Midterm Blog - Finding Nemo's Relation to Child Fragility

Pixar’s Finding Nemo, a movie about a father’s chaotic journey through treacherous scenarios to find his kidnapped son reflects the pure beauty of family and how a child should always listen to his or her parents.  In this rather cute, animated twist, Disney conveyed to opposing views: that children are often worshipped in society and that a child should always abide to his or her elders.  

In most cartoon movies or television shows, children are deemed the most delicate pieces of society.  The plot and characters of what hits the television are not necessarily important; what is important, however, is the tone, diction, and structure of these screenplays.  

A prominent characteristic of Finding Nemo, like many other Pixar movies, is where the main character (most likely young or relating to young children) is faced with problems that he escapes with someone else’s help.  In this movie, Nemo always seems to get himself caught into a pickle, only to be saved by either his friends or by his father.  For an example, in the fishtank, Gill saves Nemo from being sucked up in the filter.  Then later, upon his escape from the dreaded Darla and the dentist’s office, Nigel (the pelican) gave Nemo and his friends the key idea on how to escape.  After playing dead, Nemo found his way to Sydney’s Bay.  Finally, after relying on his friends, Nemo saved an entire school of fish by telling them to swim down after being caught in a mass feeding frenzy by local fishermen.  The climax of the film, here Nemo becomes the “hero” and saves the day while getting reunited with his father.    

Though the story is rather cute, the most significant attribute is the structure which seems to repeat in many Pixar movies.  In Finding Nemo, the main character is faced with many troubles only to be relieved by his friends and family.  The climax of the movie appears when the protagonist saves the day by himself.  This sort of structure seems to play over in movies like The Lion King, Mulan, and Toy Story.  

Another prominent attribute of this Pixar film is parental role which also correlates to many of the movies previously stated.  Before his capture and Nemo’s first day of school, Marlin told his son not to swim out into open water and to stay with the class.  Obviously defying what his father told him, Nemo swam out into the open water at “the drop off” in order to prove to his friends that he wasn’t scared to “touch the butt”.  Not surprisingly, Nemo then gets captured by divers.  

The last significant characteristic of Disney movies in general are their tone towards the younger audience.  In almost a countless number of these children’s movies we find a very gentle tone appealing to the intended audience.  These movies dabble with cute yet surreal characters, a happy, bubbly tone, and a traditional hero ending.  Nowhere in these movies would you find horror, tragedy, or vice.  This is because of society’s view on the next generation as being young, delicate, and emotional.  

Ownership is Nothing Without Perception

Whether it's inanimate or only existing in one's mind "ownership" over something is not necessarily a boost to one's class, but what separates humanity from itself and other species.  In my mind, ownership is possession and in so stating there are countless forms of ownership, not all of whom are accepted with open arms.  One may possess a certain disease or malignancy.  Someone may be plagued with a deformity or disorder; nonetheless possession or ownership can define who we are in a society as small as a school or as great as a planet.  No too people are the same right?

Take humanity first for example.  What makes humans different from animals?  What makes us civilized or uncivilized?  Men or beasts? The answer is possession.  Our species uniquely owns a rare, ever expanding brain that can process tons more information than brains of different species.  These brains have taken advantage of tools and water, opposable thumbs, and branched to create a civilization of more than 6 billion creatures developing and acquiring knowledge for itself.

Within our species, ownership of different outlooks on life is prevalent in finding difference among human mentality.  Leftist Democrats at one end of the political spectrum, for example, look at politics very differently than right-winged conservative Republicans at the opposite side.  In literature and the media, Marvel superheroes and super-heroines command different super powers that make them different from each other and general society.  These powers can either be mental or physical, which prompts the physical difference of human beings.  Here’s a hint, clones haven’t come into full production yet so, at the time, humanity only gets duplicates when born out of the same womb or with a random freaky coincidence.  Regardless, finding a non-twin double of yourself is practically impossible.  To make the point blatantly obvious, each human on Earth has a unique genetic makeup that makes them different from everyone else (physically at the least).  

Ownership is then a human right.  Besides separating humanity from animals, possessing something grants one the freedom to exploit it (or explore it, to put it nicely for Annie, my blog commenter ;) ).  One may, for example, exploit the benefits of owning a car.  Another example can be one’s ability to look at scenarios from different angles to literally maintain a different, rare outlook on life.  In essence, owning something gives the owner a sense of freedom.  This freedom can work many wonders; it can be an escape, an opportunity, an obstacle, or anything else one may believe.  Whether it be possessing a disability or owning a sensitive super nose (Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie), owning something can benefit in a number of ways.  Therefore, it means a lot to own something.  Many don’t realize it but life actually is a game of snakes and ladders but, if you keep your eyes open, your ears open, and pay attention, it won’t be that bad of a ride after all.      

Rhetorical Analysis for Chaim Weizmann

Background: Speech made December 1st, 1948 following Jewish zionization to Israel.

• Balfour Declaration of 1914: Set up Jewish province in Israel (particularly Jerusalem) which displaced many Muslim-Palestinians from their home-city.
• Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916: Split up Ottoman Empire in mandates for either Britain or France which “gave” Britain Palestine as a province.
• 1923: Britain splits up Palestine into two regions: Palestine and Trans-Jordan.  Muslims were displaced to Trans-Jordan while Jews were admitted Palestine (all land west of the River Jordan (including Jerusalem and many other holy sites)
• U.N. Partition Plan of 1947: Due mainly from Muslim opposition, sets up West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights for Palestinians to settle

Speaker: Chaim Weizmann  

• Biochemist from Russia who aided Allies during the Great War.
• Placed on General Zionist Council due to efforts from WWI.
• Became head of Zionist Commission.
• First president of World Zionist Organization (1935-1946)
• First president of Israel (1952)

Audience: Israelis and Zionists; Britain; Muslim Palestinians

• Speaks highly of Britain throughout speech
• Attempts to put Jews in a neutral position between Muslims and Jerusalem while very outspoken when making notions toward Jews.

Subject: The Reclamation of Israel and Protection of a Jewish State

Claim: Jerusalem rightfully belongs to the Jewish people.

Reason: Jews, over the past 30 years and before displaced by the Romans, have spilt their own blood in Jerusalem’s defense.  

Warrant: Sacrifice for something indefinitely means it is yours to judge upon/rule over.  

• Faulty warrant is the weakness behind speech and main reason why one cannot be fully persuaded to think the Jews are the rightful occupants of Jerusalem.
• Muslims have not only lived in Jerusalem, they have worshipped them.  They have many important monuments that have significant importance to Muhammad's life and, therefore, their lives.  

Evidence: Jewish occupation of Jerusalem up until 70 AD.  Future reign in 1914.  Other than this not much--hurts the argument significantly.

A) What is the speech exactly saying?

This speech summarizes what Chaim Weizmann believes justifies Jewish occupation of Jerusalem.  It states the synagogues will be rebuilt; the wailing wall will be reopened.  Though many synagogues were destroyed the most prominent one was destroyed about 1900 years earlier, the Temple of Solomon.  This temple is thought to be the only place where a man can come in contact with God while living on Earth.  It was built where the Jews believe Abraham offered up his son Isaac to God as a sacrifice.  Before Abraham attempted to prove his belief in God, his hand was yielded when an angel spoke to him on behalf of God to sacrifice a lamb instead.  Jews believe this recreation of the temple will speed up the coming of their Messiah.  One of the only problems is that most of the Jewish population believe its location lies under the Muslim Dome of the Rock, one of Islam’s most prominent and beautiful mosques.  And you can think of why this might be a problem…

B & C) What appeals and techniques are used and how are they beneficial to the argument?

Throughout the speech lies an enormous amount of pathos with hints from analogies and hyperboles to boost the argument.  Phrases like “by the will of God” and “Arab shrapnel which rained death day and night” help set Weizmann’s tone for the argument.  He also references Athens and Rome as the homes of Greeks and Italians to bring knowledge to a Jewish capital which is, at the time, nonexistent.  Unfortunately, the appeals at work do not entirely justify the Jewish goal over the Muslim one.  What makes the Jews any more occupants than the Muslims? Because they lived there longer? Sorry, you are not convincing anyone neutral or against your point right now.

D) Why are the appeals used appropriate with the audience?

It is pretty self-explanatory why an intense emotional argument would be appropriate for Chaim Weizmann’s address to his zionists.  At the time, the Jews were fighting for something they very much believed in very similarly to Britain and Germany before the Second World War.  Both Joseph Goebbels and Winston Churchill called upon the magic of pathos to win over the audience just as Weizmann did.  This future president of Israel needed all the support he could muster for the never-ending onslaught the Jewish population have and will continue to get through their trip back to Israel.

Foreground:

• War Scroll Prophecy: though biased, (I don’t believe it) has foreseen every war between the “Sons of Light” (Jews, remember it is biased) and the “Sons of Darkness” (Muslims) i.e. the Seven Days War, Yom Kippur War, First Intifada, etc. and predicts following the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple for the third time (this time) will mark a war where God is forced to step in on to “prevent the Sons of Darkness” from taking over the world and in doing so will destroy the world.
• I know this is not too relevant but it is an interesting point to make knowledgeable for this topic.
• Cliffhanger!!!!

Rhetorical Analysis on Chaim Weitzmann's 1948 Speech

Drew Pace

Chaim Weizmann Speech before Zion

Background: Speech made December 1st, 1948 following Jewish zionization to Israel.

• Balfour Declaration of 1914: Set up Jewish province in Israel (particularly Jerusalem) which displaced many Muslim-Palestinians from their home-city.
• Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916: Split up Ottoman Empire in mandates for either Britain or France which “gave” Britain Palestine as a province.
• 1923: Britain splits up Palestine into two regions: Palestine and Trans-Jordan.  Muslims were displaced to Trans-Jordan while Jews were admitted Palestine (all land west of the River Jordan (including Jerusalem and many other holy sites)
• U.N. Partition Plan of 1947: Due mainly from Muslim opposition, sets up West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights for Palestinians to settle

Speaker: Chaim Weizmann  

• Biochemist from Russia who aided Allies during the Great War.
• Placed on General Zionist Council due to efforts from WWI.
• Became head of Zionist Commission.
• First president of World Zionist Organization (1935-1946)
• First president of Israel (1952)

Audience: Israelis and Zionists; Britain; Muslim Palestinians

• Speaks highly of Britain throughout speech
• Attempts to put Jews in a neutral position between Muslims and Jerusalem while very outspoken when making notions toward Jews.

Subject: The Reclamation of Israel and Protection of a Jewish State

Claim: Jerusalem rightfully belongs to the Jewish people.

Reason: Jews, over the past 30 years and before displaced by the Romans, have spilt their own blood in Jerusalem’s defense.  

Warrant: Sacrifice for something indefinitely means it is yours to judge upon/rule over.  

• Faulty warrant is the weakness behind speech and main reason why one cannot be fully persuaded to think the Jews are the rightful occupants of Jerusalem.
• Muslims have not only lived in Jerusalem, they have worshipped them.  They have many important monuments that have significant importance to Muhammad's life and, therefore, their lives.  

Evidence: Jewish occupation of Jerusalem up until 70 AD.  Future reign in 1914.  Other than this not much--hurts the argument significantly.

A) What is the speech exactly saying?

This speech summarizes what Chaim Weizmann believes justifies Jewish occupation of Jerusalem.  It states the synagogues will be rebuilt; the wailing wall will be reopened.  Though many synagogues were destroyed the most prominent one was destroyed about 1900 years earlier, the Temple of Solomon.  This temple is thought to be the only place where a man can come in contact with God while living on Earth.  It was built where the Jews believe Abraham offered up his son Isaac to God as a sacrifice.  Before Abraham attempted to prove his belief in God, his hand was yielded when an angel spoke to him on behalf of God to sacrifice a lamb instead.  Jews believe this recreation of the temple will speed up the coming of their Messiah.  One of the only problems is that most of the Jewish population believe its location lies under the Muslim Dome of the Rock, one of Islam’s most prominent and beautiful mosques.  And you can think of why this might be a problem…

B & C) What appeals and techniques are used and how are they beneficial to the argument?

Throughout the speech lies an enormous amount of pathos with hints from analogies and hyperboles to boost the argument.  Phrases like “by the will of God” and “Arab shrapnel which rained death day and night” help set Weizmann’s tone for the argument.  He also references Athens and Rome as the homes of Greeks and Italians to bring knowledge to a Jewish capital which is, at the time, nonexistent.  Unfortunately, the appeals at work do not entirely justify the Jewish goal over the Muslim one.  What makes the Jews any more occupants than the Muslims? Because they lived there longer? Sorry, you are not convincing anyone neutral or against your point right now.

D) Why are the appeals used appropriate with the audience?

It is pretty self-explanatory why an intense emotional argument would be appropriate for Chaim Weizmann’s address to his zionists.  At the time, the Jews were fighting for something they very much believed in very similarly to Britain and Germany before the Second World War.  Both Joseph Goebbels and Winston Churchill called upon the magic of pathos to win over the audience just as Weizmann did.  This future president of Israel needed all the support he could muster for the never-ending onslaught the Jewish population have and will continue to get through their trip back to Israel.

Foreground:

• War Scroll Prophecy: though biased, (I don’t believe it) has foreseen every war between the “Sons of Light” (Jews, remember it is biased) and the “Sons of Darkness” (Muslims) i.e. the Seven Days War, Yom Kippur War, First Intifada, etc. and predicts following the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple for the third time (this time) will mark a war where God is forced to step in on to “prevent the Sons of Darkness” from taking over the world and in doing so will destroy the world.
• I know this is not too relevant but it is an interesting point to make knowledgeable for this topic.
• Cliffhanger!!!!

Rhetorical Analysis onnChaim Weitzmann's 1948 Speech

Drew Pace

Chaim Weizmann Speech before Zion

Background: Speech made December 1st, 1948 following Jewish zionization to Israel.

• Balfour Declaration of 1914: Set up Jewish province in Israel (particularly Jerusalem) which displaced many Muslim-Palestinians from their home-city.
• Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916: Split up Ottoman Empire in mandates for either Britain or France which “gave” Britain Palestine as a province.
• 1923: Britain splits up Palestine into two regions: Palestine and Trans-Jordan.  Muslims were displaced to Trans-Jordan while Jews were admitted Palestine (all land west of the River Jordan (including Jerusalem and many other holy sites)
• U.N. Partition Plan of 1947: Due mainly from Muslim opposition, sets up West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights for Palestinians to settle

Speaker: Chaim Weizmann  

• Biochemist from Russia who aided Allies during the Great War.
• Placed on General Zionist Council due to efforts from WWI.
• Became head of Zionist Commission.
• First president of World Zionist Organization (1935-1946)
• First president of Israel (1952)

Audience: Israelis and Zionists; Britain; Muslim Palestinians

• Speaks highly of Britain throughout speech
• Attempts to put Jews in a neutral position between Muslims and Jerusalem while very outspoken when making notions toward Jews.

Subject: The Reclamation of Israel and Protection of a Jewish State

Claim: Jerusalem rightfully belongs to the Jewish people.

Reason: Jews, over the past 30 years and before displaced by the Romans, have spilt their own blood in Jerusalem’s defense.  

Warrant: Sacrifice for something indefinitely means it is yours to judge upon/rule over.  

• Faulty warrant is the weakness behind speech and main reason why one cannot be fully persuaded to think the Jews are the rightful occupants of Jerusalem.
• Muslims have not only lived in Jerusalem, they have worshipped them.  They have many important monuments that have significant importance to Muhammad's life and, therefore, their lives.  

Evidence: Jewish occupation of Jerusalem up until 70 AD.  Future reign in 1914.  Other than this not much--hurts the argument significantly.

A) What is the speech exactly saying?

This speech summarizes what Chaim Weizmann believes justifies Jewish occupation of Jerusalem.  It states the synagogues will be rebuilt; the wailing wall will be reopened.  Though many synagogues were destroyed the most prominent one was destroyed about 1900 years earlier, the Temple of Solomon.  This temple is thought to be the only place where a man can come in contact with God while living on Earth.  It was built where the Jews believe Abraham offered up his son Isaac to God as a sacrifice.  Before Abraham attempted to prove his belief in God, his hand was yielded when an angel spoke to him on behalf of God to sacrifice a lamb instead.  Jews believe this recreation of the temple will speed up the coming of their Messiah.  One of the only problems is that most of the Jewish population believe its location lies under the Muslim Dome of the Rock, one of Islam’s most prominent and beautiful mosques.  And you can think of why this might be a problem…

B & C) What appeals and techniques are used and how are they beneficial to the argument?

Throughout the speech lies an enormous amount of pathos with hints from analogies and hyperboles to boost the argument.  Phrases like “by the will of God” and “Arab shrapnel which rained death day and night” help set Weizmann’s tone for the argument.  He also references Athens and Rome as the homes of Greeks and Italians to bring knowledge to a Jewish capital which is, at the time, nonexistent.  Unfortunately, the appeals at work do not entirely justify the Jewish goal over the Muslim one.  What makes the Jews any more occupants than the Muslims? Because they lived there longer? Sorry, you are not convincing anyone neutral or against your point right now.

D) Why are the appeals used appropriate with the audience?

It is pretty self-explanatory why an intense emotional argument would be appropriate for Chaim Weizmann’s address to his zionists.  At the time, the Jews were fighting for something they very much believed in very similarly to Britain and Germany before the Second World War.  Both Joseph Goebbels and Winston Churchill called upon the magic of pathos to win over the audience just as Weizmann did.  This future president of Israel needed all the support he could muster for the never-ending onslaught the Jewish population have and will continue to get through their trip back to Israel.

Foreground:

• War Scroll Prophecy: though biased, (I don’t believe it) has foreseen every war between the “Sons of Light” (Jews, remember it is biased) and the “Sons of Darkness” (Muslims) i.e. the Seven Days War, Yom Kippur War, First Intifada, etc. and predicts following the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple for the third time (this time) will mark a war where God is forced to step in on to “prevent the Sons of Darkness” from taking over the world and in doing so will destroy the world.
• I know this is not too relevant but it is an interesting point to make knowledgeable for this topic.
• Cliffhanger!!!!

The Religious Appeals for Churchill and Goebbels

Joseph Goebbels’ “Nation, Rise Up, and Let the Storm Break Loose” and Winston Churchill’s “Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat” speeches may contain similar structures and appeals, but an appeal on religion establishes a significant difference between these two speeches.  Yes, these two pieces both make a point on religion and I reason why to fight, but both take very different approaches to the appeal.  Despite the different pathways, both speakers are able to use rhetoric to convince their audience and fight for their particular country prior to World War II. 

In a speech before the public before WWII, Winston Churchill stated, “what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land, and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime.”  In this sentence Britain’s new Prime Minister use God as an appeal on why the English should make sacrifices and be prepared to fight in a great war.  He directly uses God’s name and indirectly mentions the devil when referring to Germany as “a monstrous tyranny…etc.”  Nearby, in central Europe Joseph Goebbels made a similar speech on why Germany should fight against all enemies in the coming war.  He states: “International Jewry is the devilish ferment of decomposition that finds cynical satisfaction in plunging the world into the deeper chaos and destroying ancient cultures that it played no role in building.”  Omitting the fact that this statement is a complete fallacy, it takes a slightly different approach to religion by directly accusing Judaism as the devil and indirectly claiming that Germany would be God (in his mind). 

The morals of the Allies and the Axis were on opposite ends of the spectrum when it came to the war.  This is extremely significant when you look back on the two speeches.  Churchill directly referenced God in his speech and, as a result, took a more positive approach to the war.  He rarely downplayed Germany; he primarily promoted his own country.  Goebbels directly referenced the devil in his speech and made significant attacks on England, Judaism, “Bolshevism”.  As a result, his argument became primarily negative.  It is quite a coincidence that, if you look back on the Second World War, the Allies’ moral practice of war overcame the Axis’ immoral practices.  Fighting for the moral right surfaced on top while fighting to commit mass genocide plundered inevitably. 

     

   

Machiavelli and Thoreau

In Henry Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” we find that in order to counter complete deprivation of voice, typical civilians must devote their lives to stopping “the machine” that is the government.  “The Morals of the Prince” by Niccolo Machiavelli displayed the idea that a prince who could manipulate his people in order to retain office would be the ideal goal for any prince of his time.  Though these two contrast each other through their conflicting viewpoints, they share some very common ground when referring to power. 

At one point in his essay, Thoreau states that politicians often resist the public’s viewpoints in order to further themselves personally.  Meanwhile, in Machiavelli’s piece he states that the underlying goal for a prince was to keep his throne.  Both of these scenarios display the major government’s efforts to steal power from the people.  First, in “Civil Disobedience”, Thoreau explains that many elected officials tend to serve themselves rather than the community.  Often they support the majority, silence the minority, and wreak the benefits of their own powers.  It is in this case that Thoreau calls government a “machine”.  With a bad connotation, Thoreau intended to argue that those who step in front of the government are the ones that will topple it down.  Machiavelli’s excerpt expresses the power of virtue and how many different core values both good and bad are necessary to keep one’s power in the kingdom.  One of these reasons was fear.  Many times politicians would try to intimidate their people so they will be inclined to vote for them or support them during reelections and wars.  This intimidation could be very responsible for the silencing of people to the point where they won’t stand in front of “the machine”.  By having the same core structure based on fear, Thoreau explains to his readers how to work around it while Machiavelli explains to his readers how to enforce it.  From either ends of the spectrum both philosophers had totally different viewpoints that, together, built the overall problem at hand for the public.