During class we're focusing on the rhetorical structure and moves of these editorials. What do you think about the content though? Choose any one of the editorials and write a response to it (What was effective? What wasn't? What did you like? What did you hate?)
due 9/29
In the New York Times article ‘Islam in Two America’ by Ross Douthat, the author provided a concept, which might be foreign to the audience. This concept involves the idea of the United States being separated by two different ‘Americas’: one claiming America to have both a Constitutional approach and a cultural approach to Islam. Douthat’s article brings to light the hypocritical ways of many Americans with a very attention grabbing opening, presenting the reader with two very different first-hand accounts of America. The author’s mention of past forms of religious prosecution, such as the kind ‘unambiguously Catholic’ and Mormons were subjected to help to point out parallels between the author’s argument and reality. I did, however, find it took the author a bit of time to finally get to his thesis, completely avoiding conversation of the mosque in New York City for two entire paragraphs and not even a subtle hint in the title. I enjoyed the analogies of the First and Second America when it came to reactions about the mosque, with each ‘side’ stating their case. Although I believe the article to have a slight leaning towards the acceptance of Islam for every American, the article fails to sway as much as it does reports different ideologies for the reader to interpret. Douthat concludes by saying that although the First America is good theoretically, it takes the action and motivation of the Second America to make any form of change occur. This very interesting article presents the reader with both sides of the argument and has the reader question which side they endorse. Unfortunately, I doubt many individuals who fall into the ‘Second America’ category typically read publications such as the New York Times, but regardless, Douthat is making a statement about a much-debated topic without directly making any such statement.
ReplyDeleteThe content of each editorial is different in its own way. The content varies from politics to religion to the rights of women. Each editorial had enough content to explain what the purpose was for each editorial and why they think their voice should be heard.
ReplyDeleteIn Saudi Arabia and Its Women they explain how change needs to happen sooner rather than later for women’s rights. This was shown in the New York Times to show a large group of people how poorly Saudi Arabia women are treated. I think this was an effective way to get the word out about Saudi Arabia women, even though this is more of an informing editorial about the rights or lack of rights of the women. With the editorial being in the New York Times it will help to reach out to people who might actually be able to help with the situation in some kind of way. I found this editorial to be informing about Saudi Arabia women. Before reading this I did not know that they have very little rights to do anything. Even though by reading this it makes me think about how miserable it must be for the women there, I think to myself what could I actually do to help the situation. There was not anything really to hate about this editorial in my opinion. I liked that the editorial had details about the women and gave dates to when they would be able to actually have their rights available to them and gave exact percentages. This gives credibility to the writer. It shows that the writer actually thought and cared about this editorial. With the editorial ending with a question, it gives the reader something to think about after reading. If could engaged the reader to look into Saudi Arabia women and their rights later after reading.
Elizabeth Mault
ReplyDeleteEditorial Blog
9/27/2011
Islam In Two Americas
The editorial titled "Islam In Two Americas" gives a description of the public opinion of two extreme cases on how American's view the American Islamic community, and more so, the controversial subject of the mosque near ground zero.
The editorial begins with comparing and contrasting the two different views. The first America being described is a very liberal America. It consists on acceptance, growth, and community. The second America is portrayed very differently. In fact, it gives the idea that these Americans are very closed off and stand-offish. Besides the compare and contrast of the two different view points, the article gives light to historical account of assimilation and hate towards an ethnic group. I believe this definitely gives the article credibility and even a driving purpose as to why it is being written.
However, I doubt that this article was meant to sway the reader in anyway due to its left leaning views of accepting Islam in America. This piece published in the New York times is a very informative piece with several bias statements, but all in all it is a very interesting editorial.
I really enjoyed the article "Islam in Two Americas". I feel that the content was very strong and eye opening for all parties. Not only was the content strong but it was enhanced with the format in which the article was written. It was almost like a game of ping pong as he flipped back and forth between the two depictions of America. At the end of the article he finally addresses foreign nations in what their leaders need to understand about the way America works. I was not sure what the author stood for until reading the end. I did not like the fact that the article was written in a way that made me have negative feelings towards America. It was still tastefully written but just seemed to depict an America that as a US citizen I don't want to be a product of. I also felt that it lacked a strong sense of persuasion. It's almost like a sales call where throughout the piece there should be little trial closes to continuously persuade the audience. Overall, a great and enjoyable article.
ReplyDeleteThe editorials all seemed to a central theme. Each articles was a call for compromise, whether it was a compromise between political parties, religious groups, or interest groups. Every article introduced a conflict that they claimed could be solved if each side just budged a little bit.
ReplyDeleteI think the article by the senator demonstrates this the best. We've all been extremely frustrated by the workings of the house before, and the author voices emotions we've all felt. This made his argument very effective. I like how he broke the issue down into two basic problems. The constant campaigning, and the non-compromising mindset.
I try to avoid politics, however my family is very heavily involved in it, I have actually heard these laments on how professional candidates are getting elected to positions they aren't really qualified for. The set of skills needed to campaign, and the skill set for governing are actually quite different.
The thing that strikes home the hardest for me though is the party mentality that "if we can't have my favorite kind of cake, then no one gets any cake at all" it is flat out maddening.
My only compliant with the article is that the author didn't really offer a solution to the problem other than a simple call to action. the people he is directly addressing have shown they won't change unless given the proper incentives. But this is a minor complaint since no one really has a decent solution to the whole politics problem.
Although it was the longest of the articles, "Why I'm Leaving the Senate" voiced an opinion which have agreed with for quite some time. Politicians are to focused on their election, rather than creating laws which help the American people. Bayh used his own experiences in the Senate to back his claims, which is probably one of the best places to gather data on this subject. I thought in general, all of the points he made were valid. The only thing i feel he should change is the removal of some of the back stories. Several times he draws on a personal anecdote to prove his point. However due to the length and number of uses of these anecdotes the article gets lengthy quite fast.
ReplyDeleteThe article in class that I found had the best rhetorical persuasion was “Saudi Arabia and Its Women”. The Middle East is an extremely different place than the United States and our cultures and values clash almost in every aspect. I thought that the article did a good job pointing out the importance of women in society and how Saudi Arabia is still in the dark. Their culture grants women fewer rights than those of the United States and it is hurting Saudi Arabia’s state of affairs.
ReplyDeleteThe content of the article is what I liked the best because it was short and to the point. The objective or thesis is clearly stated in the first paragraph: that women need rights in Saudi Arabia. The article plays on the emotions of the audience as well as the logic of having women in culture, it will enhance that culture. The article first brings up that women finally have the right to vote, which is a step in the right direction. However, women in Saudi Arabia need a bigger push if they are going to be active members of society. They still can’t drive, have low rape protection, and they still need approval of a male family member to vote.
I thought bringing up these particular facts allows for an effective argument. I agree, I find that it is essential that Saudi Arabia or any other country for that matter, allow women to have equal rights in order for the betterment of society. The last piece of evidence that I thought was effective was the fact that 58 percent of women are college graduates but only 14 percent are in the actual work force. If women are unable to fulfill a career that they have a certain degree in, how could this possibly better society?
I thought the article did a good job of persuading and I thought that they got their point across thoroughly in a short amount of time.
Women's rights is always a hot topic in our world. In the article Saudi Arabia and Its Women the editorial gives King Abdullah credit for his decision to give women the right to vote and so forth but there is still change that needs to be made. There is a long list of fundamental rights that are still denied to women in Saudi Arabia. The content was effective not only because it was in the New York Times but because the editorial talks about laws that must be changed for women who are raped or suffer domestic abuse, a ban that is against women driving, and much more. Most of us would not know the everyday life of a Saudi Arabian women but after reading this article in the Times, the audience reading this is more educated and thankful for our rights in the U.S. I don't think there was one part of the article that wasn't effective. The editorial talks about the King making forceful changes inspired by pro-democracy movements, this is an effective part of the editorial since, Americans are for countries becoming democratic, like us.
ReplyDeleteThis article is very informing. I was really took back that there is a law that prevents women from driving. I couldn't imagine not being able to get in my car and drive to the store. The fundamental rights that are still denied to these women is absolutely absurd and I am thankful everyday that I live in a country that has women's and people's rights. I liked the information that the author presented in the article, it is great that the women are getting (some) rights but it's definitely upsetting that they will need the approval of a male family member, and the women will not be able to vote and run for municipal elections until 2015, when there is a election that week.
The editorials in class that we examined covered many current hot topics that people feel very strongly on. Women's rights, muslims in america, congresses inefficiency, etc. My personal favorite one was the first one describing how muslims need to be treated, how they can achieve it, and how people in America think about them.
ReplyDeleteThe editorial called "Islam in Two Americas" I felt was one I could best identify. I loved how Douthat so easily managed to split America into two groups in regards to muslims. The first America values the constitution of America where people can be freed from religious persecution and the second america that views America as a singular culture where people speak the same language, worship the same god, and expect all incoming immigrants to do the same that they do.
The way Douthat made mentions to previous religions like Mormonism and how they had to go through similar things as muslims do today serves as a good reference point. However, the way he connects mormonism to muslims is that mormons had to change part of their beliefs to be assimilated into our culture, and it seems that Douthat expects the same from muslims. He seems to say that if muslims want to be accepted, they need to change themselves.
Overall the article was a good read, but I expected something more to be written in the defense of muslims. Instead, the article focuses more on the divide in our country when it came to muslims, and it just talked in detail about the divide. It never gave much to say about how we can close it.
The New York Times article “Islam in Two Americas” was very interesting and enjoyable. It ventures both sides of the attitude towards Islamic Americans highlighting the main point being the mosque located by ground zero. He talks about two different sides of Americans. One of them being an America that is open to different cultures and accepts them for their cultures and tries to learn from it. The other America is polar opposite. The second America shuns any type of change or difference from the American way. This America is very sheltered and is not open to change. My favorite part of the article wasn’t necessarily the content; however it was the way he approached the article. The author constantly switched his perspective back and forth making it a very unique writing style. The part of the article I didn’t like is he gave no middle ground for an American, which makes his article seem less credible in my mind. He also made Americans seem very rude and conceited in a way. The other part I didn’t like about the article is how he didn’t give his perspective at all. He left me wondering what he thought was the actual attitude. It makes him seem like he doesn’t even know which makes the article lack credibility.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very biased; however, the reader is never able to fully grasp the author’s stance on the subject. Nevertheless, the writing style of the article was very original and captivating. It made me always want to read the next paragraph. I also think that the topic was relatively interesting because it is extremely controversial. I just wish that the author would have either shed some light on the situation or he would have given us his own opinion. It would have made this piece that much stronger.
In class on Tuesday, we examined a few editorials that had been posted in the New York Times. While I found most of them to be very interesting, I especially liked the article titled, "Why I'm Leaving the Senate". First of all, I've heard that you should never judge a book by its cover, and similarly, my attention was focused onto this article by just reading the title. The title alone shows the audience that the article is going to be one with a point of view or opinion. The structure of the article made it hard to reveal the exact problem, and result of Evan Bayh's point of view. I think it could have been arranged in a better way. The reason why it was difficult to identify a problem was because of the pull of attention on America's favorite pastime: Baseball. The article gained my focus by the use of pathos. I found myself a lot more interested in reading the issues about the reformation of congress after reading about the link of September 11th and the Senate's relationship. Overall, I believe that Pathos was the rhetorical strategy used in multiple instances in order to gain more compliance to Bayh's idea about the constant struggle between members of the Senate. It makes me feel sad that adults can only get along when a national crisis occurs. Most of all, it worries me that our government has such a distaste for agreement between parties. What kind of an example does that set for the rest of society? I believe that the author intended to effect my emotions in this exact way in order to spur on relevant questions. I think the author did a good job of using Pathos as the main use of rhetorical strategies in his article as he fully succeeded in persuading me.
ReplyDelete