Ai Wei Wei’s Activism Speech and Project “Sunflower Seeds”

A Rhetorical Analysis Outline of Ai Wei Wei’s Activism Speech and Project “Sunflower Seeds”

Purpose: To identify the rhetoric of 21^st century censorship in China; to challenge the ideologies of oppression and censorship; to start a revolution of the youth so that they’ll be able to protest for the rights of freedom of speech while gaining global awareness.

Audience: The unaware, privileged audience of the TED Talks Conference.

Context: Wei Wei was invited to Ted Talks to deliver his speech in Feb. 2011.  It takes place after the 2008 earthquake in China; 2008 was the year Olympics were based in Beijing.

Background on Censorship

Purpose: Wei Wei introduces factors of censorship and what has happened because he stood up for freedom of speech; He gives notice to points such as, ‘freedom of speech is not allowed’, insinuating that the citizens have asked and the gov. denied because they felt oppressing them would be for their own good.

Appeals: He Establishes ethos and logos using pure facts of how the Gov., has affected him with supervising through internet or in general as well as the censorship. Pathos is introduced when he states “we need people who can act, encourage, and be involved,” to make a “civil” society.

Technique: He lists blocked social media like Facebook, Twitter, etc. He gradually leads the audience to see the struggles of what China faces, freedom of speech wise. Then goes on to give his purpose, the initiative to make a better society; by breeding activists through technology.

Effectiveness: His points are strong and words used towards a mini rebellion like “people who act,” “democratic” and “making China civil” make us get this negative view on the Gov. Especially with footage you can see how his camera crew is being targeted by the authorities unfairly.

Internet

Purpose: Visually show how the youth can “realize the power of social media/communication.” He hints towards an aware yet neglecting government to these weak seeming civilians who have nothing but the preservation to cope with it all.

Effectiveness: Extremely effective. He gives statistics to children affected by earthquake when Gov. didn’t care. The Gov. comes off as its own terror towards its people.

                Earthquake 2008

Appeals: Extreme Pathos & Logos. Contrasts the great trip from Germany, to “5,219” students, (found out of many), that had died.

Techniques: At first he shows how happy these students were to go to Germany; they were impacted by the embracement of technology outside of China. Then it shifts to the earthquake. The Government refused to count “who’s dead” they ignored the fact that they were school children. He hints that this was not only about freedom of speech, but about having a corrupt communist government system with no benefit to the citizens. He sends a message about making an “effort” because it can lead to “impacts.”

                Battling the Government

Appeals: He shifts to logos with hints of pathos that correspond with scenes in the clip.

Techniques: WeiWei  gives more  context as he talks about the “Great Firewall” which could be symbolic to the great wall that initially kept out attacks; in this case it’d keep out change from the people. He uses  the word “struggle” emphasizing when they’re being censor on  what the Government doesn’t like. In the clip he continues his point on censorship. When he’s in the hospital after getting beaten, on his way to a hospital room he holds up a thumb symbolizing hope. Though the nurse shut the door on camera crew;  WeiWei gives the penalties for being an activist which are going to jail or facing difficult situations.

 

 

Evaluation:Ai Wei Wei is the master of corresponding visuals with his impacting speech. Most of his speech consists of ethos and pathos; he talks about the situations he’s been in but also expands on how the government acts to not only him but China in general. A majority of his footage is purely pathos. You can get a lot of hidden references to China through ‘great firewall’ that he doesn’t necessarily point out. To make his speech stronger Wei Wei should have a lot more logos if anything, or more personal experiences such as the kind of impacts he dealt with that sent him to the hospital. That way the audience at the TED Talks Convention would really feel urged to help despite admiring his passion of promoting the youth to stand out and make China a “modern society.”

Gobble & Church-ill - Poisonous to the People

Power and control are what Churchill and Goebbels seem to have over their countries. If they are upfront about their county’s unstoppable power, if they’re the “roadblock” between evil and the rest of society, if they are preventing their country from being consumed in monstrous tyranny, mass starvation, and anarchy, then why do they have the urge to go to war?

To be honest, Churchill and Goebbels are virulent when it comes to speaking on how they’re doing the best for their country. Churchill, who had been a new Prime Minister practically,forces a new politically diverse government system on the people. He make it seem justified by explaining it was for the “public’s interest.” Promoting the war against Hitler, he burdens the people to believe that this will be terrorizing to defeat, because they’re going against something practically “demonic.” He may not state it in those exact words but he wants them to fall for this charade so they will support him and his views.Fortunately, Churchill doesn’t seem as coercive as Goebbels.Instead of a new simple government system, Goebbels chooses this heavy propaganda to enforce his emphasis on National Socialism being good for the country. Goebbels states that Bolshevism and Jewry are going to cause this deadly danger. Even though Germany has done a lot of genocide, and Goebbels seems like a control freak, the people are kind of forced to trust his views. All of the war efforts and scarified luxuries under this “peaceful” homogenous society are to support the country and keep up this powerful imagine of a united Germany. Both Goebbels and Churchill are clear that they want victory at all costs, whether or not the people feel satisfied.

Promoting the unity and pride of the country is another step of Churchill and Goebbels. It’s either all or nothing when it comes to winning, and unity is a way to strengthen the country's. In both speeches the men make sure that they amp up their country’s with a sense of pride by being optimistic. It makes both leaders seem like they're running a strong country. Goebbels stated Germany is “unwilling to bow to this danger;” he is the one who “claims the right” to call upon it; yet he provides this insight of what'd it's be like if groups like Jewry took over striking fear and chaos. It's contradictory. Churchill demands he will obtain “victory at all costs,” with certainty. He's making his intended audience feel safe and like the country is in control.

From the evidence provided  Churchill and Goebbels aren't as  powerful as they seem;  though some may disagree, it seems like promoting war is the only way they'll be looked upon as world powers. If they fail to win the war for their country then they won't be able to protect from other global tyranny.

Mach & Theo: modern interpretation

Both Machiavelli and Thoreau have the best interest for society. Though Machiavelli focused more on the prince relying on his position, he felt nearly self conscious because he focused on reactions or judgement from citizens of Florence. Thoreau was more of an optimistic thinker towards how he should react to society's issues. Between Machiavelli expressing his views on how a prince should run a country and Thoreau's voice on injustices of political figures it's clear that the general public "mass" just wants to be satisfied and safe.

Now, it seems quite ironic considering Machiavelli pondered many options of fear in order to gain authority over the oppressed. His rule is like a monarch; it's his words, his actions, or nothing at all. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau rants against this. His era was need of a non corrupt system. But, does it matter what these systems do if it's for the citizens own good? Possibly no. In fact that's what the prince is perceived to be doing. All of his consciousness, thoughts, and actions are for the people. Morals can't be fought. In Thoreau's insight, if people can't be heard it's not a democracy.

It can be fairly difficult to satisfy the public as well. In Thoreau, it was challenging to find anyone worth trusting if they worked for the government system. Between lack of civil rights with minorities and going to an unnecessary war in Mexico nothing will be rebelled against. The gov. strikes fear as much as a prince would with restrictions, laws, and punishment. Is it necessary? It can be. It may lead towards the saftey; whether or not it's justified, these powerful figures get things accomplished; yes, with exceptions like slavery and bearing when to be man or beast when running the county play a factor.  It needs to be realized that they have authority.

No matter how unmorally unjust running what seems to be a corrupt government from a citizens point of view, or observing how sly and authoritative a prince can be with something like parsimony the public will be fine. As long as they see the "superficial apperance" there's not much to worry about in both perspectives. These officials have a duty to please the people just as their servants do to them.

Proposal

Chyna Davis

AP Language & Composition

Ms. Parham

10/27/2013

It’s All about Fixing Society: A Proposal

“If we are to achieve a richer culture, rich in contrasting values, we must recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities, and so weave a less arbitrary social fabric, one in which each diverse human gift will find a fitting place,” are truthful words spoken by Margaret Mead. It’s 2013, and upcoming generations in America still have to be educated on cultural difference; anyone should be able apply themselves and embrace their cultures. Perhaps it’s a step that many individuals in previous generations have missed out on. Homogeneous communities, possibly containing those who’ve not been taught about cultural differences, show it’s a necessary step that future outcomes of ignorance are diminished. I propose reaching out to the parental figures children will be easier to educate a new generation with an understanding of cultural differences.

I propose creating an easy read children’s book that kids will understand visually and mentally. Compared to talk shows and radio broadcasts that would normally tend to an older audience, starting out with the youth is more effective. By seeing a majority of smiley faced children illustrations, as well as traditional wear, cultural foods, social class, and countries, I’m trying to expose the kids to as much differential ties there are in America.  I’ll use parallel structure to narrate the story with exposure to a plethora of lessons teaching that it’s okay to be different and not to target anyone that has a different background from them. If they grow up with these morals then they learn how not to do act in regards to their future.  In this society, many are all quick to judge, stereotype, and it affects younger audiences. For instance, a month ago Miss America winner Nina Davuluri was labeled as an Arab terrorist. This situation wouldn’t necessarily be easy to teach nor normally be used in a children’s book, considering it’s wrong and hurtful. She’s Indian not Arab, but we can teach those kids to do their research, to understand it’s not nice to single people out and call them names based on their backgrounds making it a necessity for the new generation.

To think that I’d be able to change the majority of Connecticut seems idealistic. Though, if I’m able to at least get a handful of parents who approve of the book, and children at Stepping Stones who try to comprehend the overall message that’ll be one less cultural ignorant situation in the world. Stepping Stones has a diverse community. Many nannies, parents, and guardians visit across Connecticut. My goal is to improve the country we live in even though I’m starting out small. It seems like prejudice individuals from earlier generations tend to dress up ignorance the most, especially in homogeneous communities. Comments like Mexicans eat tacos and hop the border, Chinese people speak like CHING CHANG CHONG, and all Caucasians are racist still circulate throughout time. It’s possible many are apathetic towards learning cultural difference or ignorance may play a huge role. They don’t realize what they’re saying or doing will only promote this ignorance more than what it already is.

With America’s cultural differences, my book stands to be a situation saver. I hope to impact children with a sense of empowerment. I want them to feel like they can embrace themselves, as well as learn about other ethnicities depending on if they live in a homogeneous or heterogeneous community. With certain eye popping colors they’ll be sure to take notice to the most important messages and illustrations. Those that have been involved in culture shock as a child, like me, know how different it can be to adjust. I don’t want these children to go through the same situation; hopefully they understand the short, visually impacting, book that gives recognition to many ethnicities other than Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, and Asian.

Will You Marry Me?

Proposal

 

There should be more cultural awareness programs. Why? Because cultural awareness programs like broadcasts on radio and late night talk shows in homogeneous and heterogeneous communities can prevent misconceptions of different ethnicities that make up our country. Although history classes are prevalent in speaking on issues of the past and present, it’s safe to say that most people don’t exactly learn how to be culturally aware from it. We all have different ideas and perspectives, backgrounds and traditions. There’s a chance that those living in homogeneous communities are sheltered from these lessons. They might base their ideas off of stereotypes, resulting in unpreparedness in the world, especially if they move to a more diverse community. By having more cultural awareness programs ignorant situations can be avoided. They’d be aware of what is or isn’t appropriate to say or do towards someone of a different race, ethnicity, or culture compared to themselves.
 Some of the insensitive comments that spark the interest for more cultural programs are sayings like Mexicans eat tacos and hop the border, Chinese people speak like CHING CHANG CHONG, Caucasians are racist, especially Miss America winner Nina Davuluri being called an Arab terrorist.  The Miss America commotion was recent and disgraceful. Nina Davuluri is Indian, not Arab, or a terrorist. After 9/11, anyone coming from the Middle East, or Indo-China was considered an extremist; which I don’t qualify as fair. By having these cultural awareness talk shows or programs actual victims can speak on the differences and generalization they’ve had to deal with because people in some communities have influenced their ideas heavily.
In Article 27 of the United Nations Preamble it states “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.” In other words, anyone should be able to express themselves appropriately, respectively, without the need to be chastised in anything that they do. Certain individuals like Kamau Bell, a socio-political, community activist, created a show called Totally Biased. There are a variety of activists, actors, overall relevant people who guest on the show to speaks out on what they’ve been through and what they’d like to see from those that have judged them or picked on them because of situations that aren’t normally talked about until put in the situation. He may be a comedic but it’s why people look out for him to observe, learn from his work. Bell also specifies the injustice of ignorance by sex, politics, class, and culture. It’s effective, and not as boring as lectures and activist speeches that most just ignore. 

 The benefit of broadening shows like Totally Biased, is having a fun creative form of eliminating ignorance.  As Alan M. Dershowitz says, “offensiveness is often in the eyes and experiences of the beholder,” like me. I have been teased because I was different in terms of appearance. No parent thinks of the wrong things to ask in order to prevent the child from saying it; it’s a situation that’s impossible to teach. This is why having these programs would help our country. If we can stay “out of the business” of picking amongst the many degrees of offence and discriminatory speech by broadening talk shows to eliminate all of the crap then it should happen.

The purpose is not to have speech or ideas to be limited or regulated; it’s having comedic talk shows, radio segments, and programs that promote freedom of speech the right way. It is possible shows like Totally Biased are watched widely around the country. Creating more may break off the nasty stereotypes that continue to be circulated in our communities.

T Analysis

Here We Go Again

In my blog I didn’t necessarily make a claim. I just questioned what made me so different because of my appearance. It wasn’t debatable, or specific. I didn’t set the reader up with something to debate on using logic or evidence. I could have said that teens who are always picked on for their race causes them to act out on cultural awareness. It some cases it’s true. That would have been debatable enough to go along with the rest of my factual support and opinionated views.

I do provide a plethora of personal experience about my situation. I state that I didn’t know what it was that made me stand out. Being mixed was different, and it wasn’t something that I easily understood at the time. It was hard for me during those years. The Anecdote was my mother’s perspective. She had the same situation. Before moving to American people bullied her because her hair was long and curly; her skin was a lighter tone than the others.  I have authority through my insight and the way I view the issue of cultural awareness – education.

I think my warrant might be: Ignorance is a serious problem in this country, especially today. Since I don’t have an actual claim, the initial idea is that I faced a lot of issues. That’s when the warrant comes in. Ignorance is the key issue because some people choose not to state what’s right to say and what’s wrong such as Mexicans eat tacos and hop the border, Italians all have olive skin, all Caucasians are racist. They’re perceptions our society builds off of. I do well at providing a backing for my warrant.  Once again I go into details between the stereotypes of African American hair, and then I move on to talk about the other races. Especially, Nina Davuluri, a stereotyped Miss America winner who sparked my interest in the topic.

I don’t have qualifiers. If I had, then it’d diffidently be less of a rant. The reader wouldn’t feel as judged. I don’t directly say ‘you’ a lot of times, but I feel like I should use more to support my claim. As for the conclusion, I relate it back to my first few sentences, speaking on how we’re all different and unique. If I had an actual claim to relate to I think it’d be easier to transition in the last sentence. Otherwise it seems a bit irrelevant to the piece. If this was a Toulmin Analysis it’d be a weak one.  

(Since no one knows what they're doing, I really don't know what's right or wrong.)

TBE

To be edited.

For the proposal... or the other blog post.
PG 22-26
Argument of definition
Proposal Argument

LOOK BELOW, THAT'S MY BLOG POST #7 NOT THIS.

Promoting Cultural Awareness Programs

Cultural awareness programs, broadcasts on radio, and late night talk shows in homogeneous and heterogeneous communities can prevent misconceptions of different ethnicities that make up our country. Perhaps the programs would take place frequently at reasonable times; especially late night talk shows that most tend to watch. A lot of civilians who are sheltered in homogenous communities might base their ideas off of stereotypes, resulting in unpreparedness in the world.

In Article 27 of the United Nations Preamble it states “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.” Any civilians are able to express themselves without the need to be chastised in anything that they do. By participating towards creating these broadcasts there’s more of a chance that people would break off habits of stereotypes. For instance, not all Mexicans eat tacos and hop the border; not all Italians have brown hair and olive skin; not all Caucasians are racist; as well as Miss America winner Nina Davuluri is Indian not a commonly associated Arab terrorist. 

The United Nations basically set the path for Kamau Bell, a socio-political, community activist who runs a show called Totally Biased. He contributes to the art, and participates in cultural life of his community. His show is “surreptitiously revolutionary in its effortless diversity and humanism,” according to a view posted on his website. People feel encouraged to watch the talk show because he not only voices the issues of race; sex, politics, class, and culture play a major role as well. He may be a comedic but it’s why people look out for him to observe, learn from his work.  Even the San Francisco Chronicle, comments his “quick comic skewers racism, stereotypes...” With a sense of humor people would enjoy, not feel emotional or targeted, and wouldn’t be bland. The un-culturally aware lack just enough to set them back to the rest of the world.

Even I have dealt with situations resulting in the need of cultural programs. Having extensions or weave was the motto for being African American. Why? Because society basically interpreted that stereotype and continued saying it. One might argue living in a community that won’t correct the issue, or continuing to spread the phrase would only make it worse.

I feel like bringing up cultural awareness is looked on as idiotic, especially in 2013. Well, Alan M. Dershowitz, who wrote a Toulmin Analysis on two very extreme speakers, had said “Paulin’s and Baraka’s poetry purpose to be ‘art’ but the ‘N-word’ and other equally offensive expressions can also be dressed up as art.” Dressing up ignorance is something ridiculous. You can say it, but it will only promote it more than what it already is. He goes on to say “offensiveness is often in the eyes and experiences of the beholder,” like me. I have been teased because I was different in terms of appearance. Parents of the youth did not to teach their children what was the right and wrong things to ask; simply because they’ve never been in a situation that’s needed teaching. I do agree with his logic. This is why having these programs would help our country. If we can stay “out of the business” of picking amongst the many degrees of offence and discriminatory speech by broadening talk shows to eliminate all of the crap then it should happen.

The purpose is not to have freedom of speech be limited or regulated; it’s to have these comedic talk shows, these fun radio shows, or segments, the programs that promote freedom of speech the right way. It is possible shows like Totally Biased are watched widely around the country. It may take some work, but strong advertisement would be able to promote the shows in order to break off the nasty stereotypes that continue to be circulated in our communities.

Social Change Project: Stereotypes + Cultural Awareness

A few ideas:
High School Students
CGS
BMHS
Ms. McCarthy
Rowayton Rambler
Brien McMahon News Blog
CGS News Blog
The Guardian – Online News Blog
NCC

Rowayton Rambler:

Since I’ve been a part of the News Paper Club since 6^th grade, and it’s sponsored around Fairfield County, It’d be nice to write an edition to the website. It’s a great way I can have a humorous, but informative voice and send out a message to not generalize, or use stereotypes if you live in a homogeneous community.

CGS News Blog:

I’m a part of the CGS Newspaper Club. I’ve posted an article or two. It’s an up and coming club, and though some of the content isn’t as serious as hard news, it’s a fun way to spread out my social change topic. There’s a lot of open house for newcomers, so people can be given the link. The website is public, and I’m sure it’d be very useful.

NCC:

I’m connected with a few people from NCC. If I have a blog, or a piece of writing I’d like to post, I have a way to get it distributed. If I chose to have some kind of a presentation, to present my writing to high school students, or have a discussion in the program I was a part of, I could do so. It’d be effective, and cool to spread my message around. Then those individuals could pass it on.

 

So far I’m torn between all three. I think Rowayton Rambler and NCC could be possible options because they’re effective. I could give out my social change idea and spark new ideas and discussions with my audience for NCC, literally. Though, with Rowayton Rambler I’d have a published piece of writing, where people could send me their feedback. It has happened before. Hopefully I’ll be able to get feedback whether it’s positive, or EXTREMEMLY negative.