Rhetorical Analysis Paper - Rough Draft

            In his 2011 article “Believe Me, It’s Torture,” Christopher Hitchens details his traumatizing experience as a willing victim of water boarding. A controversial topic, Hitchens explicates the negative impact of the technique by recounting his own exposure to the torture method. Throughout his article, Hitchens successfully utilizes the rhetorical devices pathos, logos, and ethos to expose the grim nature of water boarding and to denounce its use by our nation.

            Hitchens hooks most of his readers with his skilled use of pathos, also known as an appeal to emotions. The full article is sprinkled with diction such as “flail,” “lashed,” “darkness,” and “gasping,” setting an uneasy tone to the piece overall. Hitchens’ proficient use of language allows the reader to experience just what he had experienced, drawing on our fears by relating his experience water boarding with the torture scene in 1984, in which you are forced to confront what you personally believed to be “the worst thing in the world.” This strong use of language forces the reader to feel sympathy for Hitchens, almost pleading with him not to go through with such an arduous task. However, Hitchens pursues his ambition, and is immediately plunged into a horrifying circumstance. He describes himself as having “fought down the first, and some of the second, wave of nausea and terror but soon found that I was an abject prisoner to my gag reflex.”

            Logos, or an appeal to logic, is similarly weaved throughout the piece, expertly placed in just the right ways so as to force the reader to re-evaluate what they are reading. Hitchens informs us that water boarding is not a simulation of torture: “You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning – or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure.” In reference to the safety waver he had to sign before undergoing this activity, this heightens the idea that death is very much possible from this technique. Although it leaves no physical markings on the body, it is still very painful and can harm one internally. In addition, Hitchens is concerned after realizing that he is unable to recall the exact events that occurred while the cloth was over his face. He believes that he had spoken the safe-word previously agreed upon, but instead had just gone limp in a state that signals the onset of unconsciousness. He ponders that “now I have to wonder about the role of false memory and delusion.” He later sums up this point by stating that “[water boarding] may be a means of extracting information, but it is also a means of extracting junk information.” When put in this vastly terrifying position, you will say absolutely anything to stop the torture. However, this may end up being the opposite of helpful, especially if they are wrongfully captured and truly don’t have any information to give.

            The final technique utilized by Hitchens is ethos, or an appeal to ethics. The first paragraph of his article begins with his statement that water boarding was “something that Americans were being trained to resist, not to inflict.” By stating the terms as such, it forces the reader to understand that we are trying to protect ourselves from this type of harm from other countries. Therefore, why would we pass along this torture method and perform it on enemies of our own? He later goes on to say that, under the same terms that Abraham Lincoln viewed slavery, “If water boarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.”

            In closing, Hitchens is able to successfully utilize rhetorical devices in order to demonstrate the shortcomings of water boarding as a torture technique. Hopefully one day our nation will truly take these thoughts and ideas into serious consideration, and then our nation will be a better place.

"Regarding the Pain of Others" Response

1. Is the media the reason that we continue to have wars?

2. Is it necessary to photograph and/or document the dead?

3. Should we blame the technology, or should we blame our culture for these actions?

Sontag’s article “Regarding the Pain of Others” evoked a constant emotional response from me throughout the reading. I am very easily disturbed, and found it very difficult to read about some of the things that occur out in the world, especially when it comes to torture and the publication of it. I believe Sontag made some very strong points throughout her article, including that the gross need for humans to documents such actions is obscene and unnecessary. However, there was one point I strongly disagreed with her on; at one point, she quotes Ernst Junger as saying that “There is no war without photography.” She furthers this idea, comparing the “shooting” of a camera to the “shooting” of a human being. While this is a shell-shocking comparison, it didn’t sit quite right with me. I have to disagree that cameras and the media is the main proponent behind the continuance of war. War will occur whether or not the media is there to capture and display it. However, I agree with the rest of the article, that at some points, the media’s intrusion into a battleground can have negative effects, such as when people stage shootings or marches all for the sake of the camera. I also disagreed with her disgust against the people who photographed their prisoners before executing them; although the killing itself is horrible and mindless, I believe that it was just a method of organization; the pictures themselves were not harmful. In addition, I believe that although horrifying to recognize the face of a loved one in a photograph knowing that they were killed soon afterwards, I would rather have someone take one last picture of them than have them slaughtered on a battlefield and thrown into a mass grave, never to know exactly what their fate had been. In the end, I suppose I believe that photography is useful at times, but for the most part, no kind of documentation should be made showing horrifying, brutal images just for the sake of having the images.

"What's So Bad About Hate?" Response

1. What breeds hate? Does it have an end?
2. When someone is convicted of a hate crime, how can we tell if the crime was committed purely out of "hate," or whether the victim did something to provoke the attacker?
3. Can "hate" be used as a justification for someone's actions?

Because I'm a very emotional person, I had trouble reading parts of this article, especially in the introductory paragraphs in which Sullivan detailed hate crimes that had been documented over the years. I cannot imagine the pain and suffering endured by the families of these people, and am appalled to read about humans treating other humans in such horrific ways. It forced me to wonder, what made people act this way? Humans are not born with a desire to hurt and to kill; it is taught to us from those we respect. We have to examine the root of the problem, and that is that people are projecting their negative and hateful feelings onto others, which only spreads the problem. Hate is like a parasite, and if it is not quarantined, it will spread infinitely. We all have prejudices, we all stereotype, we all judge. But these are not innate human qualities; they are all learned.

However, the idea of a "hate crime" is interesting, because it may be used as a scapegoat in an instance where someone who may be considered a victim actually provoked the attack. If a black man punches a white man in the face, and the white man punches him back in defense, can the black man accuse the white man of a hate crime? Although that is a very straightforward example, there are other instances when the lines may be blurred. It is difficult to decide what exactly constitutes a "hate crime" and what just makes a "crime."

Overall, I thought the article brought up a lot of great points, and it was an extremely interesting read. Although it was fairly graphic at times, I still enjoyed it.

"9/11" Response

1. Was the United States at fault for the terrorist attacks of 9/11?
2. In what way was Sontag attempting to connect with the American public?
3. What does Sontag think we could have done to prevent these attacks?

Upon my initial reading of the article, I felt that Sontag made a few valid points, although they were fairly harsh. When she proclaimed that the attacks on September 11, 2001, was "an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions," I was taken aback, both by the frankness of her language and the truth I found in her words. However, upon further inspecting the article, I realized that Sontag had written and published this article not two weeks after the attacks. Upon that realization, I was stunned that she would speak so harshly and explicitly on something that was still heavily weighing upon the shoulders of many, especially those who had loved ones pass in the attacks.

Nonetheless, I still believe that her article had a lot of strong and valid points in it. America has always touted itself as a strong nation that prevails over others, whether or not we mean to project this image. We rose to power quickly and have stayed at the top for centuries. The struggle for power is a constant battle that will never end, and the 9/11 attacks were just one more example of that attempt to gain power through violence. Unfortunately, I believe that Sontag was too harsh in the way that she came across in her article. Her valid points were overshadowed by the brass word choice she chose, including when she stated that "Those in public office have let us know that they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management." By attacking all political figures and blaming the attacks on the way our politics are run, her arguments were drowned out. Sometimes, unfortunately, there are just bad people in the world. It's not always the fault of the politicians, and we can't just blindly blame them for every misdeed we encounter.

Essay Commentary & Response

            I chose to write my commentary on Natasha’s essay, “The Loss of Individuality.” I thought that this way a great essay with a lot of strong points; however, there was not a lot of analysis into any of these points. Although you raised them, you never supported them with evidence, and seemed instead to base most of your argument off of opinion. There was a point in your paper in which you spoke about whether or not the Internet suppressed the voices of the general public. You at first made a strong point, that it promotes an environment in which people can gang up on those with differing opinions. You then offered a strong refutation, that it could also be an opportunity to open your eyes to new ideas. However, you then ended the refutation with, “Overall, I think it just suppresses it.” There was no factual evidence to support your claim; the only thing you offered was your opinion. There were no concrete facts throughout your argument; I would work on gathering more sources to give your argument a more well-rounded base.

            Some things that I questioned throughout your essay were as follows: what were some examples of various “trends” that people conformed to on Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites? If you could provide specific examples, I think it would really add to your argument, because when I read it for the first time, I could really think of times when people conformed so massively on Facebook or Twitter, and it made me want to know what you were thinking when you wrote that so we could have insight into your thoughts. In addition, how are people becoming too dependent on the internet? In the same way, I wanted to see concrete evidence or factual information to back up your claims.

            The final thing I found fault in was your conclusion: it tried to talk about too many points and ended up just sounding jumbled. I would recommend narrowing your points down so you could talk about one specific topic and relate it to a bigger idea, rather than just summarizing each of your paragraphs. Overall, it had a really strong foundation, but just needs to be expanded upon with facts and evidence. However, it was still a great read, and I look forward to reading it once you’ve revised it!