Dear Raza,
Why is that one individual must always have the need to be jealous of another individual's success?
Why is it that one individual cannot say to another: "Hey, what you did is great! It inspires me that a person from nuestra raza is aiming for the sky and I'm incredibly inspired! I'm so proud of you!"
Why is it that individuals--usually from our tribe, nuestra gente, nuestra cultura--do everything in their power to try to drag you down when one is soaring or attempting to get up from a bad fall?
Why is it that individuals cannot reciprocate the fact that one individual goes out of their way to help them?
Why can't an individual say: "There are individuals in my life that have helped me and I am committed to taking care of these individuals since they are the ones that nurse my wounds at my time of need."
Why must individuals be greedy when they are given something out love?
Why must individuals feel the need to want to run another individual's life when their own lives are in complete disarray?
Why is it so difficult for an individual to say three simple words: "I am sorry." (and carry out the words with actions)
Why is it so difficult for an individual to say three other simple words: "I love you." (and carry out the words with actions)
Why are these questions not clear to you?
Not yours,
Hector
Showing posts with label Political. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political. Show all posts
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Feliz Dia de la Independencia!
Feliz Dia de la Independencia a Nuestros Paisanos en Mexico y los E.U.!!!!!!!!!
Nunca seremos vencidos paisanos Mexicanos y Chicanos! A Celebrar!!!!!
Thursday, July 26, 2007
A Critical Lens on Michael Moore's "Sicko"
I went to see Michael Moore’s latest film “Sicko,” which I was rather hesitant to see. First let me say that when I watch a documentary, I’m always interested in the approach the filmmaker takes in presenting her/his argument. I’ve certainly been critical of Morgan Spurlock’s “Super Size Me,” which I’ve taught in composition courses, where students study and write using theories by Toulmin and Bitzer. With that said, I either have Burke’s Pentad or Bitzer’s Rhetorical Situation ready to serve as a critical lens when watching documentaries.
In his last two films, Moore has created a trend of presenting what I call “messy arguments” that have created a multitude of assumptions even before the grounds for his claim start to unfold. By the end of film, I've experienced a sense of being lost in an argument whose assumptions left me out in the cold. In this way, “Bowling for Columbine” and “Farenheit 911” left me disoriented. With this previous reaction, I was ready to be critical of Moore a third time.
Without revealing too much about the film, I must say that while watching, I kept thinking of Toulmin’s theory about “casuistry” and his discussion of the locked binary between absolutism and relativism. I kept asking whether Moore was falling within the category of relativism or if insurance companies would use casuistry as a means by which to ground their claim to deny health care to particular individuals. I also kept thinking about the displacement of logical appeals in favor of so much pathos driven evidence.
Students often think that I am out of my mind for distancing myself from the pathos. But I figure that if Moore presented a strong logical appeal, he would displace much of that self-invented ethos of being humorous instead of being critical. Or can you be critical while being parodic? This is the same question that I initially presented after watching Spurlock’s film.
Audience members were certainly not laughing during "Sicko." The exception was a Latino couple, two elder folks, who applauded after the film. Yet, the rest of the audience members didn’t move as the credits rolled. Was it shock? Disappointment? Disapproval? It was then that I was more interested in observing reactions by fellow audience members in the theater than entertaining the questions I had for Moore.
Moore has certainly presented an exigence, but I wonder how much of that logical appeal is forsaken in favor of evidence so driven to pull emotional strings? Maybe this is a question for the classroom.
As far as Toulmin’s theory of casuistry, I’m left wondering how that theory has become obsolete in Moore’s presentation of his (weak/strong?) argument. Where was the counterargument? In France? Among the British?
Enough questions! Go see the film for yourselves…but don’t forget that critical lens!
Hasta la proxima!
In his last two films, Moore has created a trend of presenting what I call “messy arguments” that have created a multitude of assumptions even before the grounds for his claim start to unfold. By the end of film, I've experienced a sense of being lost in an argument whose assumptions left me out in the cold. In this way, “Bowling for Columbine” and “Farenheit 911” left me disoriented. With this previous reaction, I was ready to be critical of Moore a third time.
Without revealing too much about the film, I must say that while watching, I kept thinking of Toulmin’s theory about “casuistry” and his discussion of the locked binary between absolutism and relativism. I kept asking whether Moore was falling within the category of relativism or if insurance companies would use casuistry as a means by which to ground their claim to deny health care to particular individuals. I also kept thinking about the displacement of logical appeals in favor of so much pathos driven evidence.
Students often think that I am out of my mind for distancing myself from the pathos. But I figure that if Moore presented a strong logical appeal, he would displace much of that self-invented ethos of being humorous instead of being critical. Or can you be critical while being parodic? This is the same question that I initially presented after watching Spurlock’s film.
Audience members were certainly not laughing during "Sicko." The exception was a Latino couple, two elder folks, who applauded after the film. Yet, the rest of the audience members didn’t move as the credits rolled. Was it shock? Disappointment? Disapproval? It was then that I was more interested in observing reactions by fellow audience members in the theater than entertaining the questions I had for Moore.
Moore has certainly presented an exigence, but I wonder how much of that logical appeal is forsaken in favor of evidence so driven to pull emotional strings? Maybe this is a question for the classroom.
As far as Toulmin’s theory of casuistry, I’m left wondering how that theory has become obsolete in Moore’s presentation of his (weak/strong?) argument. Where was the counterargument? In France? Among the British?
Enough questions! Go see the film for yourselves…but don’t forget that critical lens!
Hasta la proxima!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Trailblazers
 |  |