http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/08/opinion/jones-washington-redskins/index.html?hpt=op_bn7
The increasing diversity in today's America would predictably lead to increased conflicts. Although we have abolished slavery and passed long overdue civil rights bills, the public perception of various aspects of our lives and how they should be represented are still struggles we have today.
Take our own high school. I am sure all of you young chaps remember ol' Chief Okemos. Our mascot? Rings a bell? Well anyways, Chief Okemos created some controversy because of the depiction of Native Americans, and was banned as a mascot as a result. I can bet that a lot of the students are still divided about the mascot issue, but personally, I could care less.
Anyways, the reason why I presented such a long and pointless narration was because that was what popped into my head when I read the article, arguing that the team "the Redskins" should have a name change, an argument apparently backed by President Obama. This article was a bit longer than the last article, and was much less scathing in its argument. Oh well, here I go.
Mrs. Roxanne Jones, the writer of this article, uses diction at multiple points to support her argument that the Redskins should have a name change, and that doing so was the only measured, logical choice. Although she doesn't really describe her own "side" of the argument, the words she uses to describe the opposition kind of gives you the sense that they are misguided and over passionate about the Redskins title. Examples include how she describes the defenders as "enraged" and "livid". Jones even blatantly calls them "hypocrites". At the same time, Jones tries to sound logical and accommodating, using words to try to avoid anger and resentment. She describes the opposition as "defensive" giving you the feeling of not a body of vicious haters on the attack, but mislead fans who simply don't understand the full story.
The article also uses a great deal of imagery to shape Jones's argument. Bam, right of the bat there is a chunk of imagery. Jones illustrates that she understands the deep passions that this debate has sparked by, well you know. "Tempers were heated" and "tears were seen" really does give you the feeling that "Man," excuse me, "sh*t is gonna come down." Jones continues to use imagery to paint the blind passions of the team supporters, such as "yelled" and "tears" again and grouping "Redskins" as something in the "trash heap".
The language of the author is less confrontational than my last post about gun control. Instead, Jones uses compromising language. She tries to persuade rather than argue, evident in how she says "It's time to get on the right side of America" instead of, like "you are wrong and stupid." She is even understanding of the fan's opinion, saying that they are rightfully upset, but can only see the team's "glorious history". However, she says that no "serious" argument can support the Redskin name. Jones also uses language to persuade rather than argue by including the reader into her opinion, like saying "let's" do something and how "refreshing" it was to hear Obama speak.
Well, after reading this article, what do you think? Makes sense? A lot of her arguments could apply to us, you know.
Andrew! Great job with your analysis! I liked your evidence for the diction the author used and how she used it to create meaning or persuade us to take her viewpoint. Your arguments for imagery and language are clear as well - awesome job with connecting DIDLS to the author's purpose in the article.
ReplyDeleteThis is a big improvement from your last Close Reading post. Good use of textual evidence too. The one thing I would improve on is maybe expanding on the imagery section. How did she use imagery to paint her side of the issue? Sorry, this review doesn't have a lot of constructive criticism....I honestly can't think of any more. Great job!
DeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteGood job with your second closed reading! I really love your voice throughout your response. Particularly where you said, "Good ol' chief." As far as your analysis, you had some great claims supported by good warrants. You used words such as "engaged," and "livid," to support your claim of diction. Another thing I liked was you comparisons to your past posts. Lastly, I loved the way you related the article to the situation at our school with the chieftain head. I can certainly see the similarities between the situations. I didn't think about doing this. People who were opposed to the ban of the chieftain head, often used hostile words, similar to the ones you pointed out in the article you analyzed. Overall, you seem to be on the right track. Keep up the good work!
Holy cow. You're all really kind of missing some big issues, here. This is meant to be a thesis-driven, academic, analytical piece, so there shouldn't be any editorializing--the entire second paragraph should be deleted, as should any references to "I," "us," "Okemos," or anything that exists outside of this article and its text, unless it is to bring in a specific and highly relevant reference in the third person. Casual diction such as "Bam" and "ol' Chief" and a flippant tone ("you young chaps") are inappropriate. The discussion of imagery is not supported by clear evidence, and the discussion of language seems to be another discussion of diction.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteAgain a very entertaining piece to read by you, however, I'm seeing a pattern in your writing now. At the beginning of each blog, you state your opinions of whatever you're about to be discussing. Now, although I'm posting after Ms. Holmes, even before I read her response I could see the fault in this. I feel like every time I read one of your blogs, your opinion is being shoved in my face and then I don't really get a feel for what you were analyzing (like what the author of your analyzation did well or didn't do well). However, Ms. Holmes, I wonder how you found that Andrew's discussion of language was another discussion of diction. I didn't really find it to be that way - I think he did a good job of bringing in textual evidence and supporting that evidence. Could be just me, maybe I'm missing something. Anyways, Andrew, like I said in my comment on your open prompt responses, try to stay away from your own personal beliefs. Talk about the piece of work you're analyzing and the authors personal beliefs, because that's what we're really looking at here. We're trying to discuss what the author thinks and how that is being displayed in their writing, not what you think.