Based on the Youtube video that can be found on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcrazy%2Espray%2Ese%2Fshowframed%2Easpx%3Fid%3D4ef658b5%2D77b5%2D48c9%2D9567%2D8e330f42af62%26url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eyoutube%2Ecom%2Fv%2FfJuNgBklo>
Although this video needs to be taken in very skeptically, it undeniably provides ground for substantial discussion. Unfortunately, it remains virtually anonymous.
The argument this collection of street interviews is essentially making is the disseminated ignorance of Americans nationwide, not only about the rest of the world but about their own history and country as well.
Posting a video on Youtube, especially one compiled of simple short interviews as this one, makes the target audience essentially anyone with an Internet access. Yet, it should be said that the humor employed demands a particular audience and context. The context is the world post September 11, post Invasion of Iraq, and the United States post- George W Bush . The War in Iraq contributed to an increasingly unpopular and critical view of America worldwide. Further, the president, notorious for his unitelligent remarks, inevitably personified an image for America: that of being utterly oblivious to the world around them and, worse even, of being so deliberately, and too bluntly to be forgiven. As to the audience, if the author wishes to persuade anyone, this someone will have to overlook many fallacies of argument, and thus this video is targeted for people who already share this image of Americans, and who thus need not to be convinced but simply humored.
One of the basic assumptions the author makes throughout the video is that whoever is watching it knows the answer to all the questions the interviewer is asking. That is necessary because otherwise, the viewer will cease to find it funny and feel insulted and possibly embarrassed for belonging to the same category of supposedly ignorant people the movie is making fun of.
The video is substantially composed of humour that appeals to Superiority: we find the interviews funny and laugh at those people because it is good for our self esteem: we deem them ignorant and stupid, and perhaps without noticing, suddenly feel a little smarter.
The argument in the video holds innumerous fallacies and is by no means successful in its persuasion. The sample the interviewer chose to represent America is what most comes out to me. It is not too hard to notice the prominent Southern accent of the majority of the people. Picking a random sample in New York or Philadelphia, say, will vary drastically from a sample chosen in a small southern town, where people are notoriously conservative and where the culture is traditionally "turned inwards". If the sample is manipulated rather than picked arbitrarily, the entire argument loses its ground.
Another fallacy to consider is the fact that many of the questions asked don't necessarily reflect ignorance, let alone irgnorance particular to the United States. Not knowing who Kofi Annan or Tony Blair are is much more common than one might be conforted to think. Insinuating Americans are dumb because they didn't answer "United States" when demanded about a country that began with the letter U is also fallacious. The reasoning doesn't follow! The very way the question was phrased compelled people to think about faraway countries, so that their mind wasn't "set" to consider their homeland in the first place. That certainly does not make them dumb or ignorant. It is ultimately a matter of defining those terms.
On the other hand, not knowing what a Mosque is, or what is the religion in Israel, or even more shockingly, being oblivious to whether America even fought in the Vietnam War is a bit more unforgivable. The latter, for a most trivial reason: it is a fact pertaining to their own history, and one that did not happen so long ago. But nonetheless, we know not if those people even went to High School- and if that was not the case than we cannot compare what they know to what we know - there is no fair basis for the comparison. As to what a mosque is, and to the religion in Israel, not to know them translates, to me, in a degree of alienation too high to be excusable. After all, the media has been unceasingly spotlighting the Middle East for the last few years.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Let's all engage in a Patriotic Duty
Written on: Bill Maher's Editorial "Mocking Bush is my patriotic duty," found at http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/09/08/maher/ .
In this humorous editorial, Bill Maher argues that incessantly mocking and criticizing the President isn’t anti-nationalistic, as many would say. Quite on the contrary, it is his (and should be any American’s) patriotic duty!
President Bush’s foreign policy has generated such a negative and hostile attitude towards America worldwide, that by letting people out there know that not all Americans agree with the government’s current war efforts and that many of us are – indeed!— embarrassed by his notoriously stupid remarks, Maher is helping to attenuate the animosity towards our nation, so prominent since the invasion of Iraq. It might even make people sympathize with us, because they will realize that we, too, are victims of a nonsensical president.
Maher certainly makes use of rhetoric to convince his readers. Because he is not dealing with something that can be factually proven (i.e., it would be quite hard to objectively account for the exact effect that mocking the President has on foreigner’s perception of the country), his argument is based on what is probable and contingent— one’s view on the subject will essentially depend on how well Maher can construct his argument.
Emotional persuasion in this editorial is perhaps the most prominent among the three types. After all, humor is ever-present in his paragraphs, embedded in every small claim. Directed at the general American public, Maher connects with his audience by using a very particular sense of humor that is nonetheless common to both him and the audience. For example, he compares Bush to leg warmers and ‘Hootie and the Blowfish’ (for being “really popular for a few years and then almost overnight becom[ing] completely embarrassing”). The audience knows what he is alluding to and understands the joke: the author has formed a common ground with them. This is especially so because these allusions are so particular and non-universal. Maher assumes, for instance, that he shares with the reader a set of accepted truths (e.g.,that leg warmers are embarrassing, but were once admittedly fashionable).
And why is a common ground something important to establish? Well, for starters, it engages people in the writing, as if signaling that the article is directed to them. Further, it creates empathy between the audience and the author, making the former more likely to trust the latter’s claim. Finally, because the ability to make people laugh is, essentially, a gift, employing (good) humor in a piece of writing often generates admiration towards the writer, which potentially could make his claims more credible.
Maher makes use of analogies to prove a few of his points. In arguing that the invasion of Iraq benefits none of the parties involved and is not a solution to either country’s problems, he writes, “OK, my boot is in your ass, but I can't get it out, so I'm not happy, and it's in you, so you're not happy -- there's no exit strategy.” In another instance, he retorts Bush’s notorious belief that anyone who doesn’t support the war is supporting the terrorists by comparing the President to an exterminator who believes that anyone offering an alternate way to kill the vermin is instantly “for the rats”. These analogies are a useful tool because they provide a very visual imagery. And besides, they're awfully funny.
In this humorous editorial, Bill Maher argues that incessantly mocking and criticizing the President isn’t anti-nationalistic, as many would say. Quite on the contrary, it is his (and should be any American’s) patriotic duty!
President Bush’s foreign policy has generated such a negative and hostile attitude towards America worldwide, that by letting people out there know that not all Americans agree with the government’s current war efforts and that many of us are – indeed!— embarrassed by his notoriously stupid remarks, Maher is helping to attenuate the animosity towards our nation, so prominent since the invasion of Iraq. It might even make people sympathize with us, because they will realize that we, too, are victims of a nonsensical president.
Maher certainly makes use of rhetoric to convince his readers. Because he is not dealing with something that can be factually proven (i.e., it would be quite hard to objectively account for the exact effect that mocking the President has on foreigner’s perception of the country), his argument is based on what is probable and contingent— one’s view on the subject will essentially depend on how well Maher can construct his argument.
Emotional persuasion in this editorial is perhaps the most prominent among the three types. After all, humor is ever-present in his paragraphs, embedded in every small claim. Directed at the general American public, Maher connects with his audience by using a very particular sense of humor that is nonetheless common to both him and the audience. For example, he compares Bush to leg warmers and ‘Hootie and the Blowfish’ (for being “really popular for a few years and then almost overnight becom[ing] completely embarrassing”). The audience knows what he is alluding to and understands the joke: the author has formed a common ground with them. This is especially so because these allusions are so particular and non-universal. Maher assumes, for instance, that he shares with the reader a set of accepted truths (e.g.,that leg warmers are embarrassing, but were once admittedly fashionable).
And why is a common ground something important to establish? Well, for starters, it engages people in the writing, as if signaling that the article is directed to them. Further, it creates empathy between the audience and the author, making the former more likely to trust the latter’s claim. Finally, because the ability to make people laugh is, essentially, a gift, employing (good) humor in a piece of writing often generates admiration towards the writer, which potentially could make his claims more credible.
Maher makes use of analogies to prove a few of his points. In arguing that the invasion of Iraq benefits none of the parties involved and is not a solution to either country’s problems, he writes, “OK, my boot is in your ass, but I can't get it out, so I'm not happy, and it's in you, so you're not happy -- there's no exit strategy.” In another instance, he retorts Bush’s notorious belief that anyone who doesn’t support the war is supporting the terrorists by comparing the President to an exterminator who believes that anyone offering an alternate way to kill the vermin is instantly “for the rats”. These analogies are a useful tool because they provide a very visual imagery. And besides, they're awfully funny.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)