Enlightenment of Rhetoric

This semester has been enlightening to say the least. When I walked through the door on the first day of class, I knew nothing about rhetoric. And when we started to read the octalogs I honestly started freaking out, because a lot of their content went right over my head. However, after looking ahead on the schedule I felt relieved when saw that many of the titles of the articles/essays we were going to be reading had to do with ancient civilizations and their mythologies. (Actually, I was pretty excited, being the giant mythology dork that I am.) However, once we really got into the rhetoric of things, honestly I started getting a little confused. But eventually it all started working itself out in my head. I realized after we got in to “Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks” that each civilization’s rhetoric reflected their culture and aspects of their religion.( Accept for American Indian rhetoric, which is a whole other story. Because unlike many of the other societies we looked into, American Indian rhetoric wasn’t just affected by its own culture and religions, but also white culture and its religion, and how the two interacted together in various situations. Plus then the rhetoric would vary based on the situation and the audience, the speaker (and what they wanted to achieve), etc. Which was pretty cool, but also rather confusing (to me) for a good portion of that section.) <—and yes I know these are extreme generations that don’t always apply. 

Ok, back to “Rhetoric Before and Beyond the Greeks”. So, as I stated above, the way I thought about each culture’s rhetoric, was that I thought about each society's culture and religion and how those aspects of each civilization had a huge impact on their rhetoric. Which helped me work through and better understand each culture’s rhetoric and how it functioned. I found that although this was apparent in all the different rhetoric we looked at (including western rhetoric), it was especially apparent in Egyptian rhetoric. 

In Egyptian culture, and therefore their rhetoric, Maat is a driving force. I found it absolutely fascinating that Maat was not just a concept but also a goddess. Maat was the goddess whose headdress supplied the feather, to which hearts of the dead were weighed against. If the heart weighed the same or less than the feather then the soul would pass to the afterlife, if the heart weighed more than  the feather, then the soul would be destroyed. Because of this extreme outcome, Maat became a concept, that in short stood for being a good person. And as a result Maat became an integral part of Egyptian culture. Due to this Egyptian rhetoric deeply reflected Maat. 

I found this culture-to-rhetoric happening consistent throughout all of the rhetorics. Like the Egyptians, it was especially prevalent in Chinese and Athenian rhetorics. Confucianism was more passive and therefore so was there rhetoric. Western culture is more dominant and aggressive and therefore their rhetoric was more “violent”.    

So overall this class has been pretty cool and very illuminating. And although I have learned a lot about rhetoric over the course of the semester, I still feel like I have so much to learn. 

It has been a pleasure being in class with all of you, I have really enjoyed to listening to  and getting to know all of you !

An Interesting but Ultimately Futile Experiment

I would like to begin this final blog post by saying thank you to all of you, as it has been a very unique and fun experience being in this class, certainly not the same as it would have been in Norway. I would also like to apologize for my general pessimism towards everything, I am unbelievable enough exaggerating a little. Just a little.

Now, I have to admit that it took a very long time for me to understand why we read most of the readings that we did. The first class I attended of this course was the most confusing time I have ever had with a subject in my life. I was sure that this was a class I would fail miserably, and that I should just drop it right away. Luckily though, I did not have any other options, and it did not take long until I grasped that we were dealing with the rhetoric I already knew. I still struggled a lot with understanding why we were reading the texts about ancient rhetoric. I did not understand how this was any different from the classical rhetoric I had learned in Norway, or how it could contribute anything at all to the rhetorical tradition. Now at the end of the semester, I think that I have finally gotten the point. However, my epiphany is of course followed by my ever present pessimism.

The American Indian rhetoric was what made me realize that the readings are perhaps not just supposed to give me something to expand upon my own rhetoric, but to broaden my perspective of topics that will never concern me, but that I should nevertheless be aware of. Even so, I feel that for all the times that I have felt like this is important, I have come upon utterances within the readings that say such things as: ‘Not enough research has been done’, ‘The field has not had sufficient study’ and ‘It has potential, but there is not enough work being done’. I have to say that these utterances seem like the cynical, but realistic voice in between all of the excitement for bringing the rhetoric of ‘the other’ into the party of the Rhetorical Tradition. As much as I would love to think that us being educated on the different types of rhetoric of the past and present will bring about a radical change in the field, I must say that in the end, it is a very ambitious, and to me, futile task.

Will these forgotten/ignored/minor types of rhetoric change the world of rhetoric as we know it? Possibly with enough research and with enough dedicated researchers and scholars. Looking at the evidence though, I would not put my money on it, and I cannot say that I feel compelled enough to be one of those that pick up the first straw either.

A Rhetorical Book of Spells

To be honest, I still find the concept of rhetoric a little frustrating, because there is no clear definition of rhetoric. The definition seems fluid and specific to any given culture. Rhetoric can be about power, persuasion, and manipulation. Rhetoric can be all these things at once; therefore, my overall picture of rhetoric remains hazy. I’m not saying that the class has not helped me understand literature and a given texts worthiness, quite the opposite. I have found the class quite valuable in understanding the ways of the world.

Rhetoric is important because each of us have an opinion; we have an opinion that is uniquely our own, and rhetoric enables us to enforce that opinion. Looking back at the semester, I can definitely recognize how my thoughts about rhetoric have changed. My initial thought was that rhetoric is about persuasion, but now I think it is much more than that. Rhetoric encompasses so much that it is hard to pin exactly what it is, and I guess that is why I find it a little tricky, and sometimes frustrating.

What I don’t like about rhetoric is that it is often a slippery slope. Sometimes it is very difficult to discuss with any real substance. It’s one of those things in which I am hesitant to speak about because I don’t mean to sound foolish. Rhetoric is highly intellectual and takes deep focus and concentration. Sometimes I feel like rhetoric makes me feel more intelligent, and sometimes I feel like a dipshit because I don’t fully understand it, even after a decent amount of studying.

However, what I do like about rhetoric is that it can be applied to pretty much anything. Anything can be studied rhetorically, in a sense. Since rhetoric is such a broad concept you can look for its applications anywhere you choose. I suppose the bible has just as many rhetorical properties as fairy tales do. They teach us ethics and morals; they prove a point.

Overall the course has proven to me that rhetoric is a significant subject to study. Rhetoric shouldn’t be ignored, because it can be powerful when applied strategically. I see rhetoric as a sort of bag of tricks, or a book of spells. Rhetoric applies to nearly everything. In everyday conversation we like to enforce our opinions, whether we are discussing religion and politics, or chatting about the weather, rhetoric can be applied to enhance our opinion. Rhetoric gives us ground to stand on and voice our opinions.

A Blog Reflection

I really enjoyed the blog (even though I had trouble remembering it sometimes). Although the posts were beneficial in collecting my thoughts for class, I especially enjoyed the responses. I have trouble speaking in class because I feel like discussion sometimes goes down rabbit holes, and a few key people are building off each other. If I zone out for part of the discussion, I usually end up lost when I tune back in to whatever we're talking about. Responding to other people's posts gave me a chance to really understand what my classmates are saying and feel like I can have legitimate responses to them.

Most of the time with my blog posts I took the stance of finding background information to further enrich my understanding of the text. I have had trouble throughout this class figuring out how to incorporate rhetoric into my discussions--- mostly because I always forget the terms and what they all mean. Maybe I need flashcards. Especially during the Native American section, I found the readings interesting in their own right, but wasn't sure how to take a rhetorical slant on them. I appreciated how people in class talked about what the author was accomplishing rhetorically instead of just looking at the rhetoric discussed within the text.

I wish I would have been more engaged with the readings on my own (highlighting and taking notes in the margins), but the blog posts forced me to be, which I really appreciated.

Global Rhetoric: The Crazy Hope of Equality

My definition of rhetoric has evolved throughout this semester, but instead of getting more defined, it’s only gotten more convoluted. The other day my sister actually asked me what it was, and I was unable to give a succinct answer. I was just talking like “Well it has a lot to do with persuasion but it’s also more than that. and it’s not just about the words because it’s about place and time and who the speaker is and who the audience is and culture and- it doesn’t really have a specific definition, ok?”. And while part of me was kind of disappointed in myself for not having a better answer by now, the rest of me knew that my lack of concrete definition shows that I have more of a knowledge of what rhetoric than I did at the beginning of the semester, not less.

As well as broadening my actual definition of rhetoric, one of the other affects this class has had on me was to inspire a deep feeling of annoyance- not at the class or anyone in it, but instead about the various occasions of injustice towards women and non-western cultures. My most common thoughts while doing the reading for this class were probably, “Are you freaking kidding me?” and “Well, of course. Of course they did something horrible, have they ever done anything else?”. While I do still hold out hope for more equal and inclusive rhetorical practices in the future, after everything we’ve read and talked about in this class it would be very easy to be overcome by a feeling of hopelessness, to feel like inequality is all there’s ever been, and so it’s all there can ever be. But I don’t believe that. I really think that since more and more attention is being paid to non-western rhetoric, and more effort is being made to equalize the practice, it’s possible that a global rhetorical approach could emerge. That might be crazy. It might really be hopeless, but I need to believe that it’s not. Because if people believe that it’s hopeless, then they won’t even try. If they think they can never succeed, then they never will. So call me crazy, or misguided, or in denial, but I’m going to go on believing that equality is possible. 

Lighter (and Darker) Side of Rhetoric

This is it folks. I know I’ve joked about graduating (what up Ross), but I will miss this so much. I wish I won the lottery, so I can continue my academic pursuits. But in the real world, money trumps when you have a family to consider. 

I’ve enjoyed this class the most this semester. It was engaging; it was interesting; and it was important. Does anyone remember what I said the first day of class?

I’ll help you out. It went something like: “I think rhetoric is cool and all, but it just isn’t really my thing.” Like my 28 years of life has taught me best, I will eat my words a lot, and it’s time once again, so… That was stupid of me to say, and I most definitely think rhetoric is “my thing.” (I was just too scared to admit it (and I had to compete with Ross to be the coolest kid in the class)). Ooooh! Sick burn! I kid, I kid. Ross is way cooler than me.

All jokes aside, the blogging for this class was a different experience than usual for me. I’ve done a decent amount of blogging for classes. But I’ve never been so attached to what I had to write. From Enheduanna to the Peltier section that led me to current modern day events, I’ve been enthralled by rhetoric (mostly macro questions of gendered rhetoric, but I’ve started leaning towards Native issues now).

I can’t stop thinking about those damn Uranium mines in that reservation. I think about how the economic machine keeps churning to in the destruction of our lands, but even worse, the blatant human rights violations that are glossed over because they’re “Indians”. If they were poisoning “white” water, Erin Brockavich would be over there getting news coverage and a class action settlement. But we hear nothing. And so we do nothing.

Make no mistake though; corporations will poison anyone for profit. They just know whom they can kill and get away with it. For me, rhetorics has taken a dark turn. At its deepest, darkest side, rhetoric finds people and things to kill while keeping a smile on everyone else’s face. It declares innocence while committing global extinction. All we have left is to respond with our own force of rhetoric: one that looks to heal and revive what is being destroyed.

That’s the problem though. We are always reacting to the negative rhetoric of the world. They have the upper hand after all, so we are playing on their turf, by their rules. Are the corporations the new colonizers? Are all of us as consumers the colonized? The mechanisms seem to be the same, which means disenfranchised groups such as Native Americans are doubly dealing with this bullshit all over again.

Wow. That got way darker from where I started out. And since this is my last blog for college ever, Ross ;), I’d like to end on a lighter note. Keep impassioned, keep learning, and keep looking for bridges that you can extend to others. Peace out!

Le Blog Reflection

At the beginning of the semester for this class, I didn't really like the blog. And still don't only because I feel like I forget about it often even though it has been helpful for the Native American Rhetorics unit of the semester, due to my topic of which I was researching. As for the other units for this class, it was partially helpful because everyone has a different perspective on what certain aspects of rhetoric mean, such as power, feminism/ gender, and the meaning of rhetoric.
If anything, I wish there was more involvement of the historical background of the cultures involved with the different rhetorics that we analyzed this semester because the articles that we read had very little of that, unless it was at the beginning of the unit to me, especially with the Egyptian Rhetorics (of which I don't know much about). The only reason why this interests me the most is because I am a History minor that wants to focus on technology and culture. However, not all of us are history nerds like myself.
Overall, with the help of the blog, what I sought to learn came mostly from myself. Probably, mostly because I read only those I knew the names to or had an interesting title. Yes, I am one of those readers. I guess because of that the blog was hard for me to really get into. Along with the fact that my mind is often on its own island when it comes to specific subjects, such as video games and TV shows (Mad Men, House of Cards, ect things like that). Though for me bringing in these topics through the blog, I was able to use other forms of rhetorical studies to view subject that I use/watch every day,which is why I am no longer fun taking to the movies now. All of the running commentary!
I wish to see where the class goes with the rhetorical knowlegde after this class. Leaving me with the questions of: Is there a way where we can get emails if the blog is updated at all? and How long does the blog stay up after the completion of the course?

Reflecting on the Seeming Hopelessness of the Rhetoric of the Other

I think it's hopeless, I really do, an endeavor serviced toward a grand idea surely, but in the end useless because it will never hold enough weight to make an impact.

Perhaps I'm just a cynic, but as far as I'm concerned, making a change so that the "Other", and minority groups are recognized and no longer rhetorically excluded and separated from the general population, is impossible.

It's something we've been talking about all semester, power is the ultimate determiner of what is recognized, and what is just shunted to the side. Well, it's great to bring attention to the fact that this is happening, but before this semester I never gave shits about how other groups of society may be excluded from the rhetoric of power. In fact, I was entirely unaware of it, so what is the point of writing about this stuff? What is the point of trying to make people aware -- because that is certainly the ultimate intent -- and persuade them to change, if it's falling on deaf ears anyway, or just not even reaching the destination to begin with?

I like the idea that I get to learn and come up with my own ideas about how rhetoric could be better serviced to encompassing all facets of life, but I don't see any use beyond that because change in this category is ultimately impossible to enact.

You're right, I am just a cynic, I just find no use in wasted energy to be forward. I don't want to give the impression that I learned nothing from this class, or that it wasn't valuable to me because I learned a lot about my writing that I believe will be entirely important to my continued existence as a writer. I just feel hopeless in the endeavor of enacting a change of discourse, a change of understanding, a means to reach people who can actually service this change. I want to try, but like I said I find no use in wasted energy.

Sorry to throw this out amongst the fold of reflection, but I find that it's the only thing I can think about. That being said, I will be writing my reflective paper on this topic, and I'll posit some ideas that are uplifting, some ways that an uninterested audience might be reached. So don't get all depressed by my blog. I'm not depressed, I just find change in this category to be impossible, and as such a worthless endeavor to undertake because it's an utter waste of time.

This Rhetoric stuff

When I sat down to write this final reflective blog post I looked at the clock and strategized how I could write something meaningful and put some real effort in before I have to meet with my Business Law group at 7:15pm. This prompted me to think about something that has been a struggle for me in this class. I don't much like rhetoric. Yep, I said it. I understand the point of it, even the usefulness in many various situations. And I still don't dig it. If we could get A's for honesty I'd still be a 4.perfection student.

Don't read the above words and think that I do not respect rhetoric. This class has helped me to begin understanding it on a far more in depth level. Emphasis on 'begin'! We read some very unique texts, namely the Egyptian ones to do with Ma'at. That and Mountford's essay in Octalog II were the closest I got to actually enjoying essays on rhetoric. I think its vital for students to attempt to understand as many things as they can, its part of the glory of college. And another purpose of college is finding out what you don't dig. I don't care to spend my time thinking about rhetoric past this class or my college career. I'm glad we have people out there that do wish to think on it and study it because it does play an important role in all our lives. I can acknowledge and accept this and still not care to give it much further thought. My interests lie elsewhere. My 45 year old self in the future might think this post is a load of rubbish, but that's how it goes.

There are 3 things that I have enjoyed and learned from most in this class.
1. The efforts, knowledge and patience of our teacher in dealing with a bunch of rhetorical newbs. Kate deserves a medal.
2. My fellow students curious and insightful minds. I don't talk a lot in class mainly because I learn through listening/observing. It' is always cool to hear what people have to say about the texts we read.
 3. The challenge of writing about a topic that isn't inherently interesting to me. I learned some specific things and flubbed some things. This blog was particularly tricky for me to get into and I definitely forgot a post or two. But it forced me to sit down and think about the assigned readings. And this was good - challenge is always good, even if we don't like it.

So at 7:05 I saved this post and raced off to another part of the library for other scholastic stuff. Reading it over again just now before I post it there's one more thing I wish to make clear again - Though I readily admit I don't like discussing rhetoric, that does not mean I don't see its importance.

Reflecting on Power

Reflecting on the experience of blogging this past semester, I must admit I have mixed feelings about it. Some weeks were relatively engaging in which I was interested in the material being presented. However, other weeks writing any amount on the blog was a chore. However, the hardest part of the blog was responding to others blogs. I have heard that ego is necessary for being a writer, but it was difficult to feel like I could contribute to a blog when I felt like I did not have all the information I wanted. Plus, it can be intimidating to give feedback and criticism to peers. Finally, remembering when to write a blog verses a response held its own challenges, mostly because I had another blog for another class, and I would confuse them sometimes.

As for my actual posts, I see that the topics I seemed to revolve around were all about power, especially in relation to women. I have been slowly developing my definition of rhetoric throughout the semester, and my blog posts seem to have focused on everything that is different or “other” from Athenian rhetoric. The embodiment of rhetoric, for example, which I discussed briefly in my blog about Enheduanna. I also looked at power in time of oppression in regards to Sarah Winnemucca and the Hawaiian Queen. Both of these posts focused on power held by women, yet while their gender may have had an impact on their power, what I was truly interested in exploring was the mastery all three of these women held over rhetoric that they were able to pass on their meanings in such different ways that still allowed a large audience impact.

Basically, I was and still am enamored by the vast net that rhetoric covers. My posts, upon careful reflection, reveal this desire to know what rhetoric covers even as I attempt to bring it back to a point of comfort: power.

The Rhetoric of 'Other' and the Use of Meta-Discourse

While the use of meta-discourse offers many rhetoricians a method of driving home a persuasive goal I believe rhetoricians outside of the western tradition must rely upon meta-discourse in order to persuade a difficult audience. By first understanding non-western rhetorician's relationship to their audience we can begin to better appreciate why the use of meta-discourse is crucial to their rhetorical survival. Non-Western rhetoric is constantly making moves to justify it's position in the community due to Western tradition's dominance. Western rhetoric is able to rely upon the hyper-protected cooperative principle in the way that they know the audience they are targeting has a basic understanding of the points and moves they are attempting to make. On the other end of the spectrum is non-western rhetoricians who wish to reach western audience members. Moving rhetorically through their own community may come second nature to non-western authors, yet it is when they move away from their community and enter a realm in which they are unknown that these rhetoricians must call upon meta-discourse. In order to influence these alien audiences, claims must be stated clearly and "provide vital clues for those who wish to analyze and answer it"(Toye, 49). The point of using meta-discourse in a non-western rhetorical text is to assure the objective these rhetoricians wish to communicate is understood to an audience that may not otherwise understand due to cultural diversity. By beginning a paragraph with, "I will argue..." the author is setting up their audience to receive their opinion and therefore better understand the reason for the construction of the text.

While meta-discourse may be a small part of the rhetoric of other, it ties into non-western rhetoric as a whole by showing how the dominance of western tradition creates and maintains the methods in which non-western rhetoricians must work from. 'Other' rhetoric must be constructed in a way that it expands outside of it's own community's context and makes itself known to the western world. Through a variety of methods, including meta-discourse, 'other' rhetoric has begun and continues to shed light upon the differences and similarities of western and non-western in order to distinguish itself amongst the massive community that is rhetoric.

By searching through blog posts of the past semester, I realize the importance of the dominance that western rhetoric has upon our studies and on how we perceive the rhetoric of 'other'. By exploring the rhetoric of 'other' we, as scholars, are able to better understand ourselves, our peers and our scholarly work due to the expansion that takes place when studying outside of western tradition. This makes it possible for us to study things such as meta-discourse inside of the 'other' which then enables us to continue the conversations we have begun past the doors of our small classroom. I have learned that without exploring the 'other' we can say little about western rhetoric; it is in the opposition that we can find a plethora of information and knowledge.

Reflection: Examining the Other

As I reflect on my past blogs, a common theme stands out - why being aware of what "the Other" is affects rhetoric. I think that this class has really pushed my definition of Other and has shown me all the ways that rhetoric has been used, and is still used today. I came into the class knowing the very basic rhetorical terms from high school: ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos. I remember examining historical speeches for rhetoric and that was about the extent of it. This semester has demonstrated to me the importance of being able to look at other types of rhetoric and to consider pushing past my typical area of study. In Roberta Binkley’s essay “The Rhetoric of Origins and the Other: Reading the Ancient Figure of Enheduanna” she describes how the Other in rhetoric could be “of another period, place, culture, gender, and spiritual tradition” (47). I think that this class showed me that anything outside of my primary discourse can be considered Other, and my awareness of that can determine how I examine the rhetoric of what is unfamiliar, or even reflect upon the rhetoric that I use with the Other.

In my blog post about Queen Lili’uokalani’s use of rhetoric, I think that I finally grasped a real purpose of using rhetoric in a manipulative way. Her use of Kaona was intentional to keep the Other (Non-Hawaiians) unaware of the actual meaning of the writing. Again, awareness of who the Other was was key in her rhetoric.

This awareness of what you want the Other to know and what you don’t affects rhetoric by determining what strategies you include and possible things that you exclude. For example, Sarah Winnemucca chose to write to a white audience in her autobiography, Living Among the Paiutes, the first choice she made was to write this book in English – thereby making it accessible to read by Euro-Americans. She used strategies such as pathos to appeal to a typically female audience that she had gained throughout her fame as an “Indian Princess” speaker during the late 1800s. Winnemucca was very aware of her target audience and so her rhetorical strategies were catered to them.

The blogs aided in narrowing down my thoughts when I was reading, and looking over my favorite blogs I tended to focus on the role of the other and the role of the writer in response to the other. This space to write about anything related to the reading allowed me to have the opportunity to find an interest and pursue it through multiple texts, and looking back at those I wish that I had pursued that topic with every blog I wrote, but overall I enjoyed the experience.

Introductions to Reflections

         We were asked to reflect upon are time and experiences with the class blog. I will admit that at first I was weary with the blog for several reasons. One, I had no idea what rhetoric was so how was I going to blog about it, and two, how the hell was I going to respond to my peers in an academic manner. My first blog on Enheduanna was very text base, use examples and what not. Although, I will admit I am most proud of my first blog about the legitimacy of Enheduanna as an author. Go Female Empowerment! My blogs stay somewhat strong in the beginning using those strong citations to make a clear concise argument. However with my Kaona blog, the effort I spent deteriorated due to the hectic-ness that can be the semester. The comments I gave to others usually consisted of either I agree with the points that you make or yes that is interesting but what about this. They also usually appeared on the first couple blog that I read and could identify with in some aspects.

            I enjoy reading the work of my peers because they took different stances or interests in the reading that I may have glanced over or didn’t understand upon the first reading because I am a rhetoric novice. How did I get let into this class? Any who, my peers wrote brilliantly and I enjoy reading their perspectives on most of the authors. Although I will admit my responses to peers on the Chinese Rhetoric blogs were not up to par. I had hard time following the line of thinking especially when Chinese words came into play. However, silence is a form of rhetorical response. I was paying attention in class.  

Overall, I have enjoyed this class blog more so than any other blog I was forced or willingly to do. It has been more pleasant because it was collaborative. I wrote a blog and got feedback on my ideas that I had written on from the previous reading. Then I was able to take those comment and apply them to the next readings on the same culture. It was better to have the ideas of the whole than just the thoughts of one. Personally, it allowed me to see concepts that I missed or from a different angle, or apply to different topics that are beyond my scope of study.

From the introduction to the final sessions of this class, I have learned to comprehend rhetoric in a manner that is beyond the Greek and the art of persuasion. I have come to learn of new rhetorics that I find to fit better with my own personal style as well as interest of studies. All in all the class and the blog have allowed me to become a better rhetorician, additionally it has made me aware of the moves made in texts that can be persuasion or reflection of a culture. Watch out Presidential debate! I know all your tricks now. 

Random responses to Redfield

The first thing I found interesting in Redfield’s piece was when she discusses Zitkala-Sa’s experience with the word “no” in boarding school. When the older classmate taught the children to answer “no” to everything, the fact that the teacher could not see through the fact that the child didn’t know English and didn’t understand the rhetorical implications of the word, was hard to believe. It seems like common sense to consider language barriers. The overall fact that the curriculum in boarding schools did not accommodate for language and culture barriers absolutely fascinates me.

The way Redfield explained the shift from external to internal rhetoric was useful for me. External rhetoric was necessary to deal with colonization, but now that Native Americans have regained agency and now hold a place in society, it makes sense for them to shift back to internal rhetoric. They still have to exercise external rhetoric because of the interaction with the rest of the world that still remain, but really, why should they worry about appealing to white audiences in their own, everyday communications. Redfield says of her own experience, “My storytelling template was, I realized, based on an ethnographic model of preservation, rather than a rhetorical model of dynamic communication” (150).

The rhetoric surround Native American’s decisions highlights the idea we’ve come across before, where dire situations have a major effect on the rhetoric being employed: “Some Indian speakers and writers felt that the key to survival on many levels was to show Euro-Americans how capable of adaptation Indian people were” (151).

This left me wondering how conscious these choices were. Did Native Americans authoring texts actually consider the rhetorical affect itself, or did they just realize that the best way to cope with the situation was to prove to colonizers that they were intelligent? When we were discussing Winnemucca, this came up. One text suggested that she chose to use the rhetorical strategies she did not because she necessarily wanted to, but because it was the only way she could work toward accomplishing her larger communication goals.

Redfield’s own rhetorical strategy for describing internal rhetoric is also worth noting. She says, “The rhetorical form that is the most “internal,” it could be argued, is parody. At first I didn’t understand how parody could describe internal rhetoric, but I now am getting the “joke.” This use of “inside jokes” definitely shifts the rhetoric to the internal realm and excludes other audiences. This seems like an effective strategy within a culture, but I also wonder how this will effect Native American communications and relations with other people.  

That's Quite Enough, Thanks: A Mild Rant

Clearly, there is a lot of disagreement as to whether or not Leonard Peltier is guilty of the crimes that have placed him in prison for the last 30 years. There are those who believe him to a murderer, and others who think he’s a political prisoner, a victim of the concept of “Aboriginal Sin”. Those supporting Peltier certainly have a case, since “the original prosecutor admitted in 1985 that the government does not know who killed the agents (Clark xx) Leonard Peltier remained in prison” (111). This makes sense, since Native Americans, like many other minorities, are disproportionately blamed for crimes they didn’t commit. Peltier wrote, “when you grow up Indian, you don’t have to become a criminal, you already are a criminal. You never know innocence” (113). It’s possible that Peltier is guilty, but even if he is, that doesn’t explain why he was prosecuted and no one was charged for the death of Joe Stuntz. It doesn’t explain why his request for a new trial based on new evidence was denied for being insufficient. There are so many arguments and so much controversy surrounding Peltier that at this point it would be difficult to decipher the possibility of his actual innocence.

But to be honest, I don’t care. I don’t care if he’s innocent, I don’t care if he’s guilty. In this context, it really doesn’t matter. This is not to say that the lives of those who died don’t matter, it’s not to say that there aren’t multiple tragedies at work here. The point is that regardless of what the truth of this particular case is, the argument remains the same. Maybe Peltier is guilty and should be in prison. I have no way of knowing. But I do know that even if this particular man isn’t a victim of the concept of “Aboriginal Sin”, others have been. Others are still falling victim to it today. This is just one example of an unfair legal system among many- too many. And I think there’s been enough. 

A Defiant Display of Survivance

Sun Dance Behind Bars: The Rhetoric of Leonard Peltier’s Prison Writings by Janna Knittle was an interesting text, as it explores the rhetoric of and American Indian who is doomed to stay in prison for the rest of his life, which undoubtedly affects the power of his rhetoric’s delivery.

The description of the Sundance was indeed a somewhat horrifying one, at least to me. It seemed like a torturous ritual, staring at the sun for hours upon end, only to dance until your nipples are ripped off. Jokes aside, the fact that Peltier uses and sees his Sundance as a way of sacrificing himself for the greater good of his people is fascinating. The act of using his prison sentence as a sort of Sundance is in itself a feat of rhetorical power, along with his fearlessness of pain, being able to relieve himself from it by thinking of it as a sacrificial Sundance.

His ability to ignore pain because he has partaken in an actual Sundance, and can always relate his pain to a higher purpose when in prison shows an impressive manifestation of rhetoric in his own being. It is indeed a manifestation of survivance and defiance against his unrighteous prison sentence, and displays a great deal of power as an Indian who refuses to be torn down by anything. “Sun Dance is our religion, our strength. We take great pride in that strength, which enables us to persist pain, torture, any trial rather than betray the People” (120). His defiant resolve, and by extension his rhetoric, is strengthened not only by his ability to endure, but also by the fact that not being able to is viewed as a betrayal towards his own people.

I think that you could draw lines between many other aspects of his rhetoric portrayed in the article to Aristotelian rhetoric, but the Sundance aspect is in my opinion very much unique and of a different kind. 

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

I like the reversed nature of this quote because it's obvious what the rhetorical intent is, and it easily relates to a judicial system that can find people guilty based on the necessity of silencing them, while allowing others to walk scot-free who might be just as guilty, if not more so.

Furthermore, it also relates to many other ideals surrounding Native Americans, and particularly the reversal of their Indianness. Kill the Indian, save the man is just one example of what I am talking about. The Indian is lost, and the man arises from the crumpled headdress, but they can never fully be recreated, just like a guilty person can never be innocent if they were always meant to rot in the chains of guilt.

There is no better way to say this than the quote on page 112 that Knittel references. "One such tactic is 'rhetorical exclusion,' a rhetorical strategy that defines those who seek inclusion into the larger polity on their own terms as inherently destructive of that polity, questioning the motives of those who challenge governmental power, and a presumption that those involved in such challenges are inherently guilty of crimes against the polity" (28).

Ok, so that's super wordy but I think that -- as a class -- we are pretty aware of "rhetorical exclusion" by this point. Guilty until proven innocent is just another example of this rhetorical exclusion, one that is calculated and undermines the very democratic ideals that the United States apparently abide by.

Prior to reading this, I was entirely in the dark about this event, and to think that it took place in 1975 is rather shocking because it just proves that these rhetorical motives are still evident today, and will continue to be. It just seems like a hopeless battle.

However Peltier gives it a little hope because he's still rotting in prison, and probably won't be released until 2040, when he'll most likely be dead barring any miracles; yet, he still fights for his innocence and a way to reach the dominant power and make a change.

Nonetheless, it's still sad to read a lot of what Peltier says: "when you grow up Indian, you don't have to become a criminal, you already are a criminal. You never know innocence" (67 of Peltier's book). It's strange how much this ideal applies to all minorities, but hardly -- if at all -- to the white dominant group.

But, is it really that strange? I've certainly grown used to it, and with the violence between white police (often), and African American individuals, which seems incessant in the US, can you blame me? Don't twist my words here, I am by no means saying that the minority deserves the hand they've been dealt, I'm only remarking on the fact that the hand they've been dealt seems rather inherent to this point, and Peltier backs my conclusion with his sentiments.

On a final note, how perfect is it that Dick Wilson, a tribal chairman, named his unit with an acronym that spells Goons? Perfect idiocy, or calculated intimidation, I don't know...