When being told that you’re unable to do something, there’s two things that can occur. Either you’re brought down and become unmotivated, or you use that negativity to fuel the strength to keep you going. “Sí Se Puede” and ‘Rosie the Riveter’ are two examples of encouraging messages that have kept people fighting for a cause that they believe in. These commonplaces have become so impactful that they have become widely popular and are still referenced today. They’re able to uplift individuals in troubling times, resonating and connecting with people. Along with understanding the time in which these phrases first grew their popularity, we’re able to see why people have become so fond of this phrase and poster. “Sí Se Puede”, similar to ‘Rosie the Riveter’ has empowered individuals to feel confident in their identity so that they can create change that would make them feel more comfortable and free in their environments.
Outline:
Intro
- Thesis: “Sí Se Puede”, similar to ‘Rosie the Riveter’ has empowered individuals to feel confident in their identity so that they can create change that would make them feel more comfortable and free in their environments.
Paragraph #1
- Analyze “Sí Se Puede”
- Background / Origin
- Analyze through the representation lens
- Analyze ways of establishing trust (ethos, pathos, logos)
Paragraph #2
- Analyze ‘Rosie the Riveter’ poster
- Background / Origin
- Analyze the Rhetorical Situation
- Analyze through identity rhetoric and criticism
Paragraph #3
- Contrast the two artifacts
- Analyze the effectiveness of both commonplaces
- Show how they both reduce inequalities
1. Identify the writer’s main claim about the rhetoric, ideology, lenses of analysis, or and subtext of the piece.
The two artifacts are both similar in the way that they empower individuals in periods of turmoil.
2. Identify and comment on the writer’s introduction or “way in” for this piece of rhetoric. Name one thing that might be added, deleted, changed, or moved.
First, I would just check that you can use personal pronouns such as “you” in this essay. I’m personally not sure, but a good rule of thumb is that if its a formal essay you probably shouldn’t. You might want to add a few more specifics on how you will rhetorically analyze your artifacts throughout the essay just to prepare the reader for what’s to come. What lenses will you use? Is the historical context important? Try to mention some of the terms you will be utilizing later earlier on in the essay.
3. Warning flags: check any of the following predominant themes this paper contains that might suggest a weak introduction or thesis:
Rhetoric is everywhere___
As this is just an outline, there isn’t much rhetoric used yet but I can see clearly how you plan to add it in.
Artifacts try to persuade us___
I’m sure when you add in the backgrounds of these artifacts you will include how they persuaded their audiences!
Life really isn’t like what the artifact proclaims__
Rhetoric has many components__
Since this is just an outline, I can only see the types of rhetoric you’re planning to use, but it looks like you have many avenues of analysis planned out.
Ads are deceptive__ T
I think this is more of a historical question. You could make a claim that an artifact like Rosie the Riveter is now interpreted differently than it was intended to be interpreted initially.
The artifact did a great job__
Of having the effect it needed to have on its historical moments.
The artifact catches your eye__
I haven’t seen the images you’re planning on using but I think from what I’ve seen in the past and from your elevator pitch that the artifacts are very eye catching.
4. Find a strong analytical topic sentence and a weak one. Explain why you have identified them as such.
Since this is an outline I’m not able to do this.
5. Comment on the organization of the piece. What other possible arrangement strategies might make more of the material and develop arguments more fully? How well is the second comparative piece of rhetoric incorporated?
I think you have a clear organization set out and I think it’s probably how I would do it too.
6. You wanted to read more about….
I’m interested to hear about the history of these two artifacts and how they might be related to each other both rhetorically and historically.
1. Identify the writer’s main claim about the rhetoric, ideology, lenses of analysis, or and subtext of the piece. She is comparing the two artifacts and claiming that they both support the idea of empowering people who are struggling.
2. Identify and comment on the writer’s introduction or “way in” for this piece of rhetoric. Name one thing that might be added, deleted, changed, or moved. I would add the background/origin of “Rosie the Riveter” in the introduction because I do not know the full story of how that came to be, and I think it would emphasize your point more.
3. Warning flags: check any of the following predominant themes this paper contains that might suggest a weak introduction or thesis:
Rhetoric is everywhere__yes
Artifacts try to persuade us___to keep fighting even when times are hard
The artifact did a great job__representing different groups of people while explaining the same message
The artifact catches your eye__because it is untraditional, but the common message applies to every group of people
4. Find a strong analytical topic sentence and a weak one. Explain why you have identified them as such. There are no topic sentences, but your introduction was so powerful, and after the first sentence I was excited to read the rest of the paragraph.
5. Comment on the organization of the piece. What other possible arrangement strategies might make more of the material and develop arguments more fully? I would give the background information in the beginning, so that after the topic sentences of each body paragraph you can just jump right into the analysis.
6.) You want to read more about…who created “Si Se Puede” and what they were going through at that time. Why did they choose this design? Do the colors have significance?