RCL BLog

Image from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/amazing-rare-photographs-berlin-wall-coming-down-180953278/

Few instances in history have been more momentous and far-reaching than the fall of the Berlin Wall. Signifying the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the destruction of the border separating East and West Berlin has undoubtedly been remembered as a powerful moment for civilization. The image I chose to analyze today was taken before the wall was officially dismantled, as West German protesters attempted to destroy the concrete barrier themselves. Captured in 1989, just days before workers commenced the wall’s deconstruction, this powerful photograph seems to assert the resiliency of the human race, and show how powerful solidarity can be, even in the face of injustice.

The first aspect of the image that demonstrates this sort of determination is the water shown spewing through cracks in the concrete. In the article accompanying this image, the photographer, Alexandra Avakian, recounts of the East German border guards spraying the protesters with water cannons as they attempted to destroy the wall. Despite being sopping wet and freezing from the cold, the West German rioters pictured above continue, seemingly undeterred, indicating their unwavering dedication to their cause.

Additionally, even as border guards from the other side actively attempt to stop or discourage them, the crowd shown in the image remains motivated. They are seen cheering on the sole man at the center of the photo as he swings a sledge hammer dramatically at the wall itself. Even as he is alone physically in his efforts in this scene, it is clear that the man, and others like him, are acting in a way encouraged by the broader public, indicative of a strong sense of solidarity among the rioters. This sort of empowerment is felt through the intense expressions seen in the image from onlookers and the wall’s assailant alike.

Finally, despite the implied dangers of such actions, a man is seen in the background scaling a ladder leaning on the Berlin Wall. In his hand, the lone climber holds what was then the West German national flag. He is seen observing the powerful spectacle below, as the man breaking the wall as is sprayed by East German water cannons. At the same time, it appears the climber is planning to at least wave his country’s flag where the guards on the other side can see it, obviously in some form of protest. This aspect of the image demonstrates yet another example of the rioters’ collective determination and motivation for their cause.

Shortly after this, the wall bisecting the city of Berlin would fall forever, with East Germany and West Germany unifying once more in the following years. This event changed history, and ushered in a radically new era for mankind, as the divisions that had plagued civilization throughout the 20th Century were slowly beginning to disappear. Images like this one capture the true emotions of the moments that defined history, and demonstrate how powerful and durable the human spirit really is.

In his TED Talk, “A Free World Needs Satire,” Patrick Chappatte speaks about the importance of cartoons in the world of politics and broader social order. The primary theme of the speech was quite obvious, with Chappatte, a political cartoonist, arguing how important the use of satire as a critical tool is in order to preserve democracy and promote free thought. To reinforce this idea, he provides several historical examples of the use of caricatures and political humor, such as satirical depictions of French King in the 1830s. These cartoons helped pave the way for the free press in France, and helped to further free speech rights both in the country and across the world.

Chappatte also includes examples of oppression in order to depict the importance of political satire in the United States. While he begins with describing instances of foreign persecution, such as the killing or jailing of government critics in the Middle East, Chappatte also reminds everyone of how close to home these issues can really reach. By providing his own personal experience with The New York Times, who was quick to ban political cartoons following backlash for a particular controversy, the speaker reminds the audience that even in the United States freedom is constantly in the balance. He then turns his speech into a statement against internet sensationalism and mob culture, as well as the corporate media’s willingness to cave under pressure to radical voices.

I see this change in tone from presenting the persecution of satire from a historical or foreign issue to a current or domestic one as being very effective. The thought-provoking technique of shocking the audience with this problem’s true relatable and present nature is what I believe makes Chappatte’s argument convincing and valid, with the silencing of dissenting opinions being seen by virtually everyone in some capacity or another. This aspect of his work definitely demonstrates what differentiates a speech from a presentation, with Chappatte’s talk capitalizing largely on his relatable and grounded tone, as well as the provocative twists he includes. These methods of communication and delivery differ from a speech, which would definitely be more rooted in pure inspirational and emotional tactics, rather than attempting to convey information in a persuasive way.

Patrick Chappatte- “A Free World Needs Satire”

Long before launching his own bid for the presidency, Ronald Reagan endorsed Barry Goldwater, a Republican presidential candidate in 1964. In the height of the Cold War, Reagan’s fiery rhetoric was a welcome and reassuring contribution to the political world, with his speech, “A Time for Choosing,” going down in history, largely being regarded as the start of his career in politics. Throughout the two minutes I analyzed (the last two minutes of the speech), Reagan exhibits several components of a successful speech, through ensuring proper eye contact, gestures, vocal variety, and of course, emotional appeals to patriotism. His seemingly fearless demeanor throughout the speech helped to reinforce its meaning, with these tactics allowing the address to make a considerable impression on his audience, as well as on those who have viewed it since.

While Reagan does periodically glance down at what I would assume to be notes or a script, he does maintain consistent and determined eye contact throughout his presentation. This simple aspect of his delivery helps to convey a sense of confidence which, coupled with the unwavering patriotic message, helps to embolden viewers. Reagan also utilizes minimal hand gestures when emphasizing important points, as well as continually shifting his posture, seemingly to portray a lack of nervousness in delivering his message.

In addition to these methods of conveying confidence, Reagan refrains from speaking monotonous, instead speaking over a wide vocal range. By talking calmly at some points, as well as projecting his words for emphasis at others, he is able to reinforce the concepts being presented by capturing the audience’s attention. For example, towards the end of the speech (about 3:50) Reagan speaks in a relatively calm tone in comparison with other portions of the speech, underscoring the seriousness of the situation when he says “We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.”

While the physical tactics employed by Reagan are important in successfully presenting his message, the ideas and words he used are what truly immortalized the speech. His tone of unwavering patriotism  was very well accepted by his audience, and even though there never was a President Goldwater, this sort of rhetoric is undoubtedly one of the most key reasons why Reagan would become so popular. By employing key speaking tactics and appealing to the emotions of the listeners, the future president was able to successfully convey his message and capture the country’s attention.

In the Wall Street Journal article, “Studies Show that Studies are Bunk,” author Andy Kessler raises some interesting points regarding the use of statistics in our daily lives. Kessler asserts that we blindly trust these studies because they are promoted by popular scientists and political influencers who seek to demonstrate broader points about society. In my opinion, this is an interesting and important argument to hear, especially when it seems newspaper readers and cable news viewers are constantly being bombarded by unchallenged studies and statistics that work to prove one point or another to the audience. Because these numbers are found and heard regularly without question, I do think Kessler raises a number of interesting points regarding their sometimes questionable validity, as well as why our interpretations of even the most correct science can be problematic.

Image from https://journals.sagepub.com/home/sss

The first main point I found interesting in the article is that many of the studies reviewed by another group were unable to be replicated or reapplied. This is very significant to me because it shows that not only are some of these studies a little off, but some are at least mostly, if not totally, inaccurate. When looking at research for my paper, I will be sure now to see how many times different studies have been conducted in order to see if the results could be reproduced.

Additionally, Kessler presents times information was repeatedly discredited or contradicted and still used in order to prove a point about society. He gives the example of Hillary Clinton presenting outdated statistics about the supposed inherent biases found in everyone, a case he presents in as problematic. The idea of politicians or influencers being dishonest is nothing new, but the article shows how even the most inaccurate or misleading information can be presented and accepted by many without question. This is important to take into account as I prepare my speech and research paper, with understanding the context in which some of these statistics are given being nearly as important as the numbers themselves. What agendas may be furthered by the statistics I use is something I need to keep in mind, especially when dealing with something as controversial as firearm ownership.

Image from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/2/17050610/guns-shootings-studies-rand-charts-maps

Throughout “Studies Show that Studies are Bunk,” the author furthers his stance on unreliable statistics through pointing to the possibilities of human error and how they are often unable to be replicated. Kessler also provides several high-profile examples of the use of false of outdated statistics, furthering the idea that the phrase “studies show” is a dangerously unquestioned phrase. While the use of numbers and data is helpful in making a paper appear more scientific, I will be sure to strive towards using studies that can be replicated in an attempt to minimize potential misinformation.

Throughout human history, people’s opinions on anything from products to ideas tend change over time. These societal transitions are especially prevalent in today’s age of information and hyper-connected societies. In the United States, there never seems to be a shortage of heated cultural debates for people to be up in arms about, however, few are able to rival the intense controversy surrounding firearms. For my paradigm shift projects, I plan to examine the American gun culture, and the drastic changes it and the overall country have undergone to arrive at the political and social conflicts we see today. The shift in America’s understanding of firearms has spurred immeasurable change in the day to day life of everyone, a phenomenon I feel is more than deserving of this sort of analysis.

Guns seized by the LAPD (Image fromhttps://laist.com/2019/05/09/gun_seizure_LAPD_Holmby_Hills.php)

For my project, I plan to examine mainly changes we as a country have seen in the gun culture within the past century, specifically from 1960s onward. While this will be the target area of analysis for the bulk of my projects, I will more than likely touch upon the significance of firearm ownership throughout America’s developmental history, such as settling the frontier, the World Wars, and any number of other events. The focus of my analysis of shifting gun culture will be to analyze how demographic changes, lifestyle changes, and tragedies, such as mass shootings, have all contributed to redefining gun ownership to the point where it now seemingly falls on partisan lines.

AR-15 Sporting Rifle
(Image from https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/588861820/a-brief-history-of-the-ar-15)

I believe the changes in American gun culture need to be examined in order to understand how the debate over firearm ownership has transformed into such a heated, personal topic. Both sides view any sort of yielding on the issue as an attack on their values or lifestyles, making it important for individuals on both sides to understand what exactly has spurred these sorts of extreme emotions on the topic. Gun ownership in the United States has always been a defining cultural feature of this country, and it is now undeniable that it has changed forever. As calls for more regulation increase across the country, I plan to indicate the significance of these gun control advocates and their effects on the broader societal understanding of firearms, as well as the impact lobbyists from both sides have had. Through my research on the issue, I plan to be able to outline key factors and events that have affected America’s gun culture, and how the paradigm shift we see today may progress in the future.

In my lifetime, few innovations can rival the smartphone, which has forever changed the lives of users everywhere. I remember when these devices first started showing up in the hands of my classmates, and at the time, they seemed too good to be true. Constant internet connection for most Americans meant constant access to seemingly unlimited information, your friends or relatives, and social media. Companies like Apple and Samsung essentially created the era of instant gratification and communication, which is an impressive achievement. However, even though this sort of hyperconnectivity may have its benefits, the more serious societal implications of these devices are becoming apparent, resulting in a paradigm shift in how we communicate and live.

Image fromhttps://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-smartphones/

In the Atlantic article “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?,” The author makes the case that many of the negative mental health and social trends displayed by my generation can be traced back to their pockets. People in the group she dubbed the “iGen” are seemingly inseparable from their phones, with the article even going as far as to state, “The allure of independence, so powerful to previous generations, holds less sway over today’s teens.” While this may be a bold claim, it is not one without support. Jean Twenge, the author, writes that since 2012, the year in which smart phone usage in the United States surpassed 50% of the population, teens are considerably less likely to drive or even have a job. This behavior I see personally exhibited in many of my friends and family, with some teens I know nearing their twentieth birthday and still not being motivated to get their licenses. Behavior like this demonstrates just how much the rules of living have been altered by these devices, as well as what is socially acceptable in today’s world.

Image from https://www.consumerreports.org/smartphones/get-smarter-about-your-smartphone/

Another way smartphones have caused this sort of social paradigm shift is in the mental health of the “iGen.” Kids today spend much more time on their phones than previous generations. Twenge believes that this behavior has resulted in a severe increase in depression and even suicide, which has seen a rate of increase in the years following the wide distribution of these devices. This rapid deterioration of mental health exhibited in teens has become the new normal, at least for those who use smartphones in excess (which is virtually everyone). This shift in behavior coincides with an increased likelihood for teens to feel lonely, an ironic outcome in the age of constant virtual connection.

Overall, smartphones have become an indispensable part of life for people in the past eight to ten years. While in many ways they can be a useful tool, these devices have caused a major change in the very structure of our society ranging from the way we talk to how we feel. Despie our perceived addiction to these devices, it seems this article demonstrates yet another paradigm shift. The realization of the detrimental effects of smartphones use, although slow, seems to be building towards a broader sentiment. People know they have a problem. Now it is up to the “iGen,” which knows these devices better than anyone else, as well as the broader community, to formulate a solution.

Image from https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/google-move-pixel-smartphone-production-vietnam-report-says-n1047136

From https://www.britannica.com/event/Pearl-Harbor-attack

“Yesterday, December 7, 1941- A date which will live in infamy-” Those were the immortal words that opened US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s address to Congress following the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. This famous speech marked the entrance of the United States into World War II, a pivotal moment in both the history of the country and the world. Following years of American isolationism and officially neutral foreign policy, the Japanese Empire “suddenly and deliberately attacked” United States naval forces stationed in Hawaii, bringing war to the doorstep of the reluctant nation. President Roosevelt was now confronted with the responsibility of rallying the public behind the war effort, a task he accomplished through his “December 7 1941 A Date Which Will Live in Infamy” speech. The goal of this artifact was to instill a sense of duty in the American people, convincing them that the war was necessary in order to preserve American ideals and democracy, as well as to prevent any sort of crippling assaults from harming the country again.

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/12/07/75-years-later-remembering-fdrs-day-of-infamy-a-phrase-that-almost-wasnt/

I am drawn to this speech in particular for this project because it has a similar context to that of Churchill’s “Fight Them on the Beaches” Speech, and conveys a similar sense of responsibility and civicism. Its motivational, patriotic language is something I find both provocative and inspiring, indicating to me the address’ effectiveness as a call to duty for the country. Because of the speech’s far-reaching political consequences and the drastic shift in American foreign policy exhibited by it, I believe this particular artifact is worthy of the in-depth analysis I plan to engage in throughout my essay. One of the aspects of President Roosevelt’s address I plan to explore is the tone, which is very determined and positive compared to many other pieces of the time. Additionally, the president’s description of the conflict and the strategic situation of the United States is something I plan to explore further, as well the rhetorical appeals of the language used in describing the predicament.

Overall, I find President Roosevelt’s speech to be a fascinating piece of United States history. Like Churchill’s “Fight Them on the Beaches Speech,” it is truly a staple of American history, as well as that of the broader world, and represents a tipping point in the second world war. With the address truly having a lot of different points to analyze and break down, I believe that it will be an interesting work to compare to my other selection in my future essay.

The world of online meme culture can often be an unforgiving place, especially when the messages pertain to contemporary politics or culture. While some memes are lighthearted or utterly meaningless, they are often times used as vehicles for people online to convey satirical commentary of events or as a means to mock a social trend. “Memers” use this tactic to express and spread their opinions online without having to tack their name to it,  allowing them to avoid the same social backlash that they would encounter if they endorsed their opinions in person. An example of this phenomenon I will explore today is a meme that was spread around during the height of the “Blue for Sudan” social media trend, and how the message found in it conveys a broader statement about the reality of modern internet activism.

Blue for Sudan Satirical Meme (Image from https://me.me/i/well-boys-we-did-it-sudan-is-saved-what-you-b19d290516db48789d38c1287fb692c1)

On June 3rd, a military crackdown on protesters in Sudan’s capital left several dozen people dead, drawing criticism from across the world. This event would trigger amateur activists around the world to change their profile pictures on social media to the color blue, allegedly the favorite color of a victim of the shooting. While the trend seemed to sprout from good intentions, many participants were mocked for lacking sincerity or education on the topic. Some users were even accused by critics of being “sympathy scammers,” with many social media accounts being exposed for falsely claiming to be aiding victims in Sudan in exchange for online recognition. These revelations caused the movement to be widely discredited, and thus, the memes were born.

In the meme I chose to analyze for this specific example, the creator uses an edited picture of the “Penguins of Madagascar,” characters from the “Madagascar” movie and television franchise. The characters’ faces are all replaced by blue profile pictures, with the penguins meant to represent the participants in the trend. This is accompanied by the phrase “Well boys, we did it, Sudan is saved,” sarcastically implying that the movement’s online community believed it had effectively ended the oppression overseas.

While the message stated in the image above is fairly simple to read, it does contain logical appeal in regards to its broader message on modern society. By satirically depicting those with blue profile pictures as people believing that they had truly resolved the issue, the meme is able to paint the trend as naive, leading the viewer to see the movement as meaningless. By appealing to logos, the creator is trying to convey the idea that simply changing a profile picture does nothing to help the oppressed people in Sudan. It implies that those who are participating are generally apathetic, and only jumping on board with a current trend in order to feign some sense of righteousness. The meme is essentially jabbing at the perceived apathy of social media’s social justice advocates by drawing attention to the lack sincere effort in the “Blue for Sudan” movement and others like it.

Sudanese Flag from https://www.thenational.ae/world/africa/sudan-s-political-transition-remains-at-risk-despite-power-sharing-deal-1.883678

In my opinion, the message is conveyed well in the meme. It is a fairly complex message condensed into a short, satirical jab at popular internet culture. The seemingly simplistic joke does appeal to me in the sense that it makes me question the true motives of participants in online trends such as these. From a logical standpoint, it is unlikely that every single person, or even a fraction of the movement’s advocates could even point to Sudan on a map, let alone explain the situation and its relevance to the broader battle for human rights. Judging by the behavior of many on social media, one could conclude that this trend is not as much about helping the Sudanese people as much as it is looking like a better person for a large number of the participants. By calling this sort of reasoning to the attention of the viewer, the meme is able to discredit and ridicule the “Blue for Sudan” movement.

It is this sort of anonymous jab at popular culture that has allowed memes to become a legitimate advocacy tactic in modern politics. In recent years, online works of satire have become an increasingly powerful tactic in exposing inconsistencies or ridiculous aspects of society or the government. While this meme is a relatively obscure example of this phenomenon, online creators are becoming increasingly effective in appealing to social media users and poking fun at the world. Because of this, it is unlikely that this form cynical advocacy is going away anytime soon, especially if people continue to provide the online community with content to scrutinize.

Revolutionary War Propaganda Poster
(Image from https://www.thefreedomtrail.org/trail-sites/boston-massacre-site)

A deliberate appeal to kairos has always been an effective method of incitement throughout human history. The concept of the time being opportune for appropriate action has been exploited by advertisers and recruiters for centuries, a practice that is not going away any time soon. In the United States, national appeals to kairos can be traced as far back as the Revolutionary War, where revolutionaries turned the controversy surrounding the “Boston Massacre” (left) into a sort of call to arms in the years leading up to the conflict. Despite this, arguably no period in American history generated more intense, aggressive propaganda than the years surrounding the Second World War, with the rise of fascism overseas being met with a defiant sentiment of radical patriotism and nationalism in the United States. This phenomenon was only compounded following the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor and America’s subsequent entrance into the war, which triggered some of history’s most successful and famous advertisements advocating for the war effort.

Image from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/207095282850090303/

This vintage Navy recruitment poster (right) displays a very kairotic appeal to Americans, implying that now was the proper time to join the war effort against Japan. This poster successfully employs aspects of both pathos and kairos, utilizing the strong emotions surrounding the incident in order to create a sense of national duty or urgency. With the memory of the attack still burning fresh in the minds of Americans, the Navy markets service in the military as a way of exacting vengeance, an idea that resonated with the vast majority of the advertisement’s target audience. In the minds of many of the propaganda’s viewers, service in the Navy undoubtedly became the responsibility of any true patriot.

Aside from appeals to emotion, the poster also implies a logical argument for enlisting. By encouraging the average American to seek vengeance against Japan for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the poster is alluding to the idea that people and nations as a whole should not allow themselves to simply be pushed around by others, an argument that is logical, even if it is not all that elaborate. This reinforces the appeal to kairos further by presenting an opportunity to respond to Japan quickly and directly as retribution for their perceived aggressiveness.

By employing basic logic and playing on the radicalized emotions of the nation’s public, this Navy poster is able to effectively convey a sense of urgency and kairotic appeals to the American public. In a time when everyone needed to do their part for the country, advertisements like these served as effective and helpful tools for encouraging everyday citizens to work towards the greater good. If I had been around during the time of World War II and propaganda posters like this, I can safely say I would be inspired to do my part to assist the American war effort.

Have you ever seen an advertisement that just made you uncomfortable? Whether you are watching TV or surfing the internet, it seems that ineffective, offensive, or downright disturbing advertisements have a tendency find their way through corporate executive offices and onto screens everywhere. Because of this, consumers often find themselves unable to avoid mocking the painful business blunders plastered on bus stops, billboards, and buildings across the world. While many horrible advertisements may cross your mind after reading the opening lines of this blog, I can assure you that after some extensive digging around the internet, I believe I may have found one of the worst.

Simply due to the line of products Jockey is advertising, they already have a harder job than most when it comes to advertising. Underwear ads, even when they are done correctly, can still feel awkward or even creepy compared to ads for other products. However, this advertisement, featured in a promotional series recounting motivational or redemption stories of users, seems to have missed its mark.

Michael Cottone in Jockey’s #ShowEm campain (PR Newswire)

In my opinion, the first problem with the advertisement is simply a lack of context. Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about this image is it actually has a wholesome, uplifting background. Contrary to what almost everyone infers from glancing at this poorly made poster, the man, Michael Cottone, is actually holding his adopted son, Vincent. While the positive story of the Cottone family recounted on the company website immediately alleviates any concerns we may have had about the overall well being of at least one of the models in question, it is completely absent from the initial image promoted by Jockey. As a result, the relationship between the two in the advertisement is left up to the suspicious and speculative minds of the masses, who more than likely will never take the time to read the full article online. Oops.

The next big problem with the advertisement is the general lack of clothing. I know this is a seemingly unreasonable criticism of an underwear commercial, but there is something about a grown man wearing nothing but his favorite underwear kissing a young child that seems visually unappealing to say the least. Again, even though the image in context is positive and makes perfect sense, Jockey makes the mistake of leaving too much up to the viewer’s imagination. All too often people are guilty of any suspected misconduct until proven innocent in the eyes of the public, and unfortunately for Micheal, Jockey has not provided him with a good visual case.

Finally, in case those were not compelling enough arguments against this advertisement, Jockey provides us with the cherry on top. Although the advertisement series’ signature phrase “show ’em what’s underneath” and its accompanying hashtag slogan “#ShowEm your JOCKEY” may serve as a clever, somewhat motivating addition to its other installments, used in this scenario it just does not work. When used in an advertisement about a man who overcame his poor home life to serve his country in the Navy? Sure. When describing a former US Marine who overcame the loss of his legs? By all means. However, when Jockey seemingly implies showing everyone what is really underneath in an advertisement depicting an unknown man and a child, the phrase quickly comes across completely different.

At the end of the day, many people are going to assume that the advertisement had positive intentions, even without reading or watching the full story. However, if there is one thing to learn from this, it is to never leave anything up for assumption in advertising. In a society full of people just waiting to be outraged, it is best for companies to clarify their messages in order to prevent any misinterpretations. Maybe one day we will live in a world where people do not default to the worst possible assumption of others. Until then, however, some context would be nice, Jockey.