating to his audience. Your second point was great. Hitchens has immense amount of credibility because he underwent a session of waterboarding. I think you should expand on that a little more because it was very effective. I think you should show more of the success of these appeals for the reader.

A lot of time needs to be spent on the section that appeals to pathos. There is not real direct evidence pulled from the original text. While you did paraphrase, I think it would be more effective if you used direct quotes. I think you could go in the direction of talking about the concrete and vivid diction used while Hitchens describes his experience being waterboarded. You could also talk about the specific details that Hitchens goes into before the actual act. Then tie in how effective these appeals to pathos are.

The topic sentence for the logos section talks about the effects of logos in the text, but it does not talk about how successful or not the appeals to logos were in the argument that Hitchens made. Instead it talks about a claim that can be inferred from the core argument that the author makes. The first piece of evidence that you used was good, but I think it could be made stronger. I think many people would counter that point and say that this is just one incident and does not represent the great majority of intelligence gathered from this technique. Your evaluation of the quote was good, but it should include how successful it was for the audience. I think another concrete piece of evidence, like a quote, could greatly benefit this section. 

The appeal to kairos was good and could be expanded upon. I would consider removing the history after 2008 when the piece was written. I think the sole focus should be placed during the time leading up to when this piece was written.

To earn a better score, the thesis must be improved. It should not repeat the argument that Hitchens made in his piece. It has to be your evaluation of his argument and talk about whether the appeals to the rhetorical strategies were successful or not. After that, all body paragraphs with their examples should tie back to your thesis. Once that is completed, you will earn an excellent grade. 

 

 

"A Small Place" by Jamaica Kincaid

Questions that the author attempts to answer:

1. What was the experience like for a country under colonial rule?

2. What are the conditions living in a post-colonial era?

3. How are foreigners perceived by natives of impoverished countries?

Antigua, a tropical island in the Caribbean, has become a huge vacation spot for Westerners as they seek refuge and a break from the crazy lives they live back home. We get this feel that we are truly in paradise as we reside on an tropical island surrounded by white sandy beaches and pristine oceans. It may be a paradise for the tourists, but life on the island for the natives is not as great. In her piece "A Small Place", Jamaica Kincaid writes in an accusatory tone as she shows contempt for the individuals that have no idea of what Antigua is actually like. She dives into the history of colonialism that the natives had to endure under the control of the English empire and also the current state of this impoverished country. There is an empathy gap that Kincaid is trying to highlight in order to open the eyes of the Western world.

Citizens of this nation tend to lose sight of the privileges that come with living in this country. I know I do. I always expect there to be power and electricity--when the huge blackout occurred a few years ago I did not know what to do. I always take for granted that I can take a hot shower on a winter morning. These are luxuries that only a select few in the world can feel experience. Kincaid also points out that many of us get bored with life so we go on vacation, another privilege that only a select few can do as well. This is in stark contrast to the desolate living conditions of Antiguans and their inability to escape them. 

Kincaid uses Antigua as a symbol of all colonized nations under the colonial period of world history. The problems that Antigua faces are not exclusively to them, they are problems that all former colonized nations have been through. Just like Antigua was robbed of its own other language, countries in Africa and Latin America lost their languages to European powers. Language provides a national identity for a people. When that is lost to a foreign entity, nationalism is much weaker. European powers, as a means to exploit natural resources, used coerced labor to maximize output. Natives of these lands were dehumanized as they were viewed as commodities as opposed to human beings. The flow of money, more often than not, land into the hand of the foreign power, like in the case of the Barclays Brothers. 

Americans cannot relate to any of this because since this period of decolonization begun, after the end of World War II, our country has been the world's preeminent superpower. Kincaid wants to give us more context on why there is so much poverty into the world. She wants to open our eyes to what conditions most people in the world population are living in.

"Regarding the Pain of Others" by Susan Sontag

Questions that the author attempts to answer:

1. How has the camera and the media played a role in war coverage?

2. What is the response among the masses upon viewing these shocking photos?

3. What are some factors that decide whether or not photos of war will be shown to the public?

Photography has been able to provide the masses with the unbelievable destruction that comes with the territory of war. With its inception in the 19th century, photography has shown many morbid pictures of war: bodies spread out in the fields of Antietam during the Civil War, mounds or corpses in desolate trenches in Europe during World War I. In her piece "Regarding the Pain of Others", Susan Sontag points at that "the scale of war's murderousness destroys what identifies people as individuals, even as human beings" (61). To her point I believe she is on to something.

While photography can replicate the image, it cannot replicate the emotional feelings that one gets from viewing the photo as opposed to being at the scene . I believe that is one of the negative effects that has occurred from photos relating to the destruction of war. As a viewer, there is a sense of separation that one feels upon viewing these graphic photos. We can see the death and the carnage, but it does not strike a deeper chord with us. I know for me, emotionally I would be smacked in the face if I stood on a battlefield and saw dead bodies riddled on a field. It would strike a chord in me because of the human element and connection that I could feel. When I old photos from World War I of bodies on a field with their heads turned from the camera, they look more like objects than deceased human beings. It can look staged and I feel bereft of raw emotion. 

That way of thinking is dangerous because we undermine the humanity that was lost. Casualties are not just statistics and numbers. They are divine individuals with special qualities that make them strictly unique. They are individuals who had hopes and dreamers shattered by the destructions of war. They are members of families that have now lost someone truly special. Sontag's point is to warn us that we should not dehumanize the loss of life, something that we tend to do upon viewing photos from the battlefield.

"9/11" and "A Few Weeks After" by Susan Sontag

Questions That the Author Attempts to Answer:
1. What was the public reaction to the attacks on September 11th?
2. What was the scene like at Ground Zero in the aftermath of the attack?
Question for the author:
3. How would you describe that attacks on 9/11?

In the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11th, emotions were running high as we Americans tried to process what just happened. Ever since this country's creation, we have been relatively immune to see carnal destruction on the home front. So when two airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center, symbols that represented the strength of the American economy, we took a punch in the gut. In here piece "9/11" and "A Few Weeks After", Susan Sontag highlights the reaction of the media and public figures as they tried to console the American people with a "campaign to infantilize". President Bush called this a "cowardly attack". Susan Sontag takes issue with this, and I myself would agree with this.

            I do not know how you define a cowardly attack. Is it an attack out of fear? Is it a cheap shot? From our perspective, we believed it was a cheap shot. We did not see it coming, we could not prepare for it, and it was from a new enemy that we had not dealt with before. It was such a huge blow to our morale that a tiny group could cause this much destruction to world's greatest superpower.

            If anything the attacks on 9/11 were on the opposite end of the spectrum of a cowardly attack. This was an orchestrated, systematic attempt by al-Qaeda to inflict harm to the West and modernity. We may never know why they did it, whether it be to avenge previous injustices caused by the United States in the Middle East or it be on behalf of God. These monsters knew what they were doing.

            Sontag argues that we do not have to be coddled in the aftermath of this tragic event. We must grieve for the innocent lives that were lost. And she is right. We live in a world that is full of evil and tragic things are going to happen to us. We can be made stronger only during the times when we are tested.   

"Believe Me, It's Torture" by Christopher Hitchens

Questions that the Author Attempts to Answer:
1. What are the feelings that a prisoner goes through when they are waterboarded?
Questions for the Author:
2. What are some alternative replacements for torture?
3. Is killing a suspect terrorist more egregious than waterboarding them

 

Since the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11^th, the United States has been involved in a global war on terror. One of the instruments issued to combat this threat is torture, and more specifically waterboarding. In his piece “Believe Me, It’s Torture”, Christopher Hitchens gives his shocking and quite gripping account of his first-hand experience being subject to the tortuous nature of waterboarding. Hitchens argues that it should be banished as a policy used by the United States government. Personally, I agree with Hitchens that waterboarding is torture. However, during this era of the threat of global terror, waterboarding may need to be a necessary evil.

            One cannot deny that since September 11^th the United States faces an imminent threat from radicalized Muslims who seek to create human destruction. The origins of this threat, whether it stems from the desire for retribution against the United States for past injustices inflicted in the Middle East, or the belief to kill on behalf of God, can be debated. But that does not change the fact that al-Qaeda and other radicalized groups are still trying to hurt the American people. The necessary evils of war might have to be used in order to stop this threat. We could just not do anything; but if another attack were to happen, the public would be outraged that we did not do enough.

            Yes waterboarding is torture, but what can we replace it with to stop the threat? We could just kill them, which is what we are doing as President Obama has expanded the use of drones in the Middle East. I find it quite ironic that President Obama, who ardently criticized the use of waterboarding during the Bush Administration, has resorted to killing them instead of torturing them. Both are morally reprehensible, but killing is worse than torturing. The drone attacks exasperate the hatred of the United States by the Middle East as they see innocent civilians being collateral damage in attacks intended for the suspect terrorist. On top of that, they live in constant fear as drones hover above their sovereign territory.

            This is a very complex issue, but we must realize that we are involved in an effort to stop terror. We are not involved in the traditional meaning of a war, one nation against another, but in a war against an ideology. We may never win and it may never end, but we have to do something against it. It will not be pretty, there will be casualties, and feelings will be hurt. Torture should remain a part of this effort to combat terror, unless we can find a more humane way to deal with this effort that is just as effective as torture. Hitchens’ argument could have been much more effective if he could have presented a viable solution.   

  

 

Commentary #1

Overall, I felt this to be a very compelling argument. The crux of the argument was very strong, but it does need some refining. Your thesis and your claim is very good; however I feel I could be improved by replacing "distractions" with something much more specific. Maybe elaborate a little more on what these distractions are that come from excessive use of technology for communicating with others. Your reasons that support your claim are solid. However, when I read this I only get the sense that you are presenting one reason. All of the paragraphs pertain to essentially the same idea. I believe what would make this argument stronger could be to introduce another strong, compelling reason to support this claim.

            One piece of evidence that I take issue with is the quote that you use from the Fisoun source in the second paragraph on page three. Throughout this paragraph your main point was the people's behavior on-line can lead to an anti-social alienation, which is a valid reason coming from your claim. However this quote concludes that more people are working for their employers from home. I do not see how this conclusion is relative for your claim. One thing that could enhance this paragraph could be to include a piece of evidence  talks about how people  fabricate their lives online. I think a good piece of evidence could be a statistic showing how many people make up things about their life online. This adds to the whole idea that once people are exposed for who they really are and they cannot hide behind a computer screen, then they will feel some "anti-social alienation".

            There was no real consideration for the opposing view. A good acknowledgement of the different views on this subject, I believe, will greatly enhance the argument. After that, poke holes in those views by using a strong piece of evidence such as a statistic, a study, or a conclusion by someone highly regarded in this field, which will thus enhance your own argument, possibly causing your audience to sway to your position.

            A major asset that you have related to your position is your personal experience with this subject. I found the most effective parts of the piece were when you are able to share your personal experience. I think that gives life to your argument and it made me connect with the argument even more. It also establishes credibility on your behalf and I can trust you more on your position. I would consider a lot more personal experience in this piece.    

"Thoughts on Peace in an Air Raid" by Virginia Woolf

Questions that the author attempts to answer:
1. What is the role of women during World War II?
2. How can the world achieve global peace?
3. Are men naturally inclined to be disruptors in the peace process?


While fighting a war against fascism and Nazism, the British people believed they were fighting a war to defend freedom. This stance is taken by world powers as they feel war is the justified when the enemy is assaulting the freedom of a sovereign country. Virginia Woolf, in her piece "Thoughts on Peace in an Air Raid", describes it simply, from England's point-of-view, to "defeat [Hitler], and you will be free" (2).  While Woolf considers the airmen to be true heroes defending her country, she in part, believes, that the men are the disruptors of peace and freedom that she yearns for. She takes a very feminist position as she champions womanhood in an age of chaos.

            Woolf using very vivid language, a prominent feature of this peace, describes a flowing current that is "fast and furious" created by all-male politicians (2). She is alluding to the belligerence and aggressive nature of males as they combat this attack by "[whirling] young airmen up into the sky" (2). Albeit critical of this way of thinking, Woolf does give thanks to men by acknowledging that if they lose, then so do the women. That is the stance she should take because if her country were to lose to the Nazis, her way of life would be a lot worse than before.

            The imagery that she uses at the beginning of her paragraphs was rhetorically very powerful. It gives the reader a clear image of the torment that citizens had to go through and they can be put into the same situation as they hope for peace from the darkness that overwhelmed their lives. With the intended audience being women, Woolf champions a woman's role as a true comforter in an attempt for global peace. Woolf highlights that women would do anything for the sake of peace in the world, even restricting their reproductive privileges (3). Women can just be as powerful as men in creating peace and freedom throughout the world.