Manipulative Language

Language, while instrumental in communication, can be a weapon that, in the wrong hands, can do monumental damage. From Hitler in Germany in the 1930s and 40s, to modern day politicians looking to get re-elected, language is constantly manipulated in order to promote personal agendas. People are easily persuaded by emotional speeches and essays, and thus these have become some of the most effective tools for politicians to inspire populations to put them into power, or to enact their ideas and beliefs. These tools have been consistently used throughout history by both good and bad leaders; it's generally accepted that a successful political movement needs a skilled speaker, who can inspire crowds that their movement is genuine. Martin Luther King Jr. is a good example of a leader who used the incredible power of language for good, leading the American Civil Rights Movement into success with his passionate speeches that he was so well known for. On the other hand, leaders like Adolf Hitler and Mussolini used their skillful manipulation of speech to trick and deceive their people, causing the rise of Fascism in Europe, and subsequently, the holocaust that killed so many people. It is our responsibility as people to educate ourselves on political issues, and not let political wordplay persuade us to chose a side based on our emotions. Instead, people should look at modern political topics through the lense of an unbiased source as opposed to a politician's manipulative speech, and decide their stance on issues based on the actual issue, and not strategic propaganda.

The True Issue

It's a simple fact that the destruction of the environment is likely the most pressing and important issue that the world is facing today. Like every world superpower before us, American will not remain the most powerful nation in the world forever; eventually, politics will shift and the American dominance over the world will be nothing more than a section in history books. Subsequently, as Americans, we should focus on encouraging economic growth, and creating jobs, but protecting the environment has an importance above all of that. If we pillage and plunder the environment, leaving nothing but polluted water and smoggy skies, it won't matter how strong our economy was or how many buildings we built or how high our GDP was because the very thing that gave us prosperity will be shriveled up and dead; we will be remembered as the nation that destroyed the earth, and not for the incredible contributions that we have made to humanity. 100 years after our country subsides into insignificance, the only thing remaining will be the impact we left on the physical earth- either good or bad.

The life we are currently living is not at all sustainable. Someday, our oils wells will dry up, our clean water will run out, and the vegetation of the earth that we rely on to keep out air clean will not be able to stay alive. It is up to us to reverse the negative effects of environmental destruction, and to hold people accountable for the damage that they do to the earth.

Objective Evidence

In class on friday we discussed an essay by Deborah Tannen called "There Is No Unmarked Women". Personally, After reading the first few paragraphs, I was immediately skeptical of the claims Tannen was making. Why would she assume that a woman's style couldn't be generic and go unnoticed in the same way that a man's can? Can't a man also get ridiculed for what they wear in the same way that a woman can? Despite my initial doubts, I decided to read into it with an open mind. The point that really shifted my mindset was the example Tannen used to support her claim that "Women can't even fill out a form without telling stories about themselves", where she showed how marriage titles make women reveal more about themselves than they may want. Because of the objective and unarguable facts that she presented with her contrast of "Ms.", "Miss", and "Mrs.", I was able to understand where she was coming from. Because I am a man, I really cannot verify or relate to any of the points that feminists often make in their arguments; therefore I was initially defensive of the notion that this "marking" really existed, almost like I was feeling attacked. I think this portion of the piece does a phenomenal job conveying it's message to not just women, but also men who are willing read it with an open mind, something I've noticed many feminist essays struggle with. Because she used objective facts and evidence for examples,  instead of being rooted in perceived inequality, or things that someone might have to experience to understand, I personally was able to grasp and agree with the content of the essay much more easily.