Mini- Rhetorical Analysis

It's been a long time since I have done one of these.

In a speech delivered at the convention of the National American Woman Suffrage Association, Florence Kelley speaks about child labor, specifically from girls "between twelve and twenty years of age." Her purpose is to expose the detrimental nature of such child labor that occurs throughout the nation in order to push her audience to join her by petitioning. 

Kelley first captivates her audience by appealing to their emotions, primarily by introducing the topic of sleep. She begins this by stating "Tonight while we sleep, several thousand little girls will be working in textile mills," elucidating that people are completely unaware of the situation that goes on across the region. She continues by stating that "while little girls will be working tonight," we will be asleep. Kelley is able to spark awareness that the issue is occurring both in the present and the future. By stating that the girls "will be working," she exemplifies the recurring nature of what the girls must go through. They worked last week, they worked yesterday, and they will continue working "eleven hours tonight...while we sleep." Here, Kelley not only uses the word "sleep" to create a separation between public's life and the strenuous existence of the girls, but also to reveal that the public is ignorant, for when someone is asleep, they have no awareness of what is going on. Kelley asserts that horrible things are going on without anyone knowing it, and she urges those who are listening to her speech to wake up.

Florence Kelley is also able to convey her message about child labor to her audience by relating to them. Knowing that she is speaking among those who have similar opinions to her, Kelley creates a unification among the Woman Suffrage Association and herself. Towards the end of her speech, she uses the pronoun "we". She claims that "We do not wish this. We prefer to have our work done by men and women," then counters this by stating that "but we are almost powerless." By considering herself a part of her audience, she not only leads others to agree with her but also opens the door to an even bigger-picture issue. By saying that "we" are almost powerless, she refers to the inability for women like herself to make a change in the government. Kelley first brings about the issue of child labor, but then takes it a step further by making her female audience realize that they cannot satisfy their desire to create change without, according to Kelley, petitioning. 

On page 14 of volume two of Maus, Art discusses his guilt and confusion  with publishing Maus with Francoise. In this page, Art's distorted relationship with his father becomes apparent. In the first panels of the page, he states that he agrees with Francoise when she says that she feels "sorry for him," He pities Vladek for his experiences during the Holocaust and in Auschwitz and his poor health. However,  he reveals that despite his feeling bad for his father, he cannot relate to him; he exposes this when he states that Vladek "drives him crazy". Essentially, he cannot relate with his father because he didn't experience the Holocaust, which consumed and defined Vladek's entire life. Art therefore illustrates that the impact of the war consumed Vladek so much that he was incapable of becoming an ideal father, leading to a skewed relationship between him and Artie.

By revealing that the impact of the Holocaust affected Vladek's ability to become a father, Art divulges that this in turn affects himself with guilt; whereas Vladek as well as millions of other Jews experienced tremendous struggle for much of their lives, Art has the luxury of riding in his car with his wife. He realizes that it is "presumptuous" of him to write a book about millions of people who experienced suffering when he himself lives a life of wealth and fortune. His battles revolve around "making sense" out of Auschwitz- something that is impossible; by including this, Art exemplifies that the experiences of those in Auschwitz were so miserable that they simply cannot be explained. In fact, the Holocaust even affects Art to the extent that when he was a child he contemplated which of his parents he would rather save from being "taken to the ovens," something a "normal" child should never have to do. Thus, Art's struggle to make sense of Auschwitz reveals that the unjustifiable effects of the time stream not just within those who experienced it firsthand, but throughout generations.

This past week marked a first in 11 AP: our first cold-read seminar. I was put in the group that analyzed "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema" after someone proffesed that they new what the article was about. While reading the article, I felt rather uneasy- "ritual activity"? "Charms"? "Magical potions". Just reading about such an unfamiliar phenomenon made me raise eyebrows. I remember thinking to myself that the topics discussed in the piece were just weird; the medicine shrine and the oral torture that these Nacirema natives participated in. It just felt weird.

"This is some voodoo crap right here," I thought on multiple occasions when reading this piece. Then the piece ended. I felt uneasy; I didn't understand, and my inability to say something that sounded knowledgeable made that very apparent. "Normally a way that helps me understand purpose is my reaction to the piece. I just feel uneasy and this whole thing is kind of weird." That is all I could really say. It wasn't until we discussed the relationship between the "medicine men" and dentists that it started to click, and then we came to the realization that the whole thing was actually about Americans! The medicine "shrine" represents medicine cabinets, the "ritual activity" pertained to being obsessed with appearance, and the "torture" actually related to dentists.

After thinking about it, I realized that really what Horace Miner did was give me a slap in the face. He used my own reactions to what I thought were strange occurrences and ultimately used them against me. Miner played a trick, and I fell for it 100 percent. I thought these natives were weird and not once did I realize that they represented the society that I myself live in. By doing this, Miner really made me stop and think differently. Americans like to identify different cultures as exactly that- different. When we think of Africans, we think about the bands that women wear that elongate their necks. When we think of Mexicans, we associate them with sombreros and mustaches (either that or drug dealers). The main idea is that as Americans,we have become so subject to patriotism that we perceive other cultures as "weird," but we do not take into account what others may think of us.

It is believed that fur was one of the first materials used for clothing. Initially, fur coats and garments were used by humans to protect themselves from cold climates and are most associated with indigenous people. Fur was once worn for its comfort and sustainability. However, throughout many years the use of fur has targeted a new area: fashion. Fur has become a symbol of wealth and the high-class lifestyle. People tend to associate the wearing of fur with a classy, rich, lifestyle. Personally, whenever I think of someone who wear fur, I picture a middle-aged female, smoking a cigarette and sitting on a chair cross-legged. She has short, blond hair and has pearls on that match her long, white fur coat. Her face is covered in makeup: she has just a little bit too much scarlet lipstick on and she has endowed herself with an artificial beauty mark next to her left eye. She feels confident in her heavy white coat. She remembers receiving her coat as a gift from her friend, who claimed it came from a high-end boutique (when really it was bought at the Macy's across from her office). To her, a beautiful white coat- mink, was it? or possibly arctic fox.... She never really thought about where the garment of clothing that epitomized her rich lifestyle came from.

And when it comes to wearing fur, this is often the problem. Those who wear fur often don’t consider where exactly their clothing came from. More than half of the fur in the U.S. come from China. In an investigation undergone by PETA, it was discovered that everyday animals were “bludgeoned, hanged, bled to death, and often skinned alive for their fur”. In a video clip, undercover PETA representatives document the abuse that numerous animals experience. Within 60 second, the video depicts live animals getting thrown to the ground, pacing frantically in tiny cages, and worst of all, having their fur ripped from their bodies as they are hanging. After being skinned, many animals used for their fur are thrown into a pile  of the same species, where they are naked, bloody, and still alive. A mink, many times smaller and unrecognizable without its fur, blinks its eyes and tilts its neck before finally dying in a pile of other minks.

Watching the videos produced by PETA several times throughout the past couple years, I still feel uneasy. I can only bring myself to hope that the animals that are used for their fur are incapable of feeling the same pain that I feel (considering a single papercut lends itself to tears and wincing). Yet, for the woman with the white fur coat and all consumers of fur for that matter, this doesn’t seem to be a concern. Either these consumers are unaware of the suffering that these animals experience, or maybe they are confident that animals do not experience such a thing. Plenty of people have told me that “animals don’t feel pain; their brains are not developed well enough”. Of course, there really isn’t a way to find out. Believing that animals cannot suffer is rather questionable to me, but to the individual who is desperate to make a fashion statement, it just might be the determining factor when deciding whether to purchase a fur coat.

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/fur/

It was a turning point, a shock. All of a sudden this woman, who we sensed wasn't content with life nor her cake, leans down to comfort the woman who irritated all of us. There was silence, then a few "what"s and "ohh"s and then suddenly, out of the blue, she kissed the woman. The room was temporarily filled with confusion. What just happened?

From the beginning of the movie, it is obvious that Laura has trouble being accustomed to life as a mother and a wife. Although she loves her family, the orderliness of her family structure makes her unhappy. From the outside, her family is living the American Dream, but in a single day, Laura comes to understand her dissatisfaction as a family-wife, as depicted by the cake she makes. The cake that she makes is dedicated to her husband, similar to how the majority of wives during the time period were dedicated solely to their husbands. Her hard work when making the cake and her need for perfection in order to appease her husband represent the ideals of wives during the 1940s. The cake doesn't turn out the way she hoped; this reflects her discontentment with her life. Her life, like the cake, doesn't fulfill her expectations, and from this point, she desires to change.

Laura sees this same kind of discontentment with life in Kitty. From the outside, Kitty seems to love her life and her riches. However, she soon reveals that she is unable to have children and needs to go to the hospital for her procedure in her uterus. Kitty herself is struggling to fit the needs of society as a wife. She becomes emotional and aware that she is not fitting into the ideal family structure because she is incapable of conceiving. In a way, the kiss becomes a way of the two women understanding each other. They both sense that they do not fulfill their husbands nor society. The idea of two married women kissing in itself becomes a figure of flight from societal standards. By kissing Kitty, Laura dissolves her family structure. Furthermore, The kiss becomes a source of unity, for she is not alone in feeling incapable to appease society. It is her escape.

After reading pages 143 and 144 many times, and analyzing what the hat that Rezia is sewing for Mrs. Peters, I have come to think that this passage is representative of Septimus's life, from when he returns from the war to his death. I may be totally wrong, but I think the hat is representative of something much bigger.

"He began putting odd colours together- for though he had no fingers, could not even do up a parcel, he had a wonderful eye, and often he was right, sometimes absurd, of course, but sometimes wonderfully right"
In this passage, Septimus's perception is brought up. His absence of fingers suggest that he is a different person after coming back from the war; however, he has a "wonderful eye". In the eyes of society, he is absurd, but Septimus is actually wonderful, and contrary to what Holmes and Bradshaw and the rest of society believe, he is "right" according to Woolf.

"'She shall have a beautiful hat!' he mumured, taking up this and that, Rezia kneeling by his side, looking over his shoulder. Now it was finished- that is to say the design; she must stitch it together. But she must be very, very careful, he said, to keep it just as he had made it."
Although Septimus is capable of seeing "wonderful things", he needs Rezia to support him and help him "stich" his fragmented perception together. He depends on her to help him see what society sees and ultimately give him life.

"So she sewed.... The sun might go in and out, on the tassels, on the wallpaper, but he would wait, he thought, stretching out his feet, looking at his ringed sock at the end of the sofa"
"It was wonderful. Never had he done anything which made him feel so proud. It was so real, it was so substantial, Mrs. Peters' hat."
The sewing of the hat relates to Septimus's life. The inward and outward pattern of sewing is yet another reference to the up and down, wavelike nature of life. Rezia sews and sews, up and down, until the last stitch is complete. This resembles the end of life. The final downward stitch is similar to Septimus's final downward motion- his jumping out of the window. By describing the final product as "wonderful" and "substantial", Woolf reveals the inevitable nature of death. She also demonstrates Septimus's attitude towards death. He feels "proud" to have finished something that in his mind is beautiful, and similarly feels defiance when ending his life, which only he and Rezia perceive as "wonderful".

Each of the characters in Mrs. Dalloway seem to be having internal battles that differ from the others'. In each of the characters' minds, unique thoughts and opinions form; these evolve into fondness or dislike of others. For instance, Clarissa seems to simultaneously feel love and hatred for Peter, and vice versa. These two characters blame the other for their personalities and actions; however, like all the characters, these two are united in their fear of time.
In the introduction of the novel, Clarissa shares her self-perception. She senses that she is aging and often professes her fear with "time itself". She perceives her life as a "share" that is "sliced" with each  year she ages. She favors her youth and misses when she would "fill the room" with her young beauty She even relates the "exquisite suspense" of entering her drawing room to a diver plunging into the sea. However, after many years have gone by she sees her youth fade away and resorts to trying to regain her physical beauty by wearing dresses and throwing parties.
Like Clarissa, Peter also attempts to escape time. When he sits in Trafalgar Square, he attempts to regain his youth and is "utterly free". This occurs when he becomes distracted from his encounters and past with Clarissa. He puts his past-life aside and chases after a young woman to fell an "exquisite amusement". He feels young again, but his infatuation (and rather creepy) with the girl is short lived once the girl goes walks into her home. As a result, Peter is brought back into real-time and with his age, comes to realize that his infatuation with the girl and ultimately  his own youth is "smashed to atoms".
Clarissa and Peter also experience an encounter with time when they are together. During their conversation, they both have feelings towards each other but fail to make them external. Clarissa realizes that if she married Peter, she would have his "gaiety.. all day". Despite this, neither of the characters discuss their feelings but rather "challenge each other". When Peter finally begins to ask Clarissa about her marriage and happiness, Elizabeth interrupts their conversation. In the midst of the situation, Big Ben rings once again, reminding everyone that time is ticking.