The two articles that I read were “Attack in Nice ‘radicalized very quickly,’ French interior minister says” from CNN, and “Truck Attack in Nice, France: What We Know, and What We Don’t” from the New York Times. I also watched a couple videos of witness reports. Because of this, there didn’t seem to be much inaccurate information. I did think it was extremely sad, however, because of the testimonies that witnesses were giving. The information from the sources that I looked at didn’t seem to have much variance in data. Of course, there is always a chance that even the witness testimonies aren’t entirely accurate because they were in the heat of the moment, but because the attack happened so recently, it isn’t likely that we would get information that is any more accurate.
The reports all spoke about the incident and the shock and terror that it struck in people. Some of the witnesses were actually on the streets, and some were witnessing it from the safety of buildings or even their own homes. People described the horror they, or those around them, felt when they saw the bodies scattered in the streets.
There was one incidence in the CNN article in which the article stated that “authorities said” that the terrorist shot three police officers. In The Breaking News Consumer’s Handbook, the speaker said that this kind of language should be watched out for because this means the identity of the person giving the information isn’t given which means that the information itself isn’t necessarily completely accurate. The rest of the information, such as the details about his renting of the truck that he used, or that Bouhlel had a past criminal record, didn’t seem to have these caution flags.
I appreciated that the New York Times article was honest about the information it had and what it didn’t have. This made the article seem more trustworthy. I couldn’t pick out any red flags in this article, but I did notice that although the Islamic State, or ISIS, claimed ownership of the attack, there is no real evidence that they had any involvement in it or any connection to the attacker.
Unity can be represented in many ways, whether or not they are obvious. For example, the circle is often used to symbolize unity because they were used in ancient times as a promise or a contract between two people. Paper clips were used in Nazi Germany to display resistance and create a community among people who wanted to get rid of the communist regime. However, one of the best examples of an action that unified a large quantity of people was the presidential address after 9/11.
The attack on September 11 is known as one of the events that really unified Americans. However, if it weren’t for the presidential address that evening, America would have taken much longer to get out of its hysteria and work towards fixing the situation. During his speech, Bush made several references to the nation as a whole. However, when he was doing this, he consistently used words such as “we” and “our” in order to create a sense of community. Bush knew that the country would be in shock and dismay after the terrorist attack, so he took action upon himself to catalyze the recovery process that created the selfless community that still brings pride to America.
However, as much as the speech did unite the nation, it brought about some dissent, as well. The speech also brought about feelings of fear and resentment. The prevalence of discrimination against Muslims, Sikhs, and others who could be perceived as terrorists based solely on their appearance rose sharply. In the speech, Bush used words such as “despicable” and “war against terrorism” to show his anger and disgust towards the attack, but ended up allowing his own personal thoughts and beliefs negatively affect the way citizens saw each other.
Having said that, Bush’s presidential address is one of the most effective pieces of rhetoric there is. He often speaks to the common American by talking about how the tragedy affected everyone. He spoke briefly about how the lives lost were those of average, everyday Americans. He also goes on to say that despite the hardships that are to come, he has faith that America can come together and push through the coming struggles together.
One of Bush’s most powerful lines is “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” The fact that Bush was able to compare the Twin Towers to the strength of America was extremely effective in uniting people. This is because everyone was familiar with the video of the planes crashing into the towers. Everyone was familiar with the sight of the towers collapsing on themselves as if they were made out of cards. Everyone remembered the heartbreak and terror they felt when they witnessed the attack, whether it be on the television or in person. It was precisely because everyone understood each other in that moment that Bush was able to take advantage of the situation to convince people to band together and push forward. He took something that he knew would be common ground for everyone and used it to create powerful imagery that everyone would understand. He understood that in order to facilitate the speeding up of the healing process, he would need to build up American morale, which he definitely did even through just that one piece.
Despite the fact that Bush’s diction played a great role in the creation of such an inspirational speech, his speech would have gotten nowhere if his audience, the American people as a whole, did not have any respect for him. However, it is because of the respect that he earned and the authority that he had from being the President of the United States that made people more compelled to listen to his ideas. Adding on to this, Bush also received more attention from the people because he served as a first person testimonial to those who weren’t there. He understood that it was important to actually be there if he wanted to convince the people that things would get better.
Another tactic that Bush used in order to get the citizens to listen to him was the clear planning of future steps at the end of his speech. This was because he spent time tugging at the listener’s heartstrings and left them yearning for justice. Although he did not mention anything about retaliation, he instead proposed a different solution, one of coming together to work towards the common goal of moving forward. He allowed the listeners to desire to take action before convincing them that his actions would be the best ones to follow.
Lastly, although the need for this speech has definitely decreased as time passed, the impact it left behind is still as strong as it was when it was first delivered. The sense of community that developed from everyone working together to quickly overcome problems together is still talked about even to this day. Though there really wasn’t any other time in which delivering a speech like that one would be appropriate, people still remember this compelling piece and use the bonding together that they learned from the traumatic experience as a guide on how to fix situations they come across without the help of the president to rally them.
Thus, because the speech helped to unify millions of Americans across the nation, it is definitely one of the best examples of Rhetoric there is in modern times. The poem not only shows resilience in the face of hardships, but it also now symbolizes our ability to get through our struggles together and our need to depend on each other and hold each other accountable for what we do.
The many different types of paperclips
The first official patent on the paperclip was made by a Norwegian patent officer named Johan Vaaler, though a more efficient version of the paperclip was supposedly already on the market. However, it is said that the original paper clip was actually designed by an unknown Norwegian inventor, but regardless, the paper clip was created by a Norwegian. It is consumed by millions, if not even billions, of people around the world today and, although it is falling out of practice with the use of modern technology in the workplace replacing printed and written papers, it is still very prominent in everyday life.
The artifact was necessary because, as you can guess quite easily, it was needed to hold papers together. However, more specifically, it was created to replace the straight pin, which was previously used to hold papers together by stabbing it through a stack of papers. However, the straight pin was susceptible to rusting and could easily tear or stain the paper. The need for the paperclip has decreased pretty dramatically with the invention of staplers, binder clips, binders, and digital documents.
The paperclip doesn’t mean anything different to different people in the modern world. However, it was often worn during the second World War by people living under the Nazi Germans as a symbol of unity and resistance.
The paperclip is extremely commonplace because it has gained worldwide use and is known as a common and popular school supply. But more symbolically, the paperclip represents American creativity and persistence. This is because there are so many different designs for the paperclip, as seen in the above picture. Each inventor who created one of these designs was determined to create a more efficient and easy to use paperclip.
I chose the paperclip because I feel that it represents people working together and learning from others’ success and shortcomings to find a better solution to a problem, which I feel is a strong American value. However, I am not sure how to describe or explain how a paperclip is considered civic without being too repetitive. Do you think the paperclip holds any other values? Is a paperclip commonplace for you as well?
A few different types of toothpicks.
It isn’t easy to answer the question of “who created the toothpick” because it has been used by mankind for centuries. It was an extremely easy tool to create, seeing as it only required a stick and some way to break off one side of it to create a point. However, the first manufactured toothpick was created by Charles Forster, an American inventor. Toothpicks are consumed by nearly everyone and are even common, or even expected, to be found in restaurants.
The artifact was necessary because it was able to relieve the discomfort of having something stuck between your teeth. However, in later times, it was often used to just be chewed on. One of the earliest recorded instances of the toothpick was a recording that basically said it was more polite to pick your teeth with a stick than a knife or a fork.
The artifact has changed immensely over time with the help of technological advancements. People are no longer likely to get splinters from using the toothpick, toothpicks are now likely to be pointed at both ends, toothpicks are often bleached to be the same pale color we have come to recognize in the standard wooden toothpick, and metal, reusable toothpicks have been created to be more environmentally friendly.
The toothpick is one of the most common things found in America. However, like the paperclip, I feel that it also represents American innovation. This is because toothpick manufacturing depended on the creativity of Forster, an American inventor. I also feel that it represents unity because so many people use it and in some cultures it is seen as something to be done in private, meaning that one would only use the toothpick if he or she was comfortable with the people they were around. What do you think about toothpicks? Are they so commonplace that you don’t think they represent anything? Do you think they represent anything at all?
Standard black platform stiletto heels.
It is also hard to say who created the high heel, but it is known that they were earliest used by the Persians as horse-riding shoes. Heels became more commonplace to be worn by women after Catherine de’ Medici, an Italian noblewoman, was seen wearing heels at her wedding. After this event, heels were more commonly worn by women and were seen as a more feminine object. Although in the past, heels were consumed by men who rode horses, heels are now more commonly consumed by women.
The artifact was first necessary because the heel in the back of the shoe helped horseback riders stay on their horses. The heel was used to keep the stirrup from slipping off the shoe and potentially causing injury. Now, heels aren’t necessary, but they are often desired because they are perceived as something to enhance a woman’s beauty and sexuality.
Heels are definitely perceived differently depending on the person. For example, many women feel that heels are empowering. However, others may say that heels are a symbol of oppression and will denigrate a woman to a sexual object. Some may also even see heels as a status symbol, especially in poorer regions of the world. Men will also often take either side of these arguments, as well.
Heels are commonly worn in America, but the more symbolic commonplaces of heels have already been mentioned above. To reiterate, heels can be seen as either empowering or denigrating, depending on the person perceiving the object.
I chose this artifact because I thought that the transition from men wearing heels for horseback riding to men refusing to wear heels because they feel they are too feminine was extremely interesting. I feel I might also have some trouble explaining how this artifact is “civic.” Do you think the commonality of heels in everyday life is enough to make it civic? Do you have any other interpretations of what heels mean symbolically?
Citations
Goldsmith, Sara. Slate. N.p., 22 May 2012. Web. 20 June 2016. <http://www.slate.com/articles/life/design/2012/05/the_history_of_the_paper_clip_it_was_invented_in_1899_it_hasn_t_been_improved_upon_since_.html>.
Petroski, Henry. Slate. N.p., 31 Oct. 2007. Web. 20 June 2016. <http://www.slate.com/articles/business_and_tech/design/2007/10/stick_figure.html>.