February 6 2009
January 10, 2009
Today’s Agenda:
Let’s being today by turning over our short précis on “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard.”
Last time, we had a good, spirited conversation about the first amendment: let’s look at it, so we know what it looks like:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Okay, now that we know what it looks like, I want you to take your assignment out, turn it over, and spend the next ten minutes writing on the following subject:
Describe HOW you went about either agreeing or disagreeing with Bok. What did you focus on, what did you discuss, what did you claim – and how did you back these claims up?
Group Work:
Okay: who agreed with Bok? Who disagreed with Bok? As far as it is possible, I want you to get into groups of 4 that are split on whether or not you agree with Bok. In your groups, I want you to go around, explain your analysis, and then begin to try to convince one another that you are correct in your analysis.
Class Discussion
Okay: now that we have had a chance to being arguing with one another in a constructive way, we are ready to being the ground work for our second major project in this course, which is, as I told you last time:
A 3-5 page argument, using a variety of sources as material. In the argument, you will analyze and evaluate the source material and synthesize it into a coherent whole.
Analyze: What does it mean to analyze something?
Analyze: to separate (a material or abstract entity) into constituent parts or elements; determine the elements or essential features of (opposed to synthesize ): to analyze an argument.
Now we need to EVALUATE the materials.
What does it mean to evaluate something?
When we evaluate something, we to judge or determine the significance, worth, or quality of; assess: to evaluate the results of an experiment.
Our job over this weekend is going to be to evaluate “The Oblivious Empire.”
We do this by considering the following:
I) We identify the thesis, and then explain whether or not – and how – A) the evidence the author presents supports this thesis (either through pathos, ethos, or logos). When then explain whether or not the structure and order of this information is reasonable, and how or if it contributes to the strength of the argument.
Your evaluation is to be posted here as a two page blog post. This is due before class on Monday. It will take some serious thought this weekend.
[...] Friday, Feb 6 [...]
Analysis of “The Oblivious Empire”
The thesis of this article is; Is the United States any better than other countries with their actions overseas? Hertsgaard supports his thesis by mainly pathos but he does add in ethos and logos. He uses quotes that appeal to your emotions and makes you think “What has the United States done? How didn’t I know about this? His quotes makes you think twice about your country and make you ask question is the United States any better than other countries with their actions overseas? Some examples of pathos quotes are: On November 10, 2001 Bush told the world that it wasn’t doing enough to help the United States fight terrorism, where while he was saying this, his own administration was shunning negotiations in Morocco to finalize the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Hertsgaard states, “The Bush administration insists on doing nothing to lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. No wonder foreigners resent us” (1018). Another example is when the Soviet Union shot down a Korean Airlines passenger jet over the Pacific, killing all 276 people on board, the United States condemned the attack as further evidence of the “evil empire’s” true nature, rejecting the Soviet explanation that the jet was acting like a military aircraft. Now the tables were turned: the United States shot down an Iranian civilian jet it mistakenly believed was a military craft. All 290 passengers died. When Bush senior was asked if an apology was in order, he replied, “I will never apologize for the United States. I don’t care what the facts are” (1019). When reading these quotes you think to yourself no wonder why people hate us overseas, look what we have done. It seems to me like all the United States does is care about them; we seem to get into situations for the wrong reasons. We might go and try to help another country but it always seems to benefit us in the end. Also the United States doesn’t let other countries get away with many things but if it’s us then we always have an excuse and can get away with things even when it’s not right or clearly it was our fault.
Another example of Hertsgaard using pathos is when the United States went against releasing Nelson Mandela who was the president of South Africa who was against apartheid. He was imprisoned for his actions. Hertsgaard states what Nelson Mandela said, “I was sent to section A, the torture section, I could not write or receive letters. I could not speak, sing, or whistle. Food was slipped underneath the grille of me cell. Those two years were the hardest.” Hertsgaard states, “America’s new vice president vote against urging Mandela’s release from jail” (1022), even though they were torturing him man that was in jail for being against apartheid. Hertsgaard clearly states his opinion throughout this document, using his knowledge and others to help get his point across. With Americans becoming more knowledgeable about what is going on in the world and overseas, he believes, “most of us would instead urge that the United States bring its global behavior into accord with its domestic principals” (1021). This is just another example that shows how Hertsgaard tires to use your emotions and tries to make you see what the United States has done overseas. He shows you that the United States isn’t perfect and has slipped and made mistakes and have done some maybe not so good things.
Throughout this article Hertsgaard also uses ethos and logos to support his thesis. Hertsgaard’s background information is the logos part. Reading his background information on how he’s an independent author and journalist, how he has written six books makes him seem qualified to write this article therefore you would listen and believe what he’s writing about. Hertsgaard argues that America is oblivious to their political and governmental issues. He says, “I would plead ignorance rather than venality on behalf of my fellow Americans. The embarrassing truth is that most of us know little about the outside world, and we are particularly ill-informed about what our government is doing in our name overseas” (1017). Also throughout this article Hertsgaard quotes different people, showing the ethos. He uses different characters in order get his point across. Hertsgaard quotes Gerald Celente, director of the Trends Research Institute in Rhinebeck, New York, “You are dealing here with people who are almost childlike in their understanding of what is going on in the world” “It’s all ‘We never did anything to anybody, so why are they doing this to us?’ ” (1017). Hertsgaard explains that a high school teacher in Spain “hopes Americans recognize that this tragedy was a, ‘a consequence of U.S. foreign policy,’ especially its one-sided approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”. Reading these quotes that he used from other people makes his article stronger and more persuasive. Seeing him quote Gerald Celente, director of the Trends Research Institute in Rhinebeck, New York makes his article worth more because he has cited an important person. This makes the reader pay more attention because they find the author more trustworthy. They believe that he has good evidence and support to his essay. Again Hertsgaard mainly backs his thesis up by pathos, quotes that get your emotions involved, and he also uses ethos and logos to make himself seem trustworthy because he has good evidence and support.
The Oblivious Empire brings up the fact that most Americans have no idea what the American Government is doing overseas. That there are consequence of our current U.S. foreign policy. Where most countries dislike the way America behaves. That the United States has a tendency to feel that they are always right and have the right to force what they believe upon other countries and not think twice about it. The United States have shown in the past that they can do no wrong even though if another country makes the same mistake they are evil. The article talks about how America tends to make poor decisions on there actions and who they choose to support. That most Americans don’t even realize what is happening in other countries and whether the government is supporting them or not. The article talks about how the United States does not like to take responsibility for its actions. Many times in history the United States have actively been involved in other countries situations and have all come back in some way or coincidentally caused problems for the United States. Basically most Americans are left unaware that all of this is happening, and so are shocked when foreigners don’t love them as much as they think they should. It is up to the American people to become more informed as to what their government is doing. The author gives a lot of evidence throughout the article to support the fact that America is oblivious to what their government is doing. He begins by talking about his personal experience in other countries so that the reader will become comfortable with him. He goes on by giving personal quotes from many different foreigners and points out that not all foreigners feel the same about America and have the same strength behind those feelings. That there is a difference in opinion. He goes on to address specifically why Americans are ignorant giving several statistical facts. He also points out that though many Americans wonder why other countires dislike them it is the other countries that wonder the same thing due to the fact that the government is always in their business and or attacking them. A big part of this piece points out how self righteous America seems. That they are the best. Better than everyone else. And that they have the power and are not afraid to use it. He brings up specific instances where the United States are double standard. When we went to war to fight terrorism on us we told everyone else that they are apart of it and they must help us and if not than they are against us. But when the world wanted to fight global warming the United States made no effort to make a difference in how much they affect the world with their greenhouse gases. Many times throughout the article the author talks about the president, past and present, and how they have acted over the years. He takes specific quotes from them and points out how arrogant they are and uncaring about anyone but themselves. He also points out a specific point in time when America supported a horrific place at one time. By talking about these personal experiences of one man he is using ethos by getting to the readers emotions. He battles the line of wrong versus right and just plain all human rights. What it means to be an American. He continues by going back to how uncaring and selfcentered America is. That they do not have to negotiate like everyone else but to just use military pressure to get what they want. Basically America is the big bully on the playground. But the bully always gets it back so much worse in the end. And that is the main point the author tried to get across. That America is going to pay for all of its actions. And if Americans don’t start paying attention and being informed than its only going to get worse. He continues to convince the reader by giving specific examples and dates. He uses facts that are reputable. Some we may have heard about and some that we should know about and relates them. He speaks with many different people and gives us many different opinions. Lets us see different perspectives and conclude how we feel ourselves. But by talking to some professionals he is using logos because we are likely to listen to our elders or those above us. His main idea is the governments disregard for its actions and the peoples ignorance to those actions.
Kevin H
2/6/09
R&CII
“Oblivious Empire” Evaluation
In the article, “Oblivious Empire,” by Mark Hertsgaard, we are presented with argument about Americans and how they portray themselves. Hertsgaard presents through examples the true reason why other countries dislike the way the United States handles themselves overseas, and how we treat other countries as well. It is through these examples of irritation, hatred, self-centeredness, and ignorance that he portrays why the United States is disliked throughout the globe. To see if these claims that Hertsgaard makes are legitimate an evaluation of his work is to be done. Hertsgaards evidence through pathos, ethos, and logos both supports and rejects his thesis as a whole.
When Hertsgaard presents his evidence on why other countries find Americans to be so irritating; he makes the point that President Bush, after the attacks on September 11th said, “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” (1016). Hertsgaard proclaims that Bush’s words show the “attitude that had irritated America’s friends and enemies alike for decades” (1016). Hertsgaard makes an excellent point on how the United States can be irritating, but where is the evidence that shows other countries as being irritating as well? America “would never accept such ultimatums,” if they were being told to be with one country or against one country. Where is the evidence that other countries never said this to us in some way, or is it just the ignorance of the United States that shields us from not knowing what is truly going on in the world? While Hertsgaard make a legitimate argument about the United States being irritating, he misses the point on how other countries might be irritating as well.
The overseas actions of the United States also make those in other countries dislike America. Hertsgaard goes from the US irritating other countries to our actions overseas that make people look at us with hatred. He does this to bring up the ethos based argument of the United States. Hertsgaard takes Bush’s argument, then goes on to say how Bush is hypocritical in the sense that he does not always follow the rules. In one situation the “United States delegation walked out of the negotiations because the Bush administration refused to accept the same rules it demands for Iraq and other ‘rogue states’” (1019). This shows an excellent point of the United States character on dealings overseas. He provides the reader with concrete evidence to show the character of the United States to be altered so that it can gain control of a situation over other countries, which defiantly makes other countries look at us with hatred. The overseas actions of the United States are a major part of Hertsgaards evidence.
Hertsgaard provides examples of how our country supported countries that were doing horrible acts to their people. The evidence that the United States was supporting Apartheid in South Africa is a major issue affiliated with our actions overseas. Hertgaard portrayed what happened on “Robben Island” as a horrible place where prisoners were “interrogated, beaten, denied a lawyer,” making it appeal to our emotion. Hertsgaard made this situation appeal to our emotions to make us sympathize with those in the prison, and make the United States see our countries actions overseas. The only thing that does not make sense is the fact that Hertsgaard put the things about the guards in the argument. How “the guards had no toilets…so guards would relieve themselves in newspapers, then throw the papers down to the ground. We would retrieve those papers, scrape them off, and read the news they contained” (1021). The guards are not affiliated with us so why would Hertsgaard mention them. It is not as if the guards were American, and we had no control over their superficial actions like such as going to the bathroom in newspaper. Hertsgaard then goes on to explain all of the other countries we aiding that gives strength that our overseas actions were part of the hatred of our country.
The comparison of the September 11th attacks and other acts in history as being examples of terrorism puts into prospective the United States actions as being terrorist too. Hertsgaard emphasizes that “no one disputes that the September 11th attacks against the United States were acts of terrorism… [but] when the United States lobbed Volkswagen-sized shells into Lebanese villages in 1983 and dropped ‘smart bombs’ on Baghdad in 1991,…The napalm dropped during the Vietnam War, the bombing of Dresden, and the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II” (1024). Hertsgaard shows us the times in history where the United States could be seen as terrorists, but should they really be seen like that in this way. Hertsgaard is trying to appeal to our emotions through this pathos based argument. The attacks of September 11th were based on totally different grounds than bombing Baghdad or Hiroshima. They were in different circumstances, in times of war. Was the United States at war when the September 11th attacks took place? The argument that Hertsgaard has, is not portrayed in a way that is applicable or relevant to the circumstances to the attacks on the United States.
Throughout this work Hertsgaard makes arguments that show the reasons why America is disliked by so many others, but some evidence seems to be left out, but this does not seem to make a huge difference in the way people view his arguments. The overall strength of the argument is due to its arguments as well as the structure itself being laid out in a fashion that gets more and more controversial making the reader become more and more aware of the actions actually taking place. Hertsgaard’s argument as a whole seems to be very strong, but at certain points being a little one sided on these arguments of the United States being hated by other countries.
The article “The Oblivious Empire, written by Mark Hertsgaard, is a piece that was written in an effort to make its audience realize that the American government has been a hypocritical irritation to the rest of the world, and that the American citizens allow it to happen through their ignorance. I believe Hertsgaard executes this article very well in an effort to get his points across by using a combination of all three argument techniques, ethos, logos, and pathos. Hertsgaard does this to completely capture the audience’s attention by appealing to many different aspects of a reader’s personality. Although Hertsgaard often leaves out the good events and relationships America has had throughout its history, he shows countless examples and responses from people outside of the United States to back up his thesis.
Hertsgaard first uses many instances where he recalls emotional events for the citizens of the United States, drawing on pathos. He discusses the September 11th to evoke the emotions that the United States citizens feel whenever this topic is brought up. Once he sympathizes with the possible United States reader, he then begins to show how the rest of the world felt when these citizens began to interact with the globe in the aftermath. Hertsgaard talks about a high school teacher in Spain who “offered condolences for the September 11th victims and their families, but he told me he hoped American would recognize that the tragedy was a ‘consequence of U.S. foreign policy”(1016). In addition, he also states “some Europeans went so far as to cite America’s conduct overseas as virtual justification for the attacks”(1016). These statements are all geared towards making a United States citizen reading this piece really get the point, that maybe we are doing something wrong with our relationships across the globe.
Hertsgaard also appeals to the reader’s logos, by giving many specific examples of the United State’s forceful and irritating behavior overseas. He simplifies the situation when he says, “No one wraps self-interest in moral superiority quite like the American’s do”(1019). He discusses the United States being a very involved person in issues going on in foreign soil, but how the government often acts in hypocritical ways that do not coincide with what it promotes back on American soil. A perfect example he uses is when he discusses the actions of the Reagan Administration and it’s dealings with the “apartheid” situation in South Africa. America promoted equality on their own soil, but did nothing to stop the segregation in a country that they had specific dealings with. A prisoner of the apartheid war is quoted by Hertsgaard saying, “his work had taught him to distinguish between Americans as people and the American government”(1022). Hertsgaard uses this statement to also appeal to the readers logos, by hoping they gain understanding in the fact that the world believes that American citizens do not know enough or do enough about what their government is doing overseas.
The last part Hertsgaard uses in this trio is to appeal to the reader’s ethos. This is very evident with the many authoritative sources that seem knowledgeable on their subjects. He also chooses these figures which directly relate and promote his thesis. For instance he uses a member of the CIA, Chalmers Johnson, to explain how the reactions from events like September 11th cause “blowback.” Johnson explains how the September 11th attacks could be repercussions of American actions on Osama bin Laden’s soil back in the 1980s. Hertsgaard is able to combine all three of these argument types in order to draw on as many areas of interest that he can from the reader. Although he doesn’t show the many examples of America being a helpful ally to the world, I believe that in doing so would have compromised his thesis and taken away from what he was trying to do.
Mark Hertsgaard’s article “The Oblivious Empire” tries to answer why Americans are so ignorant about world affairs, and why we allow them to go on day after day without knowing much about them at all. Hertsgaard uses a lot of evidence to support his thesis, the fact that American’s are ignorant about would affairs. He even goes as far to say “You are dealing with people who are almost childlike in their understanding of what is going on in the world.” By stating that he is claiming two very different things that you may not notice at first; Hertsgaard is putting the idea in your mind that people in other countries know a lot more about what is going on around the world when compared to Americans. There are some key facts like this that Hertsgaard uses in his article to persuade the reader.
Hertsgaard talks about the Kyoto Protocol and how it seemed more important to Bush that we fight a war than fight global warming. I wish Hertsgaard had provided the reader with more detail as to what he means by “shunning negotiations”, because Bush did sign the protocol. I don’t know if he means that Bush was not following rules set forth by the protocol or that Bush was simply not signing the protocol. Hertsgaard tries to make it look worse than it actually was I believe Bush could have very simply been trying to change some of the rules before he agreed to the protocol.
When Hertsgaard shares his story about the Robben island prison he doesn’t explain why this has anything to do with his thesis. He talks about the horrible conditions the prisoners go through, and I am sure there is no one out there who wouldn’t have sympathy for the prisoners. It wasn’t American troops that put prisoners there, it wasn’t American troops that ran the prison, and America had no involvement in the prison. So why does Hertsgaard tell us about the prison? He wants to get the emotional side of the reader on his side. Hertsgaard is arguing that America is in the wrong by not invading the jail and by still trading with the country that owns the prison.
This is a strange argument Hertsgaard makes, for the whole article he argues that America is power hungry and goes to war over oil, and just because it [America] can. But now he turns around and claims that we aren’t doing are part to save these people in prison and that we should go attack them. It is a very interesting tactic; he makes these enormous claims about American people. Then to get the readers emotions ‘on his side’ he tells us some story that is completely irrelevant. He does this purely to get the reader to believe in his thesis.
On page 1023 Hertsgaard proceeds to claim that the reason September 11th may have happened was because of a U.S. sponsored assault on democratic government in Chile on September 11th 1973; Killing 3,197 people. Is he honestly claiming that the Chileans attacked us or this cause the reason for our attack on September 11th? The problem with Hertsgaard here is he does not tell us anything more than stating that may have been the reason. If someone is going to go against what all political leaders have said to be the cause of the terrorist attacks, it would probably be a good idea to back them up with some fact, or bare minimum explain his theory behind this profound claim.
Hertsgaard brings up some very important facts in this article, they are not all relevant, but there are some important things to be learned here none the less. There are definitely some problems with his article of which I have pointed out. This article teaches us to look at some of the claims authors make without actually saying them. It is a common tactic because it doesn’t make them look bad for claiming something outrageous, and often times a read might not even notice it.
Analysis
English 124
With the article “the Oblivious Empire” the writer Mark Hertgaard thesis is “Americans t aware of what our country is doing to the rest of the world, and we don’t know or understand what the other countries of the world think of us”. He goes to show us this in many ways through out the writing.
Because this piece is being read by so many people he has to place a lot of examples in the article so that it doesn’t seem like he was just giving his opinion. He had many strong supporting facts on the topic. When he stated what former president Bush had said to the congress on the war on terrorism just floored me. President Bush said to the other countries “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists” this right here shows that the nation that we live in does not care for no one but ourselves. But the part of the article that most interest me is that Hertgaard says “I would plead ignorance rather than venality on behalf of my fellow Americans”. And I can say that this is probably the strongest argument that we as Americans can use to defend ourselves. Because if u really look into it the government has control over what he as the American people hear. So when people say that we hate so many other countries it is mainly because of what the government wants us to hear.
The ways that he presents his arguments are in many forms he touches on pathos based arguments what he does is takes many pieces of information and presents us with it to make our own decision on it as an individual person. For example he tries to appeal to our feelings by compare a South African prison to the concentration camps. What this does is brings your thought to the forefront of your mind because anyone who knows about the concentration camps know that it was the worst place to this day just to walk around them. Yes he does use other forms of information but in this article this is the one that shows up the most and is most informational.
The way that Hertsgaard structures this article is most likely the best way to do it. What I mean by this is that he just doesn’t jump into listing arguments that he has he brings u into the story. He starts this off by presenting us with the cam driver and the cocky American passenger. And if you really look at it you can sadly realize that in fact this is really how Americans act when it comes to other countries and what we have. And this makes his argument so much stronger he uses so many real life examples that can not misunderstood by the readers. This article has such strong details and so much information that can not be simply ignored by the readers. So for me personally this article is by far the most interesting that I have read it keeps locked into the reading making u realize so many things that u thought you would never think would be done by our country.
Oblivious Empire
In the article “The Oblivious Empire” by Mark Hertsgaard, the author states his thesis as what makes other countries perceive America as oblivious or arrogant? He backs up his thesis with lots of evidence and quotes from different people. Throughout the article he provides evidence to support his thesis in order to reach his audience.
To back up his thesis, Hertsgaard provides us with examples of what America has done to other countries and how they feel towards us. He uses all three of the types of arguments logos, pathos and ethos in this article. A good example that he uses is the 9/11 incident, when Gerald Celente, director of the Trends Institute told Financial Times “we never did anything to anybody, so why are they doing this to us?”(1017) Since the whole incident Muslims have been portrayed as bad in either movies, television and the news. Europeans since the terrorist attacks have still not changed their feelings about what they think of the U.S. They say that “history did not begin on September 11”(1016).
Also Hertsgaard talks about how the United States takes advantage of smaller power countries to benefit themselves, like Iran, we use them because they have something we need, oil. Another piece of evidence Hertsgaard provides to back up his thesis the apartheid in South Africa. During that period the United States tried to get Cuba, who was trying to help South Africa, to close ties with them. The main reason that Americans are unaware of what goes on is because they are not informed about what the government does in other countries. Throughout “The Oblivious Empire” the author provides good examples of what makes other countries perceive America as oblivious.
The structure of the article is very organized. The author begins with a good introduction explaining what the article is going to be about. He gives a little story about an incident he was told about that gets the reader into the article. In the body of the article Hertsgaard provides many examples to prove his point about America and how other countries see them. He talks about September 11, the war, apartheid in South Africa, Foreign affairs and more. Along with these examples he backs them up with quotes along with facts to show he knows what he is talking about. Towards the conclusion of the article Hertsgaard still goes on providing the reader with examples to support his thesis. In this article Hertsgaard sets up the structure of it so it reads and transitions smoothly for the reader to comprehend. Overall the structure of the article “The Oblivious Empire” helps contribute to the strength of the article.
Jack Hersom
Eh124: Comp II
Prof. Crowley
2/8/09
Evaluation
“The Oblivious Empire,” written by Mark Hersgaard, is an article that is angled towards American people. Herstgaard asks throughout the course of the article a variety of questions. Herstgaards’s thesis is that America is an “Oblivious Empire,” unaware of their actions and how these actions affect other countries in the world. Herstgaard tries to prove his case by showing the information in a pathos-based argument. This is very affective way to present this type of specific information because initiating emotion stimulation is effective in getting the writers point across. Hertsgaard’s stance on the argument and his choice of presentation is presented in a logical fashion, which at the same time, stimulates the readers emotions and forces them to consider Hertsgaards point of view on the issue.
Hertsgaard uses a range of sources to display his thesis. By using a variety of evidence to back up his claims, it gives more validity to his argument. It makes sense for Hertsgaard to present his information in a gradual fashion as he does in the article. Easing the reader into the more complex information by presenting the reader first, with more easily understandable information and facts, allows the reader to follow the thesis of the author. Herstgaard uses some pathos-based arguments by mentioning Hiroshima, apartheid, and the CIA’s involvement in installing the Shah in the Iran government. All of these issues support Hertsgaard thesis, and at the same time presents a pathos -based argument.
Hertsgaard states in the article, “The guard towers had no toilets, so the guards would relieve themselves in newspapers, then throw the papers down to the ground. We would retrieve those papers, scrape them off, and read the news they contained.” This quote displays how Hertsgaard uses his pathos in displaying evidence for his claims. This passage is put into the article to get the intended audience to ask, ‘How could we be involved in something like this?’ Hertsgaard also mentions how the United States dropped one of two atomic bombs on Hiroshima, where an estimated 80,000 people were killed. Knowing that your country is responsible for the death of 80,000 people stimulates some type of emotion, no matter who you are. Hertsgaard also mentions the CIA’s involvement in an Iran government situation. “To protect American oil interest, the CIA in 1953 overthrew the elected government of Iran and installed the Shah Reza Pahlavi. The shah ruled with an iron hand, murdered thousands, duly became widely hated, and was forced from power in 1979.” Once again, knowing that your country was involved in the death of thousands simply to protect oil interest stimulates some type of emotion from an individual reading the article.
After reading and analyzing the article a number of times, I can see that Herstgaard accomplishes his goal of showing his thesis through a variety of issues and using specific types of arguments. Herstgaard presentation of statements and issues is very strong. The thesis is backed up through Herstgaard giving ethos-based arguments. Showing how Americans are oblivious through issues that Americans have been involved in are extremely effective because of the manor in which Hertsgaard presents the information. Stimulating ones emotions is an effective way to display a certain topic, issue, or argument. Hertsgaard uses this in the “Oblivious Empire” in order to show how Americans do not know how their countries decisions affects other countries.
In Mark Hertsgaard’s article “The Oblivious Empire,” he explains the ignorance and selfishness of America and its government. Hertsgaard’s thesis for this piece is to understand why foreign countries depict American’s as oblivious and unaware of what our government is doing in other countries. He supports this thesis with several different examples of things our government has done in the past, as well as the present. Hertsgaard uses ethos, logos and pathos examples to further convince the reader of American’s oblivion to what is going on in the world that we do not even realize.
In the article Hertsgaard uses several examples based on ethos. An ethos argument bases its appeals on the author’s authority or credibility. It’s safe to say that Hertsgaard is a credible author because of his background in writing. He has written several books and other types writing on the subject of America’s economy and government. Hertsgaard uses several reliable references in the article in order to provide plausible information for the reader. For example, in 1998, democrats criticized the Clinton administration for launching missiles against Iraq. The Secretary of State at the time, Madeleine Albright, justified these acts as necessary by saying “if we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation…” (1019). Although she holds a high position in government and is a credible source, her statement only proves America’s ignorance to other countries. When she refers to America as “indispensable,” it only further confirms Hertsgaard’s thesis that America is egocentric.
In a logos argument, appeals are based on logic and reason. Hertsgaard gives several examples of things our government has done over the years that most people find as immoral or unfair. A prime example that demonstrates America’s ignorance of what is going on in other countries is the violence between the Israelis and Palestinians in 2002. Although American’s received plenty of media coverage of the incidents, “many Americans remained uninformed about basic aspects of the conflict.” For example, a poll conducted by the University of Maryland revealed that “only 43 percent [of Americans] knew that most other countries in the world disapproved of America’s Middle East policies; and a mere 27 percent knew that most countries were more sympathetic to the Palestinian than to the Israeli side of the dispute.” (1017). This is example of a logos argument because the article gives specific facts and statistics about American’s knowledge of what was really going on in the Middle East. Hertsgaard uses this information to provide valid evidence to support his thesis.
Perhaps the most significant type of appeal Hertsgaard uses in this article is pathos. Pathos appeals to the reader’s emotions, thus making the argument more believable. Hertsgaard tells a number of personal stories about experiences he has had in other countries that he relates to this article, such as his discussion with a London cab driver about American’s insensitivity to others. The cabbie tells Hertsgaard of a Texan who was recently in his cab. Whenever the Texan asked what something was, such as the London Eye, the tallest Ferris wheel in the world, he always stated that “We got one bigger than that.” The “we” he is referring to in that statement is the United States. American’s consider themselves more superior than anyone else, which makes other countries hate us. Also, the cabbie tells Hertsgaard, “I like most Americans…but it is quite amazing how they don’t know anything about other places in the world…unless they’re invading them” (1015).
This statement, along with many others from foreigners, not only verifies Hertsgaard’s thesis that Americans are unaware of what is happening in the world, but poses the question why American’s are shocked when foreigners don’t love them as much as they think they should. Americans need to take responsibility for their actions because this article illustrates several times in history that our government interferes with other countries, which tends to lead to more problems for the United States. It is up to Americans to become more informed about what our government is really doing in order to become less oblivious about why we are so disliked by many other countries. Hertsgaard uses ethos, logos and pathos appeals in this article to present the reasonable information required to convince the reader his thesis is correct, resulting in a very strong argument.
9 February 2009
EH124
In the article, The Oblivious Empire, journalist Mark Hertsgaard presents a sound argument on America’s foreign policy. Hertsgaard’s thesis in this article is America his hated by countries around the world, because of the hypocritical manner we handle our foreign affairs. Hertsgaard uses pathos, logos, and ethos to add strength to his argument. In doing so Hertsgaard added a great deal in value to his article.
Pathos added the most power to this argument. Hertsgaard uses some examples that really draw on your emotions. When Hertsgaard talked about his trip to South Africa and Robben Island for the first time he said, “It was as unforgettable as a pilgrimage to Dachau or Hiroshima.” (1022) Dachau was the site of the first concentration camp in Germany and was the ground work for the near elimination of a whole culture of people. This argument draws really well on peoples emotions to get them to see his point of view. Hiroshima, Japan the site where America dropped an atomic bomb that killed near 80 thousand people. Hiroshima doesn’t add to the strength of his argument, comparing the dropping of an atomic bomb to a prison that we just supported doesn’t add up. It makes the reader almost feel like Robben Island is as bad but, 80 thousand people didn’t die at Robben is land like they did at Hiroshima.
To add some validity and strength to his Robben Island argument he talks about how America supported the South African based government that kept the supporters of Apartheid imprisoned on the island. Hertsgaard uses and example of how the guards didn’t have to toilet, and would order a prisoner buried up to his neck then the guards would take turns urinating on
the inmate. That is extremely gross and really puts power in his argument that America was or is supporting these foreign powers that seem to have different values then us.
Hertsgaard Uses logos through out his argument that help add value to it. For example when he uses the fact that Russia shot down a Korean airliner killing everyone on board, America said that is was just the “Evil Empires” true nature. (1019) he quotes “The Untied States Rejected the Soviet explanation that the jet was acting like military aircraft.” Then a few years later America shoots down an Iranian aircraft killing everyone on board, calming it was acting like military aircraft. Hertsgaard uses the quote from Mr. Bush Sr. “I will never apologize for the actions of America. I don’t care what the facts are.” Making his argument that America is hypocritical in its foreign policies ever so apparent to his readers.
Hertsgaard’s bio establishes his ethos very well. He’s a man who has had experience in the field, and whom seem very creditable. Also throughout his work he quotes people how would be considered creditable as well. His argument has shown that Americans are disliked by many, and did so with use of great pathos, ethos and logos.
Although Hertsgaard’s argument is strong, he makes it look like Americans are the only ignorant country when it comes to their foreign involvement. Which is probably not the case, but I don’t think it makes a difference in the strength and validity in his argument at all. At times his arguments maybe one-sided, but he does a great job backing up his clams with strong evidence.
Analysis-The Oblivious Empire
Hertsgaard’s thesis states that hate towards America is a direct result of what the government is doing/saying/acting overseas in foreign countries, and Americans cannot understand why foreigners hate them because they have no idea what the government is really doing. Hertsgaard proves and supports his argument claims with examples from past and current political actions. I would say that the entirety of his argument is ethos based, due to the large amount of bias.
Hertsgaard’s first example of evidence is a recollection of a story that a taxi driver from London told him. This argument lacks any real evidence. The evidence is not specific, and it is solely based on word of mouth. The lack of any real substantial evidence makes the argument ethos. Hertsgaard is attempting to convince people to believe his hearsay. Hertsgaard leads onto more evidence that Europeans think Americans are arrogant, and that September 11th was a consequence of America’s foreign policy. He proves this by quoting an unnamed Spanish high school teacher from Spain and by generally saying all or some people in Europe believe this. All of his evidence is non-specific and vague; he never mentions anyone’s name or gives any substantial proof that these feelings occurred. This argument is poor due to lack of proof and evidence, make it ethos since belief in this claim would have to be based solely on a person believing that Hertsgaard is qualified and educated enough to say this.
Hertsgaard cites parts of a speech that president Bush gave after the September 11th attacks. Hertsgaard claims that Bush had “cowboy talk” and that his “wild west sheriff warning” was a big part of why American friends and enemies were irritated with America. This is a very poor claim, as there is no evidence at all that this causes foreign countries to dislike America. Also the cowboy talk, and Wild West claim is his own bias. If anything the fact that Hertsgaard interjects his own bias towards president Bush’s speech, and then does not give any proof of how other nations felt about the speech, makes him less credible.
Hertsgaard claims that most Americans know little about “the outside world” and are “particularly ill-informed about what our government is doing overseas” He says that “American-enforced economic sanctions” have caused 350,000 Iraqi children to die. Although, he gives no evidence to this claim, and he never says exactly what it was that America enforced that caused the deaths. This is a poor claim, since he is not specific to what America did, and why it is that he only says the number of children, or why only the number of child deaths is important enough to give. Also he does not cite or say where he learned of the number of deaths. Hertsgaard cites a poll conducted by the University of Maryland on International Policy attitude. This is the first real proof that Hertsgaard gives. The poll doesn’t exactly support his claim that Americans know nothing of the “outside world,” as the polls shows that almost half Americans know that other countries dislike the American stance on Middle East policies.
Hertsgaard claims that there could be a connection between the September 11th terrorist attacks, and the coup of allende. The connection is due to the comparable amount of deaths and similar date. It is a struggle to understand why anyone should believe there is a connection between al-Qaeda terrorist attacks and a controversial belief that president Nixon’s security advisor had ordered the coup of a Chilean government. A better explanation of his views on how these events are connected would make this argument more convincing.
Almost all of Hertsgaard’s arguments are ethos based. He proves his arguments by using first hand examples and claims that other people support his argument. These things work together to try and support his credibility on his stance on the topics. I was not convinced by his ethos argument due to his lack evidence and biased interjections on what evidence he did have.
Athena Beaulieu
2/08/09
EH 124 R&C
Is Hertsgaard’s Argument a good style or not?
Why are the actions of the United States triggering other countries to feel a form of hatred towards the U.S.? Well the reason why foreign countries dislike America is about the past of the United States and it has left a bad impression, and is creating enemies; essentially becoming its own worst enemy. When writing an argument the author or writers tend to use pathos, ethos, and logos to appeal to your different senses, and emotions. In the The Oblivious Empire he uses more of a pathos based argument alongside logos and ethos to help explain in detail. The main reason why pathos is more affective is because if you feel a certain emotion you will sympathize or feel angry, and it helps him prove his argument.
A classic example of evidence that supports his thesis pertained to global warming and the Kyoto protocol. An example of a pathos based quote “on November 10, 2001, President Bush made his first appearance before the United nations general Assembly and, in a speech praised by the New York Times for its “plain-spoken eloquence,” told the rest of the world it wasn’t doing enough to help the United States fight terrorism.” (1018) Mean while his own administration “was shunning negotiations in Morocco to finalize the Kyoto protocol on global warming.” (1018) Every nation has to worry about this dangerous potential, not just the United States it’s a world effort as Hartsgaard implies. If we just sit back and not do anything about the rising greenhouse gasses as Hertsgaard exclaims, “The Bush administration insists on doing nothing to lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. No wonder foreigners resent us.” (1018) which ties back to his thesis on how we have created enemies and become our own enemy. When he uses these examples they appeal to our emotions because this is a serious subject to think about, and we as Americans feel like Bush has done nothing to improve our nations greenhouse gases; to bring other countries to understand how important this subject is.
Hertsgaard also used logos and ethos to help back up his thesis to contribute to the strength of the argument. His background information on his career and life help you trust him, and all his experience as a writer. Being an independent author and journalist, and six books makes Hertsgaard a more qualified person to write this article, and believable. When he mentions in the beginning of this article about how “Texans are the worst” he is referring to the average American citizen who is oblivious to the effects we have had one other countries. We are ignorant and clueless but are that the honest truth or are it that we just don’t want to believe that what our government is doing is wrong? He mentions about the time when he is driving in the taxi and the driver looks in the rearview mirror and says, “I like most Americans, but it is quite amazing how they don’t know anything about other places in the world…unless they’re invading them.” (1015) He also “pleads ignorance rather than venality on behalf of my fellow Americans. The embarrassing truth is that most of us know little about the outside world, and we are practically ill-informed about what our government is doing our names overseas.” (1017) Hertsgaard also uses quotes from other people and his own opinion to show the ethos part of his argument to back up his thesis.
Important pathos based evidence was when the Soviet Union shot down a Korean Airline passenger jet killing 276 innocent civilians was called evidence of “evil empires” by the United States. In contrast, when the United States shot down an Iranian civilian jet tables were turned. All 290 passengers died and when Bush senior was asked if an apology was in order, he replied, “I will never apologize for the United States. I don’t care what the Facts are.” (1019) This was a demonstration of how one sided we are, the selfishness, and it proves for many reason why we are so strongly hated in these countries across the sea. This all ties to the structure of this argument, and the style and how Hertsgaard presents his work. The way his writing, claims, and evidence is structured it makes a very strong argument using pathos, logos, and ethos to appeal to his audience.
CBW
Evaluation of “The Oblivious Empire”
The thesis that Hertsgaard tried to make in this article was that a lot of American citizens don’t know exactly how our government has been handling foreign policy. He also points out that a lot of people don’t like us because of how ignorant we are with our nations power, and how we think were always right.
The author presents a lot of his arguments using ethos, and bases his claims on feelings and emotions. Along with it he uses a little pathos and logos to back things up. He uses a lot of good quotes to support his main points too. One example of this is when he talks about how foreigners hate it when Americans think they have all the answers and when we try to impose it on them. On September 20th, 2001, President Bush said in front of Congress that in the war against terrorism, “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” (1016). This imposed that whoever didn’t want to be on our side was evil, and that wasn’t a very smart thing to say out of emotion just because our country got attacked by terrorists. This quote does a good job supporting Hertsgaard ‘s thesis that way in which it displays how Bush is abusing his power forcing a lot of nations to be in a limbo regarding whether to take America’s side or not.
After Hertsgaard mentioned that, he went on how we secluded the quote in our journals and published newspapers from America, screening us from knowing how stupid of a comment our President made. But, the tabloids over seas put it on the front page of every newspaper they had. This incident supports how the thesis states that we American’s are somewhat “ill-informed,” with how our government displays our figure to other nations.
Another good example of support for Hertsgaard’s thesis is when he mentions an argument concerning President Bush’s “plain-spoken eloquence” (1018), on November 10th, 2001, in front of the United Nations General Assembly. Bush basically remarked in his speech on how all the other countries were not doing enough to help America fight terrorism. At the same time back home though, Bush’s administration failed to meet negotiations with Morocco to finalize the Kyoto protocol for an agreement to reduce greenhouse gases. This display of hypocrisy is a failure of logos (logical thinking) on our part and gives people reason to resent and hate us so much. Again, it goes along with the thesis statement that other nations don’t like us because our government is ignorant and how we embarrass ourselves.
I think one thing that especially gets Hertsgaard’s point across in his thesis is his article’s structure. When he starts out in the situation section, he uses a story to introduce his article which had to do with what he was going to talk about, and his transitions from paragraph to paragraph were really smooth, and his overall argument was well layed out in order. He didn’t just jump from one story to the next trying to make a point that way, but tried to lay out one idea in each paragraph at a time to help build up a structure to get to his main thesis. To restate the thesis, this piece was written as a wake-up call to us Americans to answer why foreign countries resent us so much, and how we are misinformed with the situation of foreign policy.
Is America really that oblivious? In the article The Oblivious Empire the author Mark Herstgaard uses the thesis, is the United States better then other countries overseas and is the American people aware of the situations and possible consequence that come with Americas very pro U.S. view on the world? Hertsgaard uses a very strong Pathos and Logos based arguments to make us believe we are oblivious. Hertsgaard try’s to get us angry at the ignorance of our own respected leader by raising questions about President Bush statement to the rest of the world following September 11th. President Bush said, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.(1016)” This is a very pathos based comment that was said by our president when we were very hurt as a country. This could have meant a number of different things; we were in time of a need for a motivational statement as a country. When the president makes a comment like this it is clear that he has had enough of terrorists and it is time to do something about it. Is America Ignorant because they were very hurt? This statement was not directed to other countries. This comment was directed to the American People.
Hertsgaard is very good at using our own lack of knowledge against us. Hertsgaard refers to a recent poll that was conducted at the University of Maryland. It revealed what was to look like startling information regarding the lack of knowledge in our country. It stated that that only thirty-two percent of Americans were aware that more Palestinians had died the Israelis in that war. Only forty-three percent knew that most other countries disapproved of Americas Middle East policies. Only twenty seven percent knew that most countries were sympathetic to Palestinians then Israelis (1017). All this information does its job it alarms the reader that there is a lack of knowledge. It also raises certain questions, There is a war going on, were helping out allies so there probably should be more deaths on the Palestinian sides. Have every countries foreign policy been reviewed? And if so how do other countries feel about the majority of those policies. It is irrelevant how other countries stand on sympathy, if it is all for the right reason. This is a great Logos based argument because it uses true statistical data to argue, it seems to be arguing a fact that could be looked at many different ways then it is brought to our attention.
The United States has had so called ties to coup attacks and uprising. It had been known that the U.S. wanted the South American nations to cut ties with the Castro government. It is clear that the United States may cross lines when it comes to trying to regulate what is being done in other countries. As the American people we think it must be the appropriate thing to be doing, that may be ignorance or that could be complete optimism. Between 1969 and 1976 it has been noted that Henry Kissinger, President Nixon national security advisor, stated,”he saw no reason to allow Chile to go Marxist simply because the people are irresponsible. There is government documents that show Kissinger, was well informed that the CIA had ordered a Coup that failed to thwart Allende, and if not condoned then aided the Chilean military men who imposed martial law and killed 3,197 Chilean citizens. This is another Logos based argument that makes the United States look horrible. Why did the Chiliean people want help over throwing their leaders? How has violence been in Chile since then? Were these so called citizens trying to fight back against their own military? Right now in Darfur the is a genocide against their own people. The Sudan government is ordering the deaths of thousands of their own people. The United states has tried to make threats pertaining to this murdering of innocent people. When America trys to help they are threatened and are told that if they step into this country then they will not have ties with many foreign countries they do work with on a daily basis. America trys to do good and is threatened with all the outside sources needed to keep the country running. The question arises are we ignorant or are we doing what needs to be done to guarantee our survival?
Sherry Cooper
Evaluation of Oblivious Empire
The Oblivious Empire, written by Mark Herstgaard, was probably hard to read for many Americans. It was geared towards informing the American people about the actions that our government takes with other countries, and to make people get up and do things about what our government is doing to other countries. The article forces many people to realize just how ignorant we really are when it comes to our foreign policies. Herstgaard states that the dislike and even hatred that other countries feel for the U.S comes from the hypocritical attitude that we have towards the other countries’ laws and foreign policies. He, however, states that will he does not believe that Americans realize what is going on or else they would be outraged, however he also states that not knowing what is going on is not a shield against the consequences of our government’s actions.
Herstgaard uses shock value in order to get his point across, in this regard he uses a pathos style argument. He uses the death of children to get our sympathy and outrage “ American enforced economic sanctions have, since 1991, caused the deaths of at least 350,000 Iraqi children” 1017 He also discusses the useless deaths of many other innocent civilians in many other countries. All these deaths were, in theory, were caused by events that were orchestrated by the United States. Reading about these incidences evokes a feeling of sympathy for these people and even caused me to be ashamed of my country and even shame on us for allowing our government to do this. Because, how can even call ourselves a nation for the people by the people if half of the people have no idea what is truly going on? He also used a logos based argument in this article by citing many facts to support his beliefs. He also cited many influential people in this article and many people who had first rate experience with the underhanded dealings of the United States.
I do not believe that Herstgaad was entirely fair in this article, granted he did not even try to be, even from the start he used the title of the article to state his beliefs about this country. He did not even mention any of the good things that we have done for other countries in the past such as giving them food when they were hungry, medical supplies for them when they were sick and rescue teams when there were natural disasters. I believe that he did not even try to defend the U.S. because no matter how much good we do for others, it does not erase the hatred and many years of bullying and abuse. “History did not begin on September 11.” 1016 Some people even believed that we got what we deserved. “A high school teacher in Spain offered condolences for the September 11 victims and their families, but he told me that he hoped the Americans would recognize that the tragedy was ‘ a consequence of U.S. foreign policy’” “Even those who rejected the argument that the United States brought September 11 on itself admitted that America could be infuriating at times.” 1016