AOW 24

Post # 24

Nelson Mandela Inaugural Address

Author:
Famous apartheid protester and later president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela is world renowned for work in building a nation from the bottom up and fighting injustice until the day he died.

Summary:
Mandela was the first democratically elected president of South Africa, and this is his inaugural address. It talks little of what will happen, and focuses on how the nation has pulled itself from being the “universal base of the pernicious ideology and practice of racism and oppression” to a nation liberated from its own path and set on a new one. He thanks the nations who supported them and allowed them to free themselves, and he pledges to the people that the country will never go back to what it was. He refers to it as a “common victory for human justice, for peace, for human dignity”. His basic premise is that it is time to start reconstruction of South Africa.

Analysis: The battle of apartheid was won by international collaboration, when countless other nations decided to end trade with South Africa. In face of this triumph, Mandela bases a lot of his points on the power of unity, both within his international allies and within a nation torn with racism. His purpose is to bring all the people of the country together to rebuild the country, and we know that it will be tough journey but his dream is realized.
Some devices he used to achieve this were –
Ethos: Obvious but powerful. Although he has just been elected president, he maintains a very humble tone with phrases like “all of us”, “to my compatriots”, “we all share” “humbled”. At the beginning of the speech he connects himself with the geography of the nation by talking about the mimosa trees and the summer flowers. The only word he uses to refer to himself is “we”.
Parallelism: There are two places in the speech where he has three parallel phrases used to emphasize a point. For example, the one at the end of the speech is “Let there be justice for all. Let there be peace for all. Let there be work… and salt for all.”
Repetition: He repeats what the country once was multiple times. For example, he lists “bondage of poverty, deprivation, suffering, and gender” in slight variations several times.
References to foreign allies: He refers particularly to America’s fight for freedom from England so long ago with embedded phrases like “we the people”, “inalienable rights” and “God bless Africa”.
Juxtaposition: It is used in the speech to contrast soft ideas of the future with the harsh reality of the past. In the second paragraph he speaks of blooming flowers and mimosa trees. In the next paragraph, he talks about a nation torn apart, “spurned, outlawed, and isolated”. Later he lists traits of the new nation like “democratic, non-racial” then says they will leave the “valley of darkness”.

AOW #23

The Women We Love to Hate

Rebecca Dana

The Author:
Rebecca Dana is a senior correspondent for The Daily Beast. A former editor and reporter for The Wall Street Journal, she has also written for The New York Times, The New York Observer, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, and Slate, among other publications.

The Article:

In light of the recent uproar about Patriots quarterback Terry Bradshaw’s girlfriend, Gisele’s, cursing fit after the super bowl. Rising as the villain of the incident, she made her husband a laughing stock when she told her friends to “pray for Tommy” then continued to embarrass with her unprecedented tirade.  Fans are furious, but the article illuminates this trend that occurs in professional athletics where the wives of famous athletes, nicknamed WAGS in England, often serve as the “convenient lightning rod” after their spouses take a loss. Clearly sympathetic to Gisele, the author’s purpose was to give crazed fans and everyone that reads Newsweek the other side of the story, and open their minds to how ridiculous they sound.

The tone was satirical and used hyperbole and irony to make fun not of the targeted spouses but rather of the intense culture of the sports fans and their idols. Her descriptions and adjectives were over-the-top such as her description of Gisele as the “Brazilian stunner, worth an estimated $150 million”. She contrasts the tabloids and the fan comically, comparing actions like “gallivanting around-dancing in Rio, mugging in Fashion Week”  with the “burly gladiator culture” which has been interrupted. In case die hard fans disagree with her feminist view, she offers 4 other examples to prove the trend: Jessica Simpon and Tony Romo, David and Victoria Beckham, and more. She also satirizes the WAG stereotype, describing their presence with “there is much smacking of gum and waving of acrylic nails”. She offers refutations, but they are few and far between. They she backs her warrant with  professional opinions that say “strong woman are attracted to these men” and they are only doing their part to help.

AOW 22

Artist: Tom Toles
Winner of the 1990 Pulitzer Prize, Toles is a famed political cartoonist for the Washington Post.

Summary:
In light of the recent elections, the Republican party looks to bury Obama publicly. The guillotine, a form of public execution most known for its prevalence during the French Revolution, is the very kind of humiliating and thorough defeat opponents of the Obama administration would like to see. With greater possibilities of communication due to television, this will attract every kind of public attention. At the bottom, it says there is an olive branch in the basket, a sign of peace. The cartoon makes it clear that the opposing party is not willing to collaborate or compromise. If Obama is gullible enough to believe they will offer the olive branch mentioned at the bottom, he will bring an end to his career.

Analysis:
IN the context of the upcoming elections, this cartoon offers a reason for the political deadlock that has continued during the Obama administration. The purpose is to portray the cause for the president’s hesitation, and the underlying motives for the Republicans who wish to bury him. He looks resigned, significantly smaller than his towering opponent. His is bent over in submission, seemingly resigning to his fate in 2012. Dressed more plainly than his lavishly robed counterpart, he is shown to have very little choice in his fate. Unless he accepts the Republicans and submits to implementing some of their ideas, they will make sure he is brought down brutally and publically. If he does agree to collaborate, the cartoon shows that all their ideas have one goal in mind: not helping the American people, but eliminating their elected head.

Rhetorical Devices:

Contrast: Obama and his president seem polar opposites. Not only are they in very separate positions, one of power dictating the execution and one in the weak position of receiving the sentence, they are not even the same species. Obama is represented as human, dressed modestly, looking indecisive and submissive. The other is a towering elephant with tusks, dressed lavishly and appearing to be anything but human.

Symbolism: Other than the obvious symbolism, such as the olive branch representing and offering of peace or the elephant representing the Republican party, there are other symbols as well. The most prominent of which is the basket. The elephant says it contains work they’d like Obama to fill, but it was only created to hold his head. A system of interwoven ideas, accepting any one predicts the fate of Obama. Relatively old fashioned, the use of a basket may also represent a regressive form of governmental shift.

Irony: Like most political cartoons, this one is satirical. It shows that behind the public face of smooth political transition and protection of the public interest, the goal of the Republican party is personal and powerful. The leader of the nation has no choice but to submit to the losing political party, and the offering of the olive branch in fact results in a violent overthrow and a political suicide.

IRB Choice

Cutting for Stone
Abraham Verghese

Section 1: 1-178
Section 2: 178-356
Section 3: 356-534

I attended a seminar this summer given by a doctor working a rural area in India. She discussed the difficulties that occur when culture, science, and a lack of education clash. Being and avid reader, I distictly remembered her saying, "it's very Cutting for Stone". I made a mental note of it and bought the book before returning home. Since then it has been sitting on my bookshelf. The saga of a surgeon in Ethiopia, it not only seemed to challenge society (not ours but that of an very different nation I would like to learn about) but also appeals to the career path I am interested in.