The phrase “Isis is coming to kill us all” is a widely exaggerated statement that could generate mass hysteria and paranoia across the world. Rhetoric such as this used by the media can be extremely detrimental to society as it resembles the rhetorical practices that led to disastrous events such as the Salem Witch Trials and the Red Scare.

Media outlets as well as the public often make statements such as ‘ISIS is coming to kill us all” in order to gain attention, while such a statement can result in a massive panic. For example, the Salem Witch Trials occurred from 1692-1693. The trials started because a group of young girls from Salem made the outlandish claim that they were possessed by the devil, and the girls accused other women from the town of being witches. This led to extreme fear and hysteria as immense amounts of people were wrongly accused of being witches, and many people were forced to admit to crimes they did not commit. The Salem Witch Trials exemplify how extreme exaggerations and accusations can destroy a society.

By encouraging an intense fear of communism, the Red Scare also exhibits how extreme claims can lead to chaos. Both the first and second Red Scares consisted of many Americans developing a crippling fear of communists. Many innocent people were jailed and stripped of their civil liberties. The media and the public painted an evil image of communists and portrayed the message that communists were out to ruin the world. Thus, these extreme claims generated hysteria and triggered immense societal blows.

If people continue to make claims such “ISIS is coming to kill us all,” mass hysteria could explode all around the world. The media needs to be careful of how it portrays certain people, ideas, and situations in order to prevent the development of irrational fear and paranoia.

Works Cited

History.com Staff. “Salem Witch Trials.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2011. Web. 18 July 2016. <http://www.history.com/topics/salem-witch-trials>.

“The Red Scare.” The Red Scare. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 July 2016. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/saccov/redscare.html>.

Propaganda: noun ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.

Mattel’s new diverse set of barbie dolls resembles one of the most notable forms of propaganda in American history–the “We Can Do it! Rosie the Riveter” campaign. The United States government launched the Rosie the Riveter campaign under the facade of female empowerment in order to convince women to fill the gaps in the ammunition manufacturing workforce that men who went off to fight in World War II left behind. Mattel’s new Barbie campaign is similar to the Rosie the Riveter campaign in the way that it is a form of propaganda that takes advantage of the public

The Rosie the Riveter campaign used ethos in the way that it played to the emotions of women all across the United States by enforcing the idea of female empowerment. By displaying the image of Rosie the Riveter flexing her arms in her blue collared uniform while standing proudly under the words “We Can Do It,” the campaign displays a feminist ideology by suggesting that women can do anything that men can do. However, the United States government did not truly hold this belief; the government expressed prejudice toward women and minorities. The United States began using the Rosie the Riveter propaganda posters in 1942, and once World War II ended, companies still forced women to give their jobs back to returning veterans. In addition to this, the United States government allowed the wage gap to persist for many decades. Therefore, the American government did not actually care about making women feel empowered, it just wanted to take advantage of the women.

Mattel’s purpose for developing the new barbie resembles the government’s purpose for creating Rosie the Riveter, for Mattel was not necessarily looking to encourage diversity, rather it was simply trying to make money. Similarly to the United States government when developing Rosie the Riveter, Mattel used ethos to play to the emotions of the audience–the company used the female empowerment and unity idea because they are ideas that many young people know and support. Thus, it used the feminist ideals and cultural diversity as a ladder to acquire money.

Prior to Mattel’s Barbie transformation, the company faced great economic hardships. Mattel was in a fragile state, and it was crucial for the business to make a drastic change in order to stay afloat. Not long after this state of economic instability, the company enacted the evolution of Barbie. This chyros is extremely significant, for the timing of the new barbie’s creation suggests that the new barbie was developed simply to make profit and improve the economic state of the company. The public has criticized Barbie’s lack of diversity for years, so the fact that Mattel only began to develop the new Barbie once the company experienced an economic downfall suggests that the company’s only concern is money–not diversity. Just like how the United States government developed Rosie the Riveter propaganda out of desperation to fill the gaps in the workforce, Mattel developed the new barbie dolls out of desperation to save the company.

Mattel also suggests that the company does not care about diversity in the way that the new Barbies are not really that diverse. For example, the new Barbies only consist of four body types–curvy, petite, tall, and “original.” In reality, many of those four basic ones body types are intertwined and there are many other body types that Mattel did not include. The new barbie also does not show a great amount of racial diversity. None of the Barbies are extremely dark; the majority of the dolls have a white complexion. The new barbie also does not exhibit any flaws. Most people get pimples and experience bad hair days, but Barbie excludes these realistic aspects of being a woman.

Hello everyone! My three civic artifact ideas include Rosie the Riveter, the donkey symbol for  the Democratic party and the elephant symbol for the Republican party, and NASA.

(Image source: http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Rosie-the-Riveter-1944-Posters_i988779_.htm?stp=true)

World War II era icon, Rosie the Riveter, shook up the United the States with her emphasis on female empowerment. When massive amounts of men went off to fight in the war, they left prominent gaps in the labor force. Thus, the United States government launched Rosie the Riveter propaganda to convince the public that  women should fill these gaps especially in the munitions industry. Flexing her muscles in her blue collared uniform under the words “We Can Do It!,”  Rosie the Riveter became a lasting symbol for female strength. Rosie the Riveter connects with women all across the United States as her image tells them that they are just as capable as any man. I enjoy how the illustration attacked  the conservative view that women should be excluded from the workforce and how it portrays the idea that women are strong and powerful individuals. However, the fact that the American government urged women to enter the workforce does not mean that women were given the same treatment as men, for women often still receive salaries that are less than those that men receive. Therefore, my question is do you think that the wage gap indicates that the American government simply encouraged women to enter the workforce out of desperation rather than a true change in ideologies?

(Image source: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/political-animals-republican-elephants-and-democratic-donkeys-89241754/)

The United States has used the donkey and the elephant as prominent political symbols since the 19th century. The donkey became a symbol for the Democratic Party during the 1828 Presidential campaign when Andrew Jackson decided to use a donkey on his campaign posters after being called a jackass. Andrew Jackson won the election and became the first Democratic president. The Republican Party was created in 1854, and in 1860 Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican president. The origin of the elephant as a symbol for the republican party stems from 1874 when Thomas Nast used the symbol in a Harper’s Weekly in which he labeled an elephant as “the Republican vote.” Over the years the ideologies pertaining to the Democratic and Republican parties have transformed, but each party remains as the two largest political parties in the United States. Voters in each party are connected by their ideologies. I like these artifacts because I believe they symbolize the major political ideas that exists in the United States. The Democratic and Republican Parties have beliefs that contrast each other greatly, so my question is do you think that these two parties divide people more than they unite them?

(Image source: https://www.nasa.gov)

NASA was founded in 1958 as a response to the Cold War, and during its early years it engaged  it engaged in the Space Race, eventually putting the first man on the moon. I think that NASA is a fantastic civic artifact because it is a symbol for the zeitgeist in America, for it represents exploration and advancement. I think that  it connects Americans in the way that NASA’s search for new and better things resembles the forward thinking attitude of the American dream. However, some people believe that NASA unnecessary and a waste of resources. Do you think that NASA’s research is essential to life on Earth or unnecessary?

Thanks for reading! Feel free to leave a comment!