Uber Fare Cuts Protest

Henry Laks

Dr. Brown

ENGL 306

October 23, 2015

                                                            Uber Fare Cuts Protest

            Today Uber is a highly valued independent contractor transportation platform, with a market value just over 60 billion (Balakrishnan, Anita).  Uber started its “tap a button” rider and driver platform in 2008.  Since its launch, it has steadily become more and more popular.  It has expanded immensely and is used all over the world.  Over the years, it has gained many supporters and advocates, but in the process Uber has also run into some disputes.  The subjects of these fights are too numerous to list.  However, they generally consist of accusations and attempts by groups to challenge Uber’s legality.  This paper is addressing one problem which recently surfaced after the newly emplaced fare cuts.  Some people speculate that these price cuts were introduced, because too many drivers have signed up for Uber.  It could be for a number of reasons but Uber says it will help “To attract more customers”.  These protesters want to be compensated for their hard work, and they claim that they can’t make ends meet because of the fare cuts.  Both sides of this protest have valid points and goals, but what the protestors want is to be treated like true employees. 

Uber has been trying to convince drivers that everything will work out with the newly incorporate fare cuts, but working for less money initially enrages many Uber drivers.  On their own news website Uber has gone into detail explaining the logic behind the price cuts.  The title of this article is “Beating the Winter Slump — Price Cuts for Riders with Guaranteed Earnings for Drivers” (Uber Newsroom).  The title illuminates a lot of Uber’s perspective in this argument.  The winter months usually generates less business for drivers than the warmer months during the year.  Uber knows a lower price will be more appealing to customers and hopefully will bring in more of money during the cold months.  Uber is confident that enough people will come and get rides to where the drivers will see a boost in their pay.  To bring some more reassurance, Uber uses logos to its advantage, by showing readers some figures.  The figures show how well Chicago has done after the fare cuts from 2013-2014.  Chicago has had the most aggressive fare cuts of 23% but drivers are earning 12% more per hour, as a result (Zara: Uber Newsroom).  Fare cuts are a major move by Uber to eliminate competition with Lyft and other taxi services (Baldwin: Engadget).  Uber intends to eliminate competitors by choking them out with the lowest fare prices possible, but they offer their drivers a guaranteed price per hour. 

  Uber’s guaranteed per hour earning system offered to the drivers, is an attempt to try to make amends for the lower fare rates.  Protesters think this is a nasty move by Uber, because for them to qualify for this guarantee per hour pay they need to comply with “some changes”.  In the past drivers have had the option of using multiple apps or platforms, similar to Uber, to find people who need rides.  This guaranteed pay policy eliminates that freedom.  The policy forces people to solely rely on Uber for their pay and to work meet a tough rides quota.  The guarantee forces drivers to be extremely productive if they want to make anything like what they have in the past (Huet, Ellen).        

Roberto Baldwin wrote an article about planned gathering of the “Uber Drivers United” group.  On February 1^st they protested outside the Uber headquarters in San Francisco (Baldwin: Engadget).  The leader of the group “Mario”, his last name is not mentioned for privacy, had put together this gathering through a YouTube invitation.  He had been expecting 1500-2000 protesters to show up, but roughly 150 actually made an appearance at this meeting.  Mario encourages other drivers to join him in his protesting, “For our rights, to be treated fairly, to get paid fairly, and stop this game Uber is playing with us… so I am asking you guys please, please, show up make a difference otherwise you can look forward to seeing 50 cents per mile before the super bowl,” (Girma, Zolla: YouTube Video).  Drivers at this protest are angry they are making less than when they started driving for Uber.  They feel like Uber is ripping them off after they have loyally supported the company.  From Mario’s point of view, they are the reason Uber has done so well.  Many of the drivers came forward saying their pay was continuing to decrease, and they all agreed that the fare cuts were not bringing in more riders.  Mario uses some rhetorical language to motivate the drivers in this protest. 

During the speech Mario uses both pathos and logos to his advantage.  Mario’s message was purposefully spoken just outside of the Uber headquarters to inspire its followers, and to make sure Uber officials heard their complaints.  During his speech Mario pointed his megaphone directly at the building as he yelled, “Who made this company a $60 billion company? Drivers!” (Baldwin: Engadget).  He got the crowd going by yelling into a megaphone that they “have them by the balls”, because he had been told that fare cuts would soon bring in only 50 cents per mile.  Mario also noted that he had tried to set up a meeting with the CEO of Uber, but Uber had never been responded back to him on that.  Mario also uses Ethos in his speech when he talks about how Uber is stealing them away from their families.  Mario tells his followers that Uber is enslaving them, and its taking them away from their families to work for unfair conditions so the company can make more money. 

            On the other hand, technically Uber hasn’t actually hired anyone.  All of the drivers they are independent and can do as they wish.  If no driver is legally hired by Uber, they are reaping the benefits of a contractor.  In other words, they don’t actually have any employee rights.  Many protesters such as Mario are trying to make a strong argument that they have rights, which is true, but they do not have the rights that by law that companies are required to give to employees.  According to the law Uber is following the rules.     

Right now is a key time for a leader to rise amongst transportation platforms.  The platform which is able to find the perfect balance between fare price and pay for drivers will win.  Uber by far has made the most money out of all the platforms, so in order for them hold this position they will do whatever they need to keep ahead of competitors. There really isn’t that much Uber can do to raise the pay unless they start firing drivers and actually start hiring them as employees.  What the protestors want is to be treated like employees, but that would defeat Uber’s greatest advantages over taxi companies.  Protesters such as Mario are understandably upset about their pay going down.  Unfortunately, they will have to get use to the low fare prices until fares go back up again.

 Works Cited:

Balakrishnan, Anita. "Uber Taps Morgan Stanley Clients in Latest round." CNBC. CNBC, 11 Jan. 2016. Web. 24 Feb. 2016. <http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/11/uber-seeks-new-funding-valuing-the-company-at-625b-sources.html>.

Baldwin, Roberto. "Uber Drivers' Rates Protest Takes to the SF Streets." Engadget. Engadget, 02 Feb. 2016. Web. 24 Feb. 2016. <http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/02/uber-drivers-rates-protest-sf/>.

Girma, Zolla. "January 31, 2016." YouTube. YouTube, 31 Jan. 2016. Web. 08 Mar. 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3HNBSq9pag>.

Huet, Ellen. "Uber's Clever, Hidden Move: How Its Latest Fare Cuts Can Actually Lock In Its Drivers." <i>Forbes</i>. Forbes Magazine, 9 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2016. &lt;http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/01/09/ubers-clever-hidden-move-how-fare-cuts-actually-lock-in-its-drivers/#5a63ec972bd6&gt;.

Zara. "Beating the Winter Slump - Price Cuts for Riders with Guaranteed Earnings for Drivers." Uber Global. Uber Newsroom, 08 Jan. 2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2016. <https://newsroom.uber.com/beating-the-winter-slump-price-cuts-for-riders-with-guaranteed-earnings-for-drivers/>.

Anti-Apartheid Poster

Andrew Koleski

3/7/16

Final Draft

Dr. Brown

“Anti-Apartheid Movement” Poster

At the top of the page is a poster made by the “Anti-Apartheid Movement”, a group based in the U.K. dedicated to raising awareness of apartheid in South Africa. More specifically, this group is using the object to protest The 1967 Terrorism Act. This piece of legislation gave the authorities the power to “detain people indefinitely without disclosing where they were being held” (Michigan State University) Using pathos, logos, and ethos, this poster demonstrates to its audience how vital it is to help the “Anti-Apartheid Movement” so they can stop the system of racism in South Africa. This object was distributed within the U.K., but thanks to the very act it was protesting, the group’s poster could not be shown in South Africa.

The 1967 Terrorism Act had an “official goal”, the one defined previously, however at the heart of the law was something darker. During the 60’s, South Africa was under the system of government known as “apartheid”. A definition of apartheid could go something like this: It was a system of racial segregation, and “political and economic discrimination” against those that were not of European descent (Webster), even though the majority of those living in South Africa were black. (Stanford)  Any form of opposition government or even a difference of opinion was seen as a danger to the current regime. For example, following the passage of the act, hundreds of members of an opposition party, (South West African People’s Organization, SWAPO) where arrested and jailed because they were suspected of being “terrorists”. (SAHO) For the next 40 plus years, the country operated under a system of apartheid. (BBC News) Throughout this time, the government cracked down on protesters and opposing parties and other leaders, such as Nelson Mandela, were jailed. (BBC News) Eventually, Mandela was released and later elected leader of South Africa. (BBC News) However, that does not excuse the shameful history of apartheid in South Africa. Thus, the “Anti-Apartheid Movement” was interested in ending Apartheid, but in particular The 1967 Terrorism Act because it gave overreach of power to the Apartheid police, used no diplomacy in the process, continued a system of segregation not only through law, but by force and worst of all negatively affected the people of the country it was “supposed” to protect.  This system was adopted nationwide in 1948, when the National Party took control of the country.

The main strategy used with this object is logos, using the law’s own purpose and logic against it. Since the group knows that corruption and abuse of power stirs strong feelings in people, the poster wastes little time in attempting to shape the public’s perception of the policeman shown in the photo, as well as explaining the true reason for the law. “…He can question them in secret for as long as he likes…” (Michigan State University) the caption on the photo says. With this sentence, the poster is trying to convince the audience that 1.) The policeman is up to no good and that 2.) This particular policeman would have no problem abusing his power. This second point is driven home by what is said after the first quote: “…And cannot be forced to account for any of his actions.” (Michigan State University) With that statement, the poster is letting the audience know that if they don’t do something quick, this evil man will “get away with it”.

However, this is not the only way the object uses logos. It also does this by appealing to the audiences’ reasoning, more specifically in relation the job of a policeman. For many people, the police are meant to protect and take of their citizens. Make sure everybody is safe, stop criminals from stealing, calming down people and deescalating situations. How strange then, that this particular person is not referred to as a policeman once in the entire caption. Instead, the poster refers to his as a “versatile gentleman” that “with his many colleagues, arrests around 3,000 Africans every day”. (Michigan State University) This quote could make the audience do a double take and ask themselves questions, such as what makes this man so versatile? Why has the author used this word? Is it a bad thing? Further down, though, is where the audience may really start to think about what is going on, and might begin to question the policeman’s authority through reasoning and logic. If he is a policeman, why is he traveling in a group with colleagues? Shouldn’t he be able to do his job alone? Also, why is he arresting 3,000 people a day? Isn’t that too much? The strongest use of logos, however, comes when the poster states “…at least 15 people have died under his ‘questioning’ (Michigan State University) in the past several years. Surely, a policeman doing routine questioning shouldn’t be killing anyone? It’s moments like this, as well as the others, where the object is attempting to shape the audience’s opinion through logos.

Though it may not seem like it at first, the object does not only appeal to reason, logic, rationality, & evidence. The poster also uses ethos to some degree. While it may seem to be criticizing authority itself, one way to interpret the object would be to say it simply replaces one type of authority with another. In the poster, as mentioned before, a policeman is pictured while an unflattering characterization is made by a caption next to him. However, without the authority of the police to relay on the poster addresses its audience directly by telling them what has happened, and what to do about it; “This is South Africa’s police state. This is how apartheid is enforced. Help us work toward ending it. Join the Anti-Apartheid Movement” (Michigan State University) having said this, the poster seems to leave all of the power, and authority, in the hands of the audience. With injustice rampant in South Africa, and a police force not to be trusted, it is up to them, and those that have been informed of the situation, to join the movement that will help end apartheid in the African country.

Apartheid was a shameful time in history for South Africa and its people, and as this object showed the frustration and anger felt towards it was not only felt by its people. However, it is important to note that in time of frustration, hatred, and bigotry there was always those ready to fight it. It is quite interesting that not only was it people outside the country, that made the poster, but it was people not even in the same continent the law was taking effect in, that decided to speak up for those that were being abused. The “Anti-Apartheid movement” successfully used the rhetorical strategies of pathos, logos, and ethos to sway their audience into not only thinking about the injustice of apartheid, but perhaps a way to end it.

                                                                 Works Cited

BBC News "South Africa Profile - Timeline - BBC News." BBC News. BBC, 25 June 2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Michigan State University “A South African Policement, Judge, and Executioner:." African Activist Archive. Michigan State University, n.d. Web. 08 Feb. 2016.

SAHO "1967 Terrorism Act, No. 83 of 1967." SAHO.org.za. South African History Online, 6 July 2012. Web. 08 Mar. 2016.

Stanford "The History of Apartheid in South Africa." Students.standford.edu. Stanford, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Webster "Apartheid / Definition of Apartheid." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.

Guy Fawkes Mask

Frank Cortes

3/7/16

Eng 306

Dr. Brown

Behind The Mask: Guy Fawkes, Occupy, and Anonymous

In the 21st century, one of the most recognized symbols all over the world finds itself at the center of most protest rhetoric. This is most true when the goals of the protest movement revolve around a reformation of authority and power. Anarchy has been a part of society in various forms, but with the introduction of the Guy Fawkes mask it has been given a face. It is a face that has found itself at home among activist groups such as Anonymous, and protest movements like Occupy. The mask holds a historical past as well as one in popular culture, both playing a part in understanding how a mask can be a symbol for revolution in protest. It becomes synonymous with the rebel identity and many others, which leads it to be a perfect protest object used by both Anonymous and Occupy.

Historically we can trace the man behind its name, Guy Fawkes, as a real person who on November 5, 1605 was arrested for attempting to set off gunpowder kegs underneath parliament with an intent to assassinate King James I (History-Guy Fawkes). His attempt was a failure and he was soon executed for treason along with all his conspirators. Later in 1980, a graphic novel was created by David Lloyd and Alan Moore with the title, “V for Vendetta”, which in 2006 became a movie (Lovett). The graphic novel, and movie, both centered around a dystopian future where a rebel known only as “V” fights against a British totalitarian government. The creator, Lloyd, suggested, “having the rebel wear a Guy Fawkes costume” (Lovett). It is at this point that the Guy Fawkes of the historical past, is revived by popular culture into an iconic rebel, who takes on the same task to bomb parliament but succeeds in his efforts.

(Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/how-did-guy-fawkes-become-a-symbol-of-occupy-wall-street/)

Socially the mask grew into popularity among protest movements with its adoption by Anonymous. Although the organization has an amorphous persona, with the members often remaining a secret and its organization having no recognizable leadership, the decision to add the Guy Fawkes mask as one of their brand labels gave Anonymous an instant visage. In what an article recognizes as their first full protest with the masks incorporated, the group went on an attack against the Church of Scientology (Walker). The arrival of the strong brand only picked up from there, finding itself years later more popular than ever, and working on the side of the Occupy movement.

When looking closely at how the Guy Fawkes affected both Anonymous and Occupy a starting point would be who its intended audience is throughout the protest. Most of the protesters who participated in the movement did so because they were in agreement that the current economic system favors greedy corporations and social inequality. Overall the intent for the mask is to send out a message. The extent of its influence allows most anyone who is familiar with its origins to be its audience. The Occupy Wall Street protest attracted so much news coverage, and they also benefited from broadcasting their own social media campaigns. One of their Facebook pages used an image of a character wearing the Guy Fawkes mask with the message reading, “all OCCUPY Protesters to come together on November 5th, 2011, to rally again our efforts to end corruption and social injustice” (Lovett). The organizers of this particular event for the protest made it clear through the image given and the message sent out that the audience should wear the mask in order to unify to their cause.

After the intended audience receives the mask in either form, visual or physical, it performs its various purposes. One of the most important purposes this mask serves is to allow its user the benefit of anonymity during protest. The Occupy protesters felt it would be beneficial to wear the mask not only because it sent a clear cut message to the contemporary audience familiar with its connotation but also because it hid their identity. As one protester stated, “The point of wearing the mask is to be able to go to a protest without fear of retribution or aggression from the establishment,” however with the included identity already provided by the mask the anonymity for the user doesn’t go without a unifying effect (Thompson). The second purpose is the unification of a group under an argument. It wearers use it to identify with the movement and just generally a relatively close ideology with other members of the movement who wear it.  Its ability to unify is shown in the 2006 movie in the final scene where a march of those against the system descended upon parliament to watch it burn (Lovett). Just as the movement in the film was shown forming together in solidarity wearing the Guy Fawkes mask, so too do the protesters in Occupy and the group “Anonymous”. The identity of the anarchist or those against the current political system can now use this tool to express themselves peacefully while always keeping the violent implications the mask originated with intact.  Although  it pertained to protesters and sympathizers alike, the mask was still subject to interpretation of the user, “Some people wear it to make a fashion statement, other because they know what it’s about,” so the unification is not always universal and sometimes falls victim to its own popularization (Thompson). The purpose however still remains the unification of those who empathize with the anarchist movement or Occupy.

The success of the object’s purposes was highly dependent on Ethos and the authorities behind it making it an obvious choice for those who identify with anti-establishment rhetoric. First and foremost although the history behind the Guy Fawkes mask is not well known among usual people, Guy Fawkes is still an authority as a figure of violent anarchy in society. The more well recognized authority, however fictional it may be, is the character “V” in both the “V for Vendetta” graphic novel and movie. The rebellious vigilante serves as a perfect source for ethos and his expertise in bringing down totalitarian governments. At that moment the mask became linked to his identity as an anarchist and those who wear the mask will be aware of this in most cases. Lastly, the final way ethos is relevant to how this object of protest is adopted through its affiliation with hacker group Anonymous.  The group has gained fame through their constant dedication to activism through the internet and their obsession to remain anonymous to the public eye, which is exactly the two goals the Occupy protesters took on themselves.

(Source: http://hilobrow.com/2012/04/30/mask/)

Along with ethos as a way to persuade protesters to the importance of the mask, pathos is used well to give the mask more influence. The mere idea of anarchy is so emotionally charged, filled with anger and discontent towards the established set of norms in a society. The mask encompasses the anger and discontent into a wearable object. The more people begin to wear it, or advertise it during the protest on the street, the more it begins to spread to other protesters. It plays on their emotions of anger but of also belonging. One individual stated, “I thought I would show my support for the book and for Anonymous by picking up a mask and being part of the movement,” by the book the protester means the “V for Vendetta” graphic novel (Thompson). Another way pathos is used for the object is the way in which it is presented alongside powerful anarchist slogans such as, “The people shouldn’t be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people” (Lovett).  A slogan so general, but yet so provocative uses the simplicity in the message shown, alongside members of the protest wearing the mask, to get others emotional.

In terms of the success this object had on the progress of the actual movement, there is not much evidence that it aided very much in the streets to get much done. However the success can be judged by how fast it spread throughout the Occupy movement and Anonymous. In both instances from the moment of acceptance as an object of protest rhetoric it anchored itself firmly as a reemerging symbol of anarchy and rebellion. The Guy Fawkes mask will most likely continue to show up in future protests, and with any news event affiliated with Anonymous.

Work Cited

“History-Guy Fawkes.” BBC. n.d Web. 22 Feb 2016

Lovett, Edward. “How Did Guy Fawkes Become A Symbol of Occupy Wall Street?” ABC News

         Network, 5th Nov 2011. Web. 22 Feb 2016

Sauter, Molly. “Guy Fawkes Mask-ology”. HiLo Brow, 30th April 2012. Web. 23 Feb 2016.

Thompson, Nick. “Guy Fawkes Mask Inspires Occupy Protests Around The World.” CNN. 5th Nov

2011. Web. 23rd Feb 2016.

Walker, Rob. “Recognizably Anonymous How did Hacker Group that rejects definition develop such a

strong visual brand?” Slate, 8th Dec 2011. Web 23 Feb 2016.

 

Los Angeles Clippers Protest Owner Donald Sterling

Harold Mitchell

Dr. Steph Brown

Protest Rhetoric, Performance, and Identity

Los Angeles Protest Owner Donald Sterling

           

            The photo above is a representation of an N.B.A wide protest against the Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling. The Clippers were at the center of this incident since it was their owner who was in the hot seat for his raciest remarks he had said only days earlier. The team would ultimately decide to appeal to sport fans by wearing black colored socks and wristbands during the games. By wearing the color black, it allowed the identity of the protest to be associated with African Americans.

          Donald Sterling was the longest running owner in the N.B.A, a total of 33 years of owning the Los Angeles Clippers (Wikipedia). Sterling was accused of being a racist when a video recording of him and a Ms. Stiviano surfaced on April 24, 2014. In the recording Sterling says, “It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to” (TMZ, 2014).  Sterling would go on to say, “ You can sleep with (black people). You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on your instagram and not to bring them (black people) to my games” (TMZ, 2014).

            This incident was not Sterling’s first time he was accused of being a racist. In 2009 Elgin Baylor the then acting General Manger for the Clippers accused Sterling of having a “plantation mentality”, Baylor said that sterling told him that he would much rather have a Southern White coach coaching poor black players than hire a black coach (Manfred 2014). Sterling has had a record of degrading the African American public. He has shown a tendency to put himself above others. And when the video recording surfaced in April of 2014 the Clippers, as a team would aim to bring attention to this by the wearing of black colored wristbands and socks.

            In the first round of the 2014 N.B.A playoffs the Clippers team met at half court before the start of the game and took off their team issued warm up gear. Underneath the gear they wore plain red t-shirts. But it wasn’t the t-shirts that appealed to the pathos of the fans; it was the black colored wristbands and socks. The identity they were relating to was clear cut it was black people. Since the remarks that the owner Sterling made was towards blacks, the color of the socks couldn’t be more profound. When you see the socks and wristbands an emotion inside of people is stirred up, people can relate the significant of the color of the socks. The color black is recognized as not just socks but a group of people that have had to endure the painful remarks and sluggish attitude of a selfish owner.

            The black wristbands and socks was a significant strategy of the protest because the other N.B.A teams couldn’t turn their warm up gear inside out because it was only Donald Sterling accused of being a racist not the N.B.A owners as a whole. The socks allowed however the other players to show support to the cause by wearing black wristbands and socks during the games. It started out with just the Clippers and soon grew to the other teams. And it came at the biggest time of the year for the N.B.A, during the N.B.A Playoffs.

            The collectiveness of the players wearing black wristbands and socks was a strategy of logos. It showed that Sterling’s comments were not only offensive to blacks but were offensive to every human who stood for equality. It showed no matter what color your skin that nobody had the right to talk down to you or to reject you just because you were a different skin color.

            Through the protest of the Players of the N.B.A and the Players Association and the governing board of the N.B.A, the Commissioner off the N.B.A Adam Silver banned Donald Sterling for life in April 2014. Sterling would also be fined 2.5 million. The Los Angeles Clippers would be sold to Steve Ballmer on May 29, 2014 for 2 Billion Dollars (Wikipedia).

            Although Sterling’s comments shook the N.B.A it didn’t bring it down. Sterling’s views were not that of the owners as a whole. The N.B.A players showed that although they play on different team they are a close net group. Nothing will be stronger in a protest, a successful protest than that of a unity of advocates. In this case it was the players of the National Basketball Association.

Works Cited

"Clippers Owner Donald Sterling to GF -- Don't Bring Black People to My Games ... Including Magic Johnson." Http://www.tmz.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.

Manfred, Tony. "Here Are All The Shockingly Awful Donald Sterling Stories That The NBA Ignored For Years." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 28 Apr. 2014. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.

Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.

Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.

Stonewall Final Draft

Scott Autenreith

2/23/16

Rough Draft

StoneWall

Stonewall: The Beginning of the End of Gay Oppression

            When one thinks of America, most would envision a land of freedom. It is envisioned as a place where individuals can come to live as they wish without the persecution of others. The gay community in America felt oppressed because, “The act of homosexual sex, even in private homes, was punishable by a fine, 20 years in prison, or even a life sentence” (PBS). On June 28^th, 1969, the fight for gay sexual liberation in hopes of having freedom took place. The gay community protested in a common way. They rioted, held signs, and chanted loudly as a collective group. Although it was not an original protest, their message began an uproar that spread throughout the entire United States within the near future. One sign being propelled into the air that stated, “Stonewall means, FIGHT BACK! SMASH GAY OPRESSION! Gay Caucus of Y.A.W.F. (Youth Against War and Fascism)” (Word Press) provided meaning as to why the events at Stonewall occurred and why the gay community demanded freedom. 

            The Stonewall Inn was a gay bar within the Greenwich section of New York City. On the night of June 28^th, 1969, police raided the establishment in hopes of shutting down the gay bar for the night. During the raid, there happened to be over two hundred people in the bar and many became anxious and angry when the cops were shutting the business down and eventually, it led to an outrage. Within an hour, violence ensued and the riots moved out onto the streets of New York City (PBS). Demonstrations lasted for six days, with the crowd of protestors growing larger and larger every day. It became an event that although began through frustration, in the future was know to be the kick-starter of other gay movements throughout America.

            The sign shown above was simple, but established a great deal of pathos. The use of the word “oppression” evoked a great deal of emotion towards their audience. When one thinks of oppression, many examples can be connected such as the Japanese Americans that were present during World War II. Because they were seen as a threat, they were put into concentration camps, stripped of their rights, and were being watched over the U.S. Government (PBS). Also, African Americans received oppression just prior to the time of the Stonewall riots. People of color could not share the same public space, use the same bathrooms, or shop in stores that all white people could. Because of their skin, they had less rights and were treated differently. It was not until 1965 when the Government delivered the first civil rights package. The civil rights package made it legal for all African Americans to vote (African Activist). With oppression still fresh in peoples’ minds, the gay community then comes out to the public, letting them know that they felt oppressed as individuals. “Oppression” gauged the audience to feel the same emotion that they felt during examples similar to the situation that the gay people were experiencing. The idea of oppression could also be applied to a logical appeal.

            During the 1960’s, the idea of equal rights was a topic of much discussion. Racism and sexism were primary examples that were being argued in the United States. As stated above, the United States first civil rights package was completed in 1965. Race was a long debated issue that eventually was adjusted by giving more equal rights to African Americans. When the protestors of Stonewall brought up the idea of equality and oppression, they were hitting the rhetoric of kairos. In American history, the United States had voted in favor of everyone receiving equal rights (PBS). So as a result, it was a strong use of kairos from the protestors. Their timing of bringing up equality amongst other Americans They acknowledged that they were not equal amongst everyone else by way of sexuality, and appealed to the audience by explaining that there were still groups within the United States that were being discriminated against.

Along with the word “Oppression”, the phrase “Gay Caucus of Y.A.W.F.” also demonstrated rhetorical strategy. In the time of Stonewalls occurrence, Americas military was deep into the war of Vietnam November 1, 1955 – April 30, 1975. Large groups protested having soldiers on the ground and demanded peace. Using the term, “Gay Caucus of Y.A.W.F. (standing for Youth Against War and Fascism)” was a strong use of ethos because it reached out to the audience who agreed with those beliefs. The Caucus was a national organization that stood up for the rights of all oppressed people (African Activist). The activist group represented many groups including the Black Panther Party in 1966. They stood up for the rights of citizens being oppressed. The group recognized that the protest was not an issue that was only New York City’s problem. It showed that is was discrimination occurring throughout the entire country. The Y.A.W.F. organization led the protests against the Vietnam War. Having Y.A.W.F.’s support provided credibility to the gay’s argument.

The banner represents a great deal of pathos, ethos, and kairos. The strategies were effective but there was a lack of logos utilized within the message. Although there was a lack of logos, the other rhetorical strategies were more beneficial in the persuasion of the audience.

            The protests that occurred at Stonewall were at the time relatively small, but the demonstrations led to the creation of the gay community. Stonewall led to the creation of many other gay rights activists groups that returned to New York City to commemorate the Stonewall riots. Four years after the protests, the American Psychiatric Association took homosexuality off of their list of disorders. In 1978-1998, gay, lesbian, and bisexual groups have emerged as key parts of fortune 1000 companies (Odinity). Jumping to June 26^th 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was to be legal in all fifty states (ProCon). Stonewall served as a catalyst for all major advances in the law changes of gay rights. It was the first national publicity to a gay rights protest and after the event occurred, the mentality began to shift within the United States. Society slowly began to change their belief in the discrimination of gays. Although the protest used at Stonewall was ordinary, it was effective and made a difference. The sign above provided so much information within such a small area. The use of “Oppression” and “Gay Caucus of Y.A.W.F.”, was able to grasp the audience at that time period and not only combined emotion into their argument, but the sophistication within the text provided credibility and reason for American citizens to agree and support the gay community.  

Works Cited

           

           

Murray, Kelsey. "The Stonewall Riots and Their Influence on Workplace Discrimination." Odinity. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

Nakagawa, Scott. "Race and the Religious Right." Race and Ethnicity. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

"Politics of Reproductive Violence in the U.S." Nov. 2014. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

"Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?" Pro Con. 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

"Stonewall Uprising." American Experience. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

"Who Have Been the Most Oppressed Group of Human Beings in the History of Humanity?" Hub Pages. 16 Nov. 2008. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.

"Youth Against War & Fascism." African Activist Archive. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.