Discrimination Used as Symbols

Part 1:

After reviewing the article written by Enoch, entitled “Becoming Symbol-Wise” I began to think about how Barack Obama used the idea of symbols in his speech, “’A More Perfect Union.’” Obama spoke of “discrimination” (Obama 2, 3) as a way to unite the ideals and values of all Americans. This tactic portrays “good” public discourse because it allows the audience to view discrimination in a completely different way. When thinking of this word, one would immediately think of African Americans and the struggle that they endured to overcome this obstacle; however, Obama used discrimination to relate to all Americans, whatever racial background they may have. He stated that “a similar anger exists within segments of the white community (par. 35). This helps the audience to visualize discrimination as an American problem, one that is not just limited to African Americans. Ultimately, this idea furthers Obama’s aim by uniting Americans on their ideals and values, things that we all care about, equality for us all. By using the word “anger” (par. 35) to describe the effects of discrimination, Americans can see that this issue is bad for us all because it pertains to us all. Obama also states that “to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding” (par. 37). “Legitimate concerns” lets us know that our anger, as Americans that are sometimes discriminated against, is justified; and that through the idea of “’a more perfect union’” (par. 1) we can eliminate this negative thing that holds us back from our day to day lives. Obama reinforces the idea that discrimination is a negative aspect of all our lives by using other symbols and other select words to portray this concept and lead us to think this way. This ultimately allows us to see how Obama is trying to unite us as Americans with the same ideals and values.

Part 2:

I’m not quite sure what question I would love to pursue for my historical-causal analysis, but I would love to explore the idea of childcare. Maybe my possible question could be “What are the effects of placing your son or daughter in childcare?” If I don’t explore this idea, I would love to use the idea of what causes women to be either pro-choice or pro-life. I realize that this concept would obviously be extremely controversial, but I think it would be interesting to see why women support one value over the other. It’s obviously a level 5 conflict value, so it will be extremely complex, and I’m not sure if I’m being overly ambitious about this project. The real forms will obviously be geared towards women, probably those who have children or are of childbearing age. Perhaps I could write an article for women explaining the benefits or costs of placing her child in childcare. On the other hand, if I were to use the idea of the causes of pro-choice or pro-life I would love to use a handful of ads to portray this concept. I would want to keep in mind, that parents, especially mothers, are very sensitive and defensive when it comes to their children and how they raise them. I would want to keep this in mind, and I would want to make sure that I keep my biased opinion out of the analysis. I would also want to express both the positives and negatives of each side to help further the argument that I am trying to make. This genre form would need to be able to appeal to all women in order for it to be effective. It will need to be able to let women see the other side of the issue, and why some women feel the way that they do about raising their children, and how this benefits or hinders their children. I would also need to appeal to the emotions of my audience because I feel that when it comes to raising a child, a mother uses her emotions more than anything to do what’s best for her offspring.