Artifact Analysis
The SB 1070 was a brief movement so the biggest artifact was
a photo of a group of people with an interesting banner. There are multiple messages
and I’m going to analyze and talk about them all.
The first poster
has an interesting message that we can go back to. Brown skin is not a crime is
one of the protest symbols. Since the
law describes immigrants with brown skin to be suspicious and Illegal this
slogan sounds accurate. Lets go back to
the 1960s ounce again when African Americans were discriminated because is a
similar situation. The similar situation is putting human beings in jail
without citizenship that look suspicious. Ounce again unecery judgment the
facts are hidden with an illogical punishment. This outrages the immigrant protest
ester because it’s unconstitutional towards all the Arizona Civilians.
Poster number 2 is more basic with a fact we
all know. America was founded by immigrants witch is really true. Back in the
1700s a lot of immigrants came to the United States for a new Life. To be
honest ounce upon a time immigrants from other countries owned parts of the
united state witch they later sold to the United States. Speaking of that what’s
really ironic about the movement is that ounce upon a time Mexico owned Arizona
New Mexico and Texas to think the land they use to own is discriminating them.
That is an accurate fact but just because they have brown skin doesn’t mean their
criminals for all the deportation. Most of the American society is made up of
immigrants.
All
these protesters standing up to the government fighting for Human rights not
just racism but Human. What they mean by
that according to the summary instant deportation and incrimination towards all
the immigrants with no defense breaking the first amendment of the
constitution. No freedom of speech
press and petition. They are taking
their jobs away or no hire privalages.
One way to weaken someone is by taking away all his or her rights to
live in a territory.
Even the peacekeepers
are violating every single law that they pledged at the academy. It makes the public angry that the so-called
cops that were protecting are now arresting and deporting innosant people. They
all think their protecting but they are doing the exact opposite.
About a month later
the bill spread to ten states forcing a lot of people to relocate. Lets go to
the other side of the identity witch is the government. There are some supporters. The government makes it sound like they’re
cleaning up Arizona eliminating all the threats to the country blaming all the
Immigrants for all their problems. I had
a theory that the government though Mexico was taking all their land back after
a hundred years.
To conclude my analysis
I will say that the symbols filled with ethos are on all the posters. Showing how everybody feels thinks and
declares. The firth identity thinks there
doing a good deed cleaning up and second the protest call them all racist inhuman
and unconstitutional. So this symbol is
mostly based on emotion and mistreatment. The law may be gone but the movement
is not over.
1. In terms of an article, I think that you have too many. I would stick to one poster that you mention as a protest movement and elaborate further on how it either helps or worsens the experience of the people that are being targeted by SB1070. I would also elaborate more on what the article is doing rhetorically for the protest.
ReplyDelete2. I would read your last paragraph from your rhetorical section and come up with a solid transition paragraph so that you final draft will flow better. I would move your strong paragraphs on identity over to the rhetorical section of your paper to ground it so that it is easy to address or follow the significance of it in this section.
3. I would definitely conclude your paper by addressing the legality and the social and political effects of this protest.
4. You do not have a fourth question posed, but if you need additional comments or suggestions just let us know.
1. * one poster that you mention as a protest article and elaborate...
Delete"Brown skin is not a crime."
DeleteEthos (appeal to credibility): this can be seen in pictures of people of all races holding signs with this slogan.
Pathos (appeal to emotions): we are all human regardless of skin color, immigration status, and positionality of protest.
Logos (appeal to logic): in literal terms, having brown skin does not make someone a criminal.
Hi Mike,
ReplyDelete1. The artifact analysis itself:
• I agree with Saphire that you should probably stick with one banner/slogan to clarify this part of the paper.
• I think it would be that much more effective if you included a picture of the banner that you are talking about!
• You need more direct evidence for the claims that you are making. For example, when you say “This outrages the immigrant protestor because it’s unconstitutional towards all American civilians,” maybe you could add in a quote from a protestor expressing their anger towards the bill.
• I would expand more on your ethos paragraph. How did the banner (and the people holding the banner) use their particular slogan to gain credibility with their audience? It seems as though there should also be a paragraph on the pathos of that banner, because I would predict that a lot of emotion went into the protesting.
• I think your organization of this section is good, it will just require some expansion to really get your points across. I would focus more on the rhetorical situation (ethos/pathos/logos) for your artifact in this section.
2. The artifact analysis with the context sections:
• I think it’s great that you tied this part of the paper to your historical context by bringing back up the Civil Rights movement and how it relates to this movement.
• One thing that you need to clarify throughout the entire paper is how the identity that you are working with interacts with the rhetorical artifact/situation. How is the banner you are talking about linked with the identity of the immigrant?
3. Looking forward: what would you expect the conclusion to include?
• Your conclusion should include the success of that specific protest (was the law repealed or not) and it should maybe include some of the backlash that the AZ economy felt after the law was passed.
• I know that we have talked about this, but you can also include in your conclusion how the topic of immigration has changed since this bill. Has this issue progressed?
1. I think that your introductory paragraph needs to address the multiple messages that you are going to talk about and how they apply to a rhetorical situation (I don’t know what you’re rhetorical situation is). Then, which each paragraph, make sure you tell the reader what the message is before you discuss and analyze it. This will better help them understand what you are talking about and where they are at in your paper.
ReplyDelete2. Not necessarily. Remember that a rhetorical artifact is a moment that most often leaves some kind of permanent presence in history. This includes things like a picture, video, tape, slogans, etc.. Make sure you’re looking at one single artifact in your protest to analyze. For example, if you’re choosing to write about a reoccurring symbolic presence in your protest, write about that single symbolic presence and then explain how it shows up in the protest you’re analyzing.
3. You’re paper does not do a lot of explaining on how the use of symbolism effected the success or unsuccessful of your protest. You’re kind of addressing more what the symbolism is, and the historical timeline behind it, but not so much as to why it was important in the protest or how it was relevant. Also, make sure you elaborate when you use words like “they”.
4. I think that your paper has a good skeleton and you it seems like you have a lot of points. However, in terms of execution, I think what would help if you started with a web and wrote down a single topic you wanted to talk about, and branch that topic off with points relevant to the topic. Then you can further branch off your web using your sources and writing down quotes that you find relevant to your argument.
5. They are not so clear, I struggle with keeping up in your ideas and trying to decipher whom you’re talking about in your statements. There is also uncertainty in your rhetorical artifact as a whole, I’m not sure if you’re trying to talk about symbolism or just the injustice the protest is facing as a whole and the irony and hypocrisy they’re facing. It’s sounds more to me, like an opinion piece than an artifact analysis for a research paper. Also, I recommend that you try to find ways to include transition words in the beginning of your sentences to better aid in the fluency of your text and make it easy for the reader to follow.
6. I would recommend that you support your claims with hard-core evidence; evidence that comes from you sources. For example, you stated parts of the United States were once owned and then sold off by immigrants. If you are referring to Native Americans, and the Westward expansion so to speak, that was not a purchase but instead a forced expansion. However, if you are referring to Spain selling some of their land to the United States and so forth, that’s different story, and should be talked about in your paper. This way, the reader is not confused with which instance you’re talking about and can better understand the rhetorical claims you are making and the evidence you’re basing your claims off of. Remember, use your sources.
7. I think the conclusion is well constructed and relevant to what is being discussed in your paper. However, I would apply your statements in your conclusion to the statements made throughout your paper. Your supporting evidence is more historical than rhetorical, and make sure you are addressing what the symbolism in the protests are and apply some imagery or references to the imagery of the posters so the readers can see what you are saying.