“We were worried about vaginas…” is the opening line of the Eve Ensler production of “The Vagina monologues.” The show is about women and its purpose is to raise awareness about domestic violence. If the show was about heart disease an appropriate way to start the show might be, “we were worried about our hearts.” Vagina is the anatomically correct term for a body part rarely mentioned in “polite” dinner conversation.
Being a part of the monologues has opened my eyes to the controversy surrounding the monologues. The second I told my mom that I would be in a production called, “The Vagina Monologues” her face contorted as if I told her that I would be starring alongside Jenna Jamison in an XXX rated film. Even coming from a strong Christian home I still didn’t expect that reaction. It was about domestic violence, raising money for the cause against Femicide, and taking a stand for women everywhere! Even after explaining she turned her nose to the idea and told me that the family would not be hearing about this endeavor. Then I received information that there were certain people on campus that didn’t agree with our production either and I was sent a link to an online article published by the Catholic News Agency. This article was slamming Father Jenkins, president of Notre Dame University, for allowing the play to be performed.
Bishop D’Arcy of Fort Wayne – South Bend calls the performance “pornographic” and that the entire V-Day Organizion “directly opposes the dignity of the human person and is antithetical to Catholic teaching.” After reading the article I noticed that there were a few comments at the bottom all agreeing with Bishop D’Arcy’s condemnation of Father Jenkins and “The Vagina Monologues.” Naturally, I also commented stating my personal experience with the monologues and the good that it does for a campus and community. After performing the monologues in front of friends, family, fellow students, members of the community, and even my father, I have realized that many people love the show after they see it even if they walk into the auditorium hesitantly.
It’s not about religion, it’s about women. For anyone who thinks that the V-Day Organization was created to trample over Catholicism, I suggest you look up the V-Day website and click on “mission.” And to Bishop D’Arcy who mentioned the promotion of feminism as a downside of performing “The Vagina Monologues,” it’s 2009, get with the program. We can vote now too.
Kyriel Manzo
Wilkes Univeristy 11'
Communications/English
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
WHAT DID YOU CALL ME?
The director of homeland security Janet Napolitano issued a memo warning the administration as well as the American people of “right wing extremists”. This memo stated that the economy, new legislation, illegal immigration and other current US issues may cause a surge in “right wing extremism”. But the memo also targeted veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan to be some of the more easily influenced and recruited to right wing extremist organizations. The memo States that those who serve are more prone to aggressive right wing recruitment and “lone acts of violence”, as if they were nothing more than terrorists in training. What is in the minds of these people? The department of homeland security has the fortitude to accuse veterans, those who serve and are proud to do so, of the type of cowardly acts of violence we have been exposed to, and return it on our country. It is unnecessary for the director of homeland security to demonize our veterans for her own political gain.
Miss Napolitano DO NOT put me in the same group with the same type of fundamentalist idiots that I am protecting this country from. My brothers and I are not terrorists or even potential terrorists. The only terrorists are those with weak wills and weak minds, which isn’t something you will find in our armed forces. You should be ashamed of yourself, using less than a handful of incidents to provide evidence of your claims. The thing is that most of the people who protect your ass are veterans. As far as “disgruntled military veterans” perhaps the government we work for could show us some respect instead of indifference, perhaps then you wouldn’t have “disgruntled vets”. You make me sick, veterans are the reason you have freedom and this is how you treat them Miss Napolitano? It’s shameful that she still holds this office after this kind of discrimination.
I have said it before; soon the “thank you” will stop. If they want to equate this conflict to that of Vietnam then it will soon be that veterans are no longer welcome in their own country. Soon returning veterans will be greeted with protests and hate or worse. Left wing idiots like Miss Napolitano will continue to demonize our country’s most dedicated people and feed them to the political wolves. Is it not bad enough that many of our own soldiers are being railroaded by their own government and being charged with war crimes and murder in an active combat zone? Is it not enough that we must go far away for long periods possibly get shot at or blown up, only to return to our country unwelcome and unappreciated?
When is this nonsense going to stop, and when are people going to realize that it is those who serve and their families are the ones that pay the price for your freedom? What would happen if soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines weren’t there for you? Would you pay the price for your own freedom? I doubt that, because most people are too cowardly to stand up and say yes. Then it must be up to those few , the less than one percent of the population, who proudly wear the uniform of the American armed forces that must make that sacrifice. So the next time you see someone in uniform, thank them, because they are the reason you are free. And remember, cowards sleep well at night knowing that brave men and women stand willing to do battle on their behalf. This is only the land of the free, BECAUSE of the brave.
Joseph Cooper
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
Miss Napolitano DO NOT put me in the same group with the same type of fundamentalist idiots that I am protecting this country from. My brothers and I are not terrorists or even potential terrorists. The only terrorists are those with weak wills and weak minds, which isn’t something you will find in our armed forces. You should be ashamed of yourself, using less than a handful of incidents to provide evidence of your claims. The thing is that most of the people who protect your ass are veterans. As far as “disgruntled military veterans” perhaps the government we work for could show us some respect instead of indifference, perhaps then you wouldn’t have “disgruntled vets”. You make me sick, veterans are the reason you have freedom and this is how you treat them Miss Napolitano? It’s shameful that she still holds this office after this kind of discrimination.
I have said it before; soon the “thank you” will stop. If they want to equate this conflict to that of Vietnam then it will soon be that veterans are no longer welcome in their own country. Soon returning veterans will be greeted with protests and hate or worse. Left wing idiots like Miss Napolitano will continue to demonize our country’s most dedicated people and feed them to the political wolves. Is it not bad enough that many of our own soldiers are being railroaded by their own government and being charged with war crimes and murder in an active combat zone? Is it not enough that we must go far away for long periods possibly get shot at or blown up, only to return to our country unwelcome and unappreciated?
When is this nonsense going to stop, and when are people going to realize that it is those who serve and their families are the ones that pay the price for your freedom? What would happen if soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines weren’t there for you? Would you pay the price for your own freedom? I doubt that, because most people are too cowardly to stand up and say yes. Then it must be up to those few , the less than one percent of the population, who proudly wear the uniform of the American armed forces that must make that sacrifice. So the next time you see someone in uniform, thank them, because they are the reason you are free. And remember, cowards sleep well at night knowing that brave men and women stand willing to do battle on their behalf. This is only the land of the free, BECAUSE of the brave.
Joseph Cooper
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Drug Testing Fairly and Indescriminantly
Today, less than 20 of Pennsylvania’s 501 school districts have policies about testing prospective employees for drug use. However, when this testing was proposed to three of our local districts, Dallas and Crestwood and Pittston Area, only Dallas and Crestwood agreed to adopt the testing. Both districts pay for the tests, which typically look for marijuana, amphetamines, opiates, PCP and cocaine. Test prices range from $35 to more than $100, depending on the number of drugs tested.
These drug tests should be considered crucial for all teachers in Pennsylvania, especially in Luzerne County, with it’s high crime rate and excessive drug trafficking. So why is Pittston Area at such a level of hesitation to adopt the process of testing it’s teachers? Pittston Area’s school board attorney Mark Singer expressed that the schools highest concerns are: the amount of time the tests will take, test results becoming a public matter and if mistakes in the lab that may ruin an individual’s reputation.
I’m sure Mr. Singer believes that his reasons behind not adopting this drug-testing policy are relevant, but when it comes right down to it, the safety of Luzerne Country’s students is of most importance here. Local residents pay consistently raising taxes so that these students can go to school and receive a proper education, which does not include being taught by a teacher who is under any type of influence.
If Pittston Area truly has nothing to hide, then they should decide to undergo the drug-testing process before any more suspicions arise. By joining other local schools in the drug-testing policy, Pittston Area will be putting any discussion to rest as to why they haven’t already underwent the testing. Teachers are hired to not only guide students academically, but to work as a role model to their students and prepare them for their future. Any teacher who would actually undergo any type of drug use should not be working in the profession where their job is to mold and shape the mind’s of growing students.
Brittney Williams
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
These drug tests should be considered crucial for all teachers in Pennsylvania, especially in Luzerne County, with it’s high crime rate and excessive drug trafficking. So why is Pittston Area at such a level of hesitation to adopt the process of testing it’s teachers? Pittston Area’s school board attorney Mark Singer expressed that the schools highest concerns are: the amount of time the tests will take, test results becoming a public matter and if mistakes in the lab that may ruin an individual’s reputation.
I’m sure Mr. Singer believes that his reasons behind not adopting this drug-testing policy are relevant, but when it comes right down to it, the safety of Luzerne Country’s students is of most importance here. Local residents pay consistently raising taxes so that these students can go to school and receive a proper education, which does not include being taught by a teacher who is under any type of influence.
If Pittston Area truly has nothing to hide, then they should decide to undergo the drug-testing process before any more suspicions arise. By joining other local schools in the drug-testing policy, Pittston Area will be putting any discussion to rest as to why they haven’t already underwent the testing. Teachers are hired to not only guide students academically, but to work as a role model to their students and prepare them for their future. Any teacher who would actually undergo any type of drug use should not be working in the profession where their job is to mold and shape the mind’s of growing students.
Brittney Williams
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
Save Scranton School for the Deaf!
The Scranton State School for the Deaf, the only state-owned school of its kind, may close at the end of this school year; what is the reason behind this? Just ask Governor Ed Rendell, for he has chosen to cut the school’s funding in his 2009-10 budget, which he on released Wednesday February 4th.
The SSSD is located on a ten acre campus in the Green Ridge section of Scranton, and has been a major landmark in the town for 127 years. SSSD provides a comprehensive program for children who are deaf and hard of hearing from birth through age 21. The school is set up so that all programs are provided without cost to families residing in Pennsylvania. Being one of kind in it’s area, the SSSD has been assisting 100 students a year with they’re hearing and speech deficiencies; therefore can be considered crucial to many members of the community.
It is only with the utter most annoyance that I can express how terrible I believe this act truly is. And now, to make matters worse, the Department of Education officials attempted to exclude Scranton teachers from a meeting at Unit 19 headquarters in Archbald P.A.?! What’s next, attempt to take away their freedom of equality as well?
Scranton residents, as well as parents and teachers of the SSSD students have already began petitioning throughout the Scranton/Green Ridge area with faith to save this monumental landmark. What SHOULD happen here is the people in “high authority” should take a step back and take a serious look at what they’re taking away from the SSSD. A school so crucial to the Lackawanna County deserves as much funding as it can receive.
Brittney Williams
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
The SSSD is located on a ten acre campus in the Green Ridge section of Scranton, and has been a major landmark in the town for 127 years. SSSD provides a comprehensive program for children who are deaf and hard of hearing from birth through age 21. The school is set up so that all programs are provided without cost to families residing in Pennsylvania. Being one of kind in it’s area, the SSSD has been assisting 100 students a year with they’re hearing and speech deficiencies; therefore can be considered crucial to many members of the community.
It is only with the utter most annoyance that I can express how terrible I believe this act truly is. And now, to make matters worse, the Department of Education officials attempted to exclude Scranton teachers from a meeting at Unit 19 headquarters in Archbald P.A.?! What’s next, attempt to take away their freedom of equality as well?
Scranton residents, as well as parents and teachers of the SSSD students have already began petitioning throughout the Scranton/Green Ridge area with faith to save this monumental landmark. What SHOULD happen here is the people in “high authority” should take a step back and take a serious look at what they’re taking away from the SSSD. A school so crucial to the Lackawanna County deserves as much funding as it can receive.
Brittney Williams
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
Separation of church and gays?
In the recent news of the wonderful “Valley”, there has been much talk over the recent decision made by Bishop Joseph Martino of Misericordia University. In what Martino refers to as, “absolute disapproval” with the diversity club brining in activist Keith Boykin, even going as far to say that the University is failing to maintain the Catholic belief and image. So what is so terrible about Boykin? Well he’s gay.
Boykin was asked by the University’s Diversity institute to speak at a annual dinner, about Black History, and to discuss how he and President Obama were once classmates in college. While seeming like a reasonable and understandable request (also accepted by Boykin), Bishop Martino thought otherwise. Martino was not interested in what Boykin was coming to the school to discuss, but in his sexual background. The bishop had a big problem with Boykin’s past three books that were nominated for the Lambda Literary Award, which is given on behalf of homosexual causes. The diocese also labeled Boykin as an “avid supporter” of same sex marriage, which many of us know is against Catholic religion.
These statements made by the Bishop and Diocese, have sent shockwaves through the media, and now even college students. Recently, I came across a Facebook group that was all about having Bishop Martino removed from the University because of his words and decisions. Many callers on the local radio station WILK were also outraged with the decision and were not afraid of addressing their opinions about the Bishop.
So who is in the right? As a follower of the Catholic religion, I would have to agree with the Bishop’s decision. However, my reasons are not as radical as the Bishops. While I personally see no problem in diversity and equal rights, I understand where the Bishop is coming from. It is a private University, which is also a religious school and I could see how the decision of the Diversity Institue would upset someone who has been practicing religion their entire life. I also feel the speaker chosen was more than qualified to speak, and would probably have a great amount of knowledge to share with the students. It is a shame that circumstances, and the way the whole situation was approached, became the focus. If anything, I feel the Bishop should have been more open to discussing the scenario, and perhaps meeting in the middle with the Diversity Institute.
Anthony DiMarco
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
Boykin was asked by the University’s Diversity institute to speak at a annual dinner, about Black History, and to discuss how he and President Obama were once classmates in college. While seeming like a reasonable and understandable request (also accepted by Boykin), Bishop Martino thought otherwise. Martino was not interested in what Boykin was coming to the school to discuss, but in his sexual background. The bishop had a big problem with Boykin’s past three books that were nominated for the Lambda Literary Award, which is given on behalf of homosexual causes. The diocese also labeled Boykin as an “avid supporter” of same sex marriage, which many of us know is against Catholic religion.
These statements made by the Bishop and Diocese, have sent shockwaves through the media, and now even college students. Recently, I came across a Facebook group that was all about having Bishop Martino removed from the University because of his words and decisions. Many callers on the local radio station WILK were also outraged with the decision and were not afraid of addressing their opinions about the Bishop.
So who is in the right? As a follower of the Catholic religion, I would have to agree with the Bishop’s decision. However, my reasons are not as radical as the Bishops. While I personally see no problem in diversity and equal rights, I understand where the Bishop is coming from. It is a private University, which is also a religious school and I could see how the decision of the Diversity Institue would upset someone who has been practicing religion their entire life. I also feel the speaker chosen was more than qualified to speak, and would probably have a great amount of knowledge to share with the students. It is a shame that circumstances, and the way the whole situation was approached, became the focus. If anything, I feel the Bishop should have been more open to discussing the scenario, and perhaps meeting in the middle with the Diversity Institute.
Anthony DiMarco
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
Hate flyers on Wilkes Campus
Ironically, after a Thursday morning Rhetorical Communication class, I was walking to the Sub parking lot to go to my truck. As I walked closer to the side entrance of the parking lot, I saw a shaved head man, wearing a flannel shirt, black jeans, black boots, a chain wallet, and he looked no older than 23 years old, hanging a flyer on a telephone pole. When he finished I walked over to the flyer, trying not to stereotype the man as a racist, I read the flyer. On the top of the flyer in big white letters read, “NYC & PHILLY.” I assumed it might be a flyer promoting a band or a party at one of Wilkes Barres hot spots; however, that turned out to be the complete opposite.
The flyer continued, “Coming to a neighborhood near you, drugs, crime, graffiti, gangs, and violence” were littered about the small white piece of paper. The small flyer talked about how “our” beautiful neighborhood is being destroyed by drugs, gangs and violence. That this trouble has reached the heart of ever “decent” community (decent was in quotations on the flyer as well). At the bottom in big bold letters the flyer reads, “What are you going to do about it?” Underneath that, the text continues to read, “It’s time to take responsibility for the great neighborhood we’ve created… it’s time to stop moving away and push back!” Finally at the very bottom of the flyer is reads in large capital letters, “IT’S TIME TO TAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS BACK!”
I decided to go on their website as well, because the flyer never stated, who the “our” was and “who” was ruining the neighborhood. The website describes the group as a, “militant White Nationalists.” The group also believes, “That integration was forced upon the unwilling American people at the direction of our own elected government, paving the way for the failed multicultural experiment we now live in. That multiculturalism is not a celebration of different cultures but an unnatural destructive experiment that eventually eliminates the unique characteristics of every group forced to take part in it. That racism is the direct result of multiculturalism and caused by an unnatural struggle between races with extremely different cultures that are forced to live within the same community/nation.”
It is easy to see, that this group is in fact a racist group, and more alarming it has found its way on to our college campus. I find it sad, that Wilkes University school a wide diverse group of students and those we must all have to deal with ridiculous flyers like the one that I discovered on campus. More ironically, I find it funny, that this group is hanging up flyers on Wilkes campus, claiming that other races are ruining our neighborhood, when these other races are in school, working on bettering themselves and their education so they can make the community better.
Anthony DiMarco
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
The flyer continued, “Coming to a neighborhood near you, drugs, crime, graffiti, gangs, and violence” were littered about the small white piece of paper. The small flyer talked about how “our” beautiful neighborhood is being destroyed by drugs, gangs and violence. That this trouble has reached the heart of ever “decent” community (decent was in quotations on the flyer as well). At the bottom in big bold letters the flyer reads, “What are you going to do about it?” Underneath that, the text continues to read, “It’s time to take responsibility for the great neighborhood we’ve created… it’s time to stop moving away and push back!” Finally at the very bottom of the flyer is reads in large capital letters, “IT’S TIME TO TAKE OUR NEIGHBORHOODS BACK!”
I decided to go on their website as well, because the flyer never stated, who the “our” was and “who” was ruining the neighborhood. The website describes the group as a, “militant White Nationalists.” The group also believes, “That integration was forced upon the unwilling American people at the direction of our own elected government, paving the way for the failed multicultural experiment we now live in. That multiculturalism is not a celebration of different cultures but an unnatural destructive experiment that eventually eliminates the unique characteristics of every group forced to take part in it. That racism is the direct result of multiculturalism and caused by an unnatural struggle between races with extremely different cultures that are forced to live within the same community/nation.”
It is easy to see, that this group is in fact a racist group, and more alarming it has found its way on to our college campus. I find it sad, that Wilkes University school a wide diverse group of students and those we must all have to deal with ridiculous flyers like the one that I discovered on campus. More ironically, I find it funny, that this group is hanging up flyers on Wilkes campus, claiming that other races are ruining our neighborhood, when these other races are in school, working on bettering themselves and their education so they can make the community better.
Anthony DiMarco
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
Karl Rove is Full of IT!
As far as political campaigns are concerned, Karl Rove is probably one of the best guys to have in your corner if you are running for some type of office. Let’s face it, if he can make George W. Bush look like the better candidate for two consecutive elections, then the man must know something about running a good campaign. However, as an aspiring bull-shitter myself (one who works at the act of persuasion), I feel it is my responsibility to call out Karl Rove on a few important issues that he failed to acknowledge in a speech/Q&A session at Wilkes University, April 15 2009. And since I was dealing with the brains behind former President Bush’s operations, I hoped that I could finally get some answers to these important questions regarding the conspiracies of Bush/Cheney 00’-08.’
Unfortunately, I have to admit that my hopes were crushed when I said this man was the “brains” behind Bush’s operations. Rove’s intelligence applied well to his theories concerning political campaigns and advising, but it failed dramatically when it came time for him to speak of matters outside the discipline. For example, when asked by a man in the audience if he had seen the movie which was meant to document former President Bush’s life before, during, and after the White House known as “W,” he answered “no.” After making what he thought was a funny remark about the movie industry he then proceeded to ramble on once again thinking he was funny about how the character the producers picked the to play him was a bad pick because according to Rove, “everybody knows I am taller than Cheney,” implying that Toby Jones, the character picked to play him, represented him negatively. He was also able to talk about Jones’ role in “W” to a small extent which made me along with several of my colleagues agree that Rove definitely saw the movie.
Given this small example of how Karl Rove displayed brainless rhetoric I would like to now assert that Toby Jones was a good pick to represent Rove.
Jones is small, similar to Rove’s insight to the working class families of America which was limited. During his Q&A session, he made what he probably thought was a defense of the conservative method of the tax system in America. During his justification for Bush’s tax-cuts we saw from the White House 00’-08,’ he made sure to acknowledge all of those who he felt deserved these passes: business owners, those who are self-employed (like him), big companies. He failed to acknowledge the people who are responsible for keeping all the big corporations of this country alive, the people who work them! His failure to acknowledge the working (middle-lower) class American leads me to believe he was responsible for Bush’s tax-cuts for the highest 1% annual income bracket of Americans.
Rove also presented financial information concerning how much more Democrats spent on their campaigns compared to George W. Bush when he ran twice. The insignificance of this figure only further solidified Toby Jones as a better representation of Rove, in that I could clearly see him on my shoulder with a pitchfork trying to convince me that his opinion is correct.
Karl Rove may have significant contributions readily available for the field of communications, but as far as contributing to the bettering of America through whatever method he chooses goes –either through literature or The Wall Street Journal-, I hope that he realizes how much he does not know about America. I got the impression that Rove thinks that he knows how America should run and consequently also the world. Unfortunately, based on my hour of listening to him speak of his deeds I realized that men like him lead large countries into what history refers to as “dark ages” and us few who have been hegemoniously pushed to the side by his ideas know very well that he was responsible for a lot of the “bad” that came from the Bush administration: 9/11, Iraq, debt.
Even if Karl Rove called upon me during the Q&A session, there is no guarantee that he would have answered me. But I hope it would have at the very least, let him know that there are people out there who know that he is a bum and should stop using political campaign knowledge to try and tell people how to rule the country.
David Lewis
Wilkes University 11'
Unfortunately, I have to admit that my hopes were crushed when I said this man was the “brains” behind Bush’s operations. Rove’s intelligence applied well to his theories concerning political campaigns and advising, but it failed dramatically when it came time for him to speak of matters outside the discipline. For example, when asked by a man in the audience if he had seen the movie which was meant to document former President Bush’s life before, during, and after the White House known as “W,” he answered “no.” After making what he thought was a funny remark about the movie industry he then proceeded to ramble on once again thinking he was funny about how the character the producers picked the to play him was a bad pick because according to Rove, “everybody knows I am taller than Cheney,” implying that Toby Jones, the character picked to play him, represented him negatively. He was also able to talk about Jones’ role in “W” to a small extent which made me along with several of my colleagues agree that Rove definitely saw the movie.
Given this small example of how Karl Rove displayed brainless rhetoric I would like to now assert that Toby Jones was a good pick to represent Rove.
Jones is small, similar to Rove’s insight to the working class families of America which was limited. During his Q&A session, he made what he probably thought was a defense of the conservative method of the tax system in America. During his justification for Bush’s tax-cuts we saw from the White House 00’-08,’ he made sure to acknowledge all of those who he felt deserved these passes: business owners, those who are self-employed (like him), big companies. He failed to acknowledge the people who are responsible for keeping all the big corporations of this country alive, the people who work them! His failure to acknowledge the working (middle-lower) class American leads me to believe he was responsible for Bush’s tax-cuts for the highest 1% annual income bracket of Americans.
Rove also presented financial information concerning how much more Democrats spent on their campaigns compared to George W. Bush when he ran twice. The insignificance of this figure only further solidified Toby Jones as a better representation of Rove, in that I could clearly see him on my shoulder with a pitchfork trying to convince me that his opinion is correct.
Karl Rove may have significant contributions readily available for the field of communications, but as far as contributing to the bettering of America through whatever method he chooses goes –either through literature or The Wall Street Journal-, I hope that he realizes how much he does not know about America. I got the impression that Rove thinks that he knows how America should run and consequently also the world. Unfortunately, based on my hour of listening to him speak of his deeds I realized that men like him lead large countries into what history refers to as “dark ages” and us few who have been hegemoniously pushed to the side by his ideas know very well that he was responsible for a lot of the “bad” that came from the Bush administration: 9/11, Iraq, debt.
Even if Karl Rove called upon me during the Q&A session, there is no guarantee that he would have answered me. But I hope it would have at the very least, let him know that there are people out there who know that he is a bum and should stop using political campaign knowledge to try and tell people how to rule the country.
David Lewis
Wilkes University 11'
Burkean Analysis on President Obama’s speech on “Race”
In Philadelphia, at the National Constitution Center on March 18, 2008 the future President Barack Obama gave his empowering speech called, “A More Perfect Union” based on race in the United States. In terms of Kenneth Burke’s, Dramatism Pentad, I will evaluate the act, agency, agent, scene and purpose of this historically significant speech. What I intend to figure out, is whether or not this speech was relevant in terms of time (when he gave this speech) and location. Could anyone else have given it? And if so, who?
The scene physically takes place at a monumental site, the National Constitution Center, where hundreds of years ago our founding fathers set in motion the democracy of America. The future President stood at a wooden podium with two American flags standing behind him on each side and a simple blue background. He stood stationary for the entirety of the speech and merely glanced back and forth at his audience. The seriousness of this speech became evident before I even pushed play on the website.
The fact that our Constitution was written at this site, historically says so much about the speech that President Obama was about to give. It became in a sense, another historical site due to the power of this speech. Not only will it be remembered now by the history that was made at this site two hundred and twenty two years ago but also now because the first African American President gave his speech on race at this very location.
The connection that can be made between the two has so much significance on the location. The Constitution itself bears the idea of equal citizenship; something that we as American’s know was not always the case. The scene was, that in his campaign for presidency, Barack Obama was under attack for various racial reasons. As much as we would like to take pride in the fact that racial discriminaccy is much lower than it used to be, we cannot state that it has disappeared. Therefore, the place that he gave his speech was significant in that it represented the argument that was once written in our Constitution.
The agent was future President, and an African American himself, Barack Obama. He, along with Jesse Jackson in the 80’s, was one of the only candidates for Presidency to confront directly the issues of race being used against him in his campaign and he did so by beginning his speech with his own historical background. Barack Obama himself could only tell the drama of this story. It is his story after all. He stresses the idea of unity in a nation that had become more separate, than equal. The significance of a black Presidential candidate giving a speech on race is outstanding and appropriate for this time. Had Hilary Clinton, John McCain, Sarah Palin or anyone else at this time, tried to give this speech, it would have been severely less significant. President Obama was at a point in his campaign where it was appropriate and necessary to indentify and rearrange the questions being brought in front of him. He stated, “This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough"… And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.” If anyone else were to address these issues, it wouldn’t have had the same impact.
The agency of this speech was an address to the nation about all topics of race that had come up this far in his campaign. He addressed all aspects, his friends, his family, his staff, his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the nation as a whole, on the issues that had been brought to light in terms of race, throughout his campaign for presidency. What could have been a better time for unity to shine through? The future President nipped every issue in the bud by bringing them all to light and addressing each one personally. He needed to explain his background. He needed to explain his thoughts on Reverend Wright’s remarks. He needed to tell personal stories of experiences with racism that he had had. He needed to bring to light that it exists within everyone. (Which he did.) And he did so in a way that was least offensive. Thus far in his campaign it was stated that he was “too black” or “not black enough” as he said, however these needed to be addressed by him, without interruption. It was vital that he come right out and address it head on, in front of the nation.
The purpose was to was to better his campaign. By addressing the nation about issues that are presently being brought to light during his candidacy he was about to better his image in running for President. By giving this speech he was able to identify with many races.
Another purpose that makes sense in my own opinion was his many references to his pastor, Reverend Wright. I believe many expected him to dismiss the reverend, and if he had he would have been doing what the media wanted him to do. It would have chalked one up for the media and zero for the running candidate. I was glad he didn’t do what was maybe expected. He brought light to the idea that racism touches everyone. Instead of giving in and saying, “What Mr. Wright said was wrong”, he simply stated he disagreed. He brought out the idea that even his own grandmother had racial thoughts that he disagreed with. He made everyone equal, which was tough to go about.
The act of President Obama’s speech ties in with the purpose. He was doing this to address the constant criticism at that time about his childhood pastor, and race (in general) in America. He broadened the thought and made it equal to all American’s no matter their racial background.
This speech was not only delivered at an appropriate time, not only delivered by the right person but delivered in such a way that made the speech unique to each listener in their own way. Burke’s elements of the Pentad help me organize my opinions in a way to allow me to understand purposeful meaning of the speech.
Danielle Hritzak
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
The scene physically takes place at a monumental site, the National Constitution Center, where hundreds of years ago our founding fathers set in motion the democracy of America. The future President stood at a wooden podium with two American flags standing behind him on each side and a simple blue background. He stood stationary for the entirety of the speech and merely glanced back and forth at his audience. The seriousness of this speech became evident before I even pushed play on the website.
The fact that our Constitution was written at this site, historically says so much about the speech that President Obama was about to give. It became in a sense, another historical site due to the power of this speech. Not only will it be remembered now by the history that was made at this site two hundred and twenty two years ago but also now because the first African American President gave his speech on race at this very location.
The connection that can be made between the two has so much significance on the location. The Constitution itself bears the idea of equal citizenship; something that we as American’s know was not always the case. The scene was, that in his campaign for presidency, Barack Obama was under attack for various racial reasons. As much as we would like to take pride in the fact that racial discriminaccy is much lower than it used to be, we cannot state that it has disappeared. Therefore, the place that he gave his speech was significant in that it represented the argument that was once written in our Constitution.
The agent was future President, and an African American himself, Barack Obama. He, along with Jesse Jackson in the 80’s, was one of the only candidates for Presidency to confront directly the issues of race being used against him in his campaign and he did so by beginning his speech with his own historical background. Barack Obama himself could only tell the drama of this story. It is his story after all. He stresses the idea of unity in a nation that had become more separate, than equal. The significance of a black Presidential candidate giving a speech on race is outstanding and appropriate for this time. Had Hilary Clinton, John McCain, Sarah Palin or anyone else at this time, tried to give this speech, it would have been severely less significant. President Obama was at a point in his campaign where it was appropriate and necessary to indentify and rearrange the questions being brought in front of him. He stated, “This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough"… And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.” If anyone else were to address these issues, it wouldn’t have had the same impact.
The agency of this speech was an address to the nation about all topics of race that had come up this far in his campaign. He addressed all aspects, his friends, his family, his staff, his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the nation as a whole, on the issues that had been brought to light in terms of race, throughout his campaign for presidency. What could have been a better time for unity to shine through? The future President nipped every issue in the bud by bringing them all to light and addressing each one personally. He needed to explain his background. He needed to explain his thoughts on Reverend Wright’s remarks. He needed to tell personal stories of experiences with racism that he had had. He needed to bring to light that it exists within everyone. (Which he did.) And he did so in a way that was least offensive. Thus far in his campaign it was stated that he was “too black” or “not black enough” as he said, however these needed to be addressed by him, without interruption. It was vital that he come right out and address it head on, in front of the nation.
The purpose was to was to better his campaign. By addressing the nation about issues that are presently being brought to light during his candidacy he was about to better his image in running for President. By giving this speech he was able to identify with many races.
Another purpose that makes sense in my own opinion was his many references to his pastor, Reverend Wright. I believe many expected him to dismiss the reverend, and if he had he would have been doing what the media wanted him to do. It would have chalked one up for the media and zero for the running candidate. I was glad he didn’t do what was maybe expected. He brought light to the idea that racism touches everyone. Instead of giving in and saying, “What Mr. Wright said was wrong”, he simply stated he disagreed. He brought out the idea that even his own grandmother had racial thoughts that he disagreed with. He made everyone equal, which was tough to go about.
The act of President Obama’s speech ties in with the purpose. He was doing this to address the constant criticism at that time about his childhood pastor, and race (in general) in America. He broadened the thought and made it equal to all American’s no matter their racial background.
This speech was not only delivered at an appropriate time, not only delivered by the right person but delivered in such a way that made the speech unique to each listener in their own way. Burke’s elements of the Pentad help me organize my opinions in a way to allow me to understand purposeful meaning of the speech.
Danielle Hritzak
Wilkes University 10'
Communications
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)