Massacre in Korea

The painting I chose to rhetorically analyze is a painting by Pablo Picasso called, Massacre in Korea. This painting was completed in 1951; historically, this is around the midpoint of the Korean War. The painting depicts nude women and children standing across from soldiers whom are pointing weapons at the frightened women. Pablo Picasso, a Spanish artist who has over 13,500 paintings to his name, completed this painting. Through some background research, I have come to the conclusion that the context of this painting was the 1950 Sinchon Massacre. This is a prominent event during the Korean War in which South Korean troops and American soldiers marched out to Sinchon, North Korea, and killed huge numbers of people presumed to be communist supporters, but also civilians. I believe the purpose of this painting was Picasso’s way of expressing his criticism for American intervention in the Korean War. Many people viewed America as the “super-hero” figure in war times; however, it seems in their attempt to take on that role in the Korean War, it was only causing more harm and greater complications. I believe the audience of this painting is very broad, but specifically I would say the painting is driven towards the American armed forces. Picasso wanted to make it clear to Americans that they do not have to get involved in every global problem, sometimes staying out of it is just as, or even more effective, than intervening. There are several rhetorical elements Picasso uses in his painting. The three that stick out to me the most are the appeal to pathos, the use of color, and the placement of the figures. Focusing on placement, it seems Picasso very strategically placed the victims in an unorganized, defenseless formation that has a less well defined shape while the attackers are in an arranged, neat square and are seemingly protected by their formation. Overall, I do believe Picasso fulfilled his purpose. Not only is there a clear anti-war message displayed, but he also does a wonderful job of portraying the evil Americans involvement is causing rather than good. 

When It Pays to Talk to Terrorists

            In this op-ed, Americans remember the Munich massacre in which Palestinian militants killed 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. This event played a pivotal role in shaping the American view on terrorism. The new outlook was that terrorists were murderous radicals determined to spread destruction and anarchy. Therefore, negotiation with such extremists was useless, so the only acceptable response was to crush them. As terrible as Munich was, the response from President Richard M. Nixon to virtually not recognize the situation did nothing to help. Instead, it ensured that the violence by the Palestinians would continue. This text was written by Paul Thomas Chamberlin, an assistant professor of history at the University of Kentucky. The context of this op-ed was the 40th anniversary of the 1972 Munich massacre. The purpose of this text was to not only reflect on the event, but show how the incident and President Nixon’s reaction affected and shaped our view on terrorism then and now. The audience for this op-ed is adult newspaper readers interested in history, politics, and terroristic activity. The rhetorical elements used were cause and effect, ridicule, and logos. It is clear that cause and effect were the basis of this op-ed. Chamberlin explains how the events then affect our mindset now. Also, ridicule is a clear rhetorical element because he is essentially criticizing the reaction of Nixon to the Munich Massacre. Lastly, the author uses logos to support and mold his op-ed into a convincing analysis of past event. In my opinion, the author certainly did accomplish his purpose in the text. He spent time thoroughly explaining the history and background that lead up to this event. Then he did a great job of analyzing how this event impacted our society as a whole. By reading this short op-ed, I was able to uncover the reason as to why terrorism was not addressed sooner. In a short response, it is because we were scared.  

Put to the Test: Colleges Grapple with Bomb Threats

     On September 14^th, 2012 University of Texas at Austin and North Dakota State University canceled classes and forced campus evacuation due to bomb threats by a caller claiming to be linked to al-Qaeda. By the afternoon, the bomb threats turned out to be a hoax. Ever since the Virginia Tech shooting, colleges have practiced being safe rather than sorry. To help enforce this mindset, the Clery Act now requires campuses to have an official emergency plan, including a procedure to immediately notify the campus community in the event of an emergency. Active shooter drills and test evacuations are now a typical part of college life. On the reverse, colleges now run the risk of their students taking warnings with less urgency. This article was written by Kayla Webley for Times Magazine. Webley graduated from the University of Washington and the Medill Graduate School of Journalism at Northwestern University and now covers the education section at Time. The context of this article that compels the author to communicate is the bomb threats at University of Texas at Austin and North Dakota State University. The author wants to show the new dangers now associated with daily college life. Consequently, this article’s purpose is to inform and educate the general public, specifically parents of prospective college students, about the dramatic rise in bomb threats and make them reconsider how safe a college campus really is. Parents send their kids to college looking for a safe haven; however, it seem they are putting their kids in even more danger. The two rhetorical elements used most frequently in this article are logos and pathos. The author is illustrating logos by using several facts, statistics, quotes, documents, and primary sources to back up her argument. Because of the logos, the pathos side of this article is enhanced. The author instills fear and angst within readers. In result, the author is hoping a fire will be kindled in parents to take action. I do think the author thoroughly accomplished her purpose. It made me think as to why parents are just sitting back and watching their children walk off to an environment filled with bomb threats. Overall, Webley did a great job of giving her audience a behind-the-scenes look at college life.