Some say I run on “Emily Time.” I prefer to believe that
time is a concept and I follow the streams of the universe; living my life
moment by moment, but also all at once.
Anywho, I really enjoyed this article. I would love to read
an excerpt of Queen Kapi’olani’s autobiography, to try to see if I can pick out
her double meanings. I probably couldn’t, but isn’t that the beauty of rhetorical
sovereignty?
While reading, I got to thinking about other suppressed
groups of people and the ways that they could maintain their rhetorical
sovereignty. I mainly got interested in Japanese-American internment camps
during WW2. Of course, this isn’t exactly the same, since they were American
(with Japanese descent). I did discover that Japanese has a term called “gaman,”
loosely translated as perseverance. To endure the unbearable with patience and
dignity. This stoicism was their moral code, their ethos. This caused them
trouble in internment camps, as it was perceived as disloyalty to America.
Interestingly, Hawaii was only a US territory when WW2 broke out, and initially
refused to round up Japanese-Americans as they were being ordered to do. They
had to in the end, but the prisoners were treated well and with dignity.
Perhaps because of the solidarity felt after Hawaiians’ own suppression? I don’t
know, it’s just interesting to see what kinds of traits, rhetorically or not,
tragedy brings out in a society.
I don’t know if this is rhetorical sovereignty, but reading
about Queen Kapi’olani’s autobiography also made me think of Fredrick Douglass’s.
He also had a sophisticated grasp on the English language, and appealed to
America’s morality without necessarily condemning them. Similarly, Queen Kapi’olani
tries to gain the support of the American people. I loved the line “there’s no
stronger tool than using the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house.”
I also really enjoyed that line that you quote at the end. It's just one of those lines that puts a lot of what we've been talking about this semester into context.
ReplyDeleteSeemingly, "other" forms of rhetoric can benefit from a knowledge of western rhetorical strategies and how to form some sort of conjunct relationship where these strategies are used to varying degrees in an attempt to bolster their own strategies.
Likewise, western rhetorics can also benefit from using these culture-centered rhetorics and many of the similar ideas they present to understand the impact of coercive power.
Certainly, western rhetorics focuses on logic, but also makes appeals to ethos and pathos. Often times logic can be dismantled by an appeal to character, or even upheld by using logic as a means to appeal to character. However, it seems that a lot of these "other" rhetorics that we read are focused on the language of respect to an utmost degree (Maat, Confucian Silence, and these discussions of rhetorical sovereignty).
Our readings and discussions about rhetorical sovereignty have gotten me thinking about other cultures as well, and how the term may or may not apply. Rhetorical sovereignty has a place in any context where there is a suppressor and a suppressed, as we were first exposed to in the context of Native Americans, and now we see it applied to indigenous peoples of Hawaii. Your example of Japanese internment camps is interesting to think about, and fits in well here, because we typically only think about the events of a war, not necessarily the language of war itself. I feel like some of the concepts and arguments being made in our readings, such as rhetorical sovereignty, could also be used by different ethnic groups in Europe for example. I don't know a lot about this, but I do know that after WWI country borders were re-worked without consideration for the people within those regions. I think there is an example where Germany's borders were changed in such a way that originally German residents suddenly became members of a new country, members of an enemy country from the war. I can only imagine, like in your example, that nationalism took a heavy toll on those differing ethnic groups, who were expected to assimilate and become a part of another country. It would be interesting to find out if there is something similar to rhetorical sovereignty used in their rhetorics as well.
ReplyDeleteI also wish an expert was included, just to get the sense of it. I do not think I know enough to be able to pick out the double meanings, but I would have been fun to try, or have it explained.
ReplyDeleteThis reading also made me think of suppressed groups (but I was thinking about the Sami people in Scandinavia). The Sami did not use rhetoric like the Hawaiians, but it is still kind of relatable. I did not know about that part of US/Japanese/Hawaiian history, and I find it really interesting. I guess acts can be just as rhetorical as words, and the refusal to round up Japanese-Americans and the act of treating them well, defiantly sends a message.
I'm in the same boat as Emma. I really wish an expert was included, rather than her knowledge.
ReplyDeleteDuring the reading of this, it has helped me develop my idea for this essay more with the topic of rhetorical sovereignty. More specifically, the trail of tears, and other east coast native Americans after the arrival of Europeans. It was more than just their language surpressed, but everything they have come to know and understand. Also, I would like to take the the concept of rhetorical sovereignty in the view of traditional western rhetoric.