Last night I had the "pleasure" of sitting in at a symposium ion rhetoric and the discourse of activism. As a whole, there were a lot of good talks given (precisely 2/3 of them), but the first one I had to sit through really bugged me.
The lady gave a talk on the writings of Rachel Corrie (just Google her; she was a pro-Palestinian American activist who was killed by Israeli tanks) and their impact on the world activist community. Well, that's what it was supposed to be about anyway. The real focus of her talk was to lionize Israel and to compare it, inaccurately, as exactly the same as America in Iraq.
Now, before I go further, I want to be clear in that I don't want to come out for or against Israel or Palestine here. This post isn't about choosing sides in a conflict I know too little about and have no business imposing my views upon. Also, since I'm already on record as being against the US war in Iraq, I'll try to remain objective regarding that as I complain about the fallacious bias put forth by last night's speaker (Laurie Goullard) as I try to negotiate an idea of what she does wrong.
First and foremost, you shouldn't make an argument if you aren't prepared to answer to the rebuttals your argument creates--a good writer will address cons to their argument IN their argument. When she demonizes the bias of rhetoric coming from the US and Israeli governments, she completely ignores the possibility of bias coming from Palestinian or activist sources. Her key artifact, My Name is Rachel Corrie, a play created from Corrie's writings opens from the start with a heavy bias of its own that is attempted on the reader: take a look at the cover. That innocent 10 or so year old girl is not the woman who was run over by Israeli tanks. The editors of that book deliberately chose this image of Corrie in order to paint her as a pure and innocent victim. Should she have been run over by a tank? Absolutely not--no one should. But she also shouldn't be portrayed as what she wasn't in order to garner sympathy. I think one of the most powerful photos of activism, and immensely garnering of sympathy, is of the man futilely facing down the tank in Tienanmen Square. That's a powerful image. If we had photos of that brave dead soul in Kindergarten instead, it wouldn't be as powerful and to try and make us sympathize with a person because they were once a child is insulting. Disagree? Put a childhood photo of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Reagan, Bin Laden, Mother Theresa, Britney Spears and myself on the covers of books of each of our lives and writings and what would we all have in common? Not a single one of our books would be about the innocent little cowfaced kid staring at you from the cover. How about a photo of Rachel Corrie, bullhorn and orange vest and all, facing down the Israeli tank? Show the real person and trust your audience to draw the conclusions you hope from them rather than appealing to the lowest common denominator of human emotion.
If you really just want to give a speech that bashes the groups you don't agree with, be honest about it. This wasn't a talk at all about the rhetoric of activism, it was a talk on the evils of America and Israel. The speaker didn't once share an example of Corrie's writing, or any other activist's for that matter. Instead she relied upon the same talk-around-your-lies strategy she complains about.
Let's get to some of them:
The only person she quotes in the entire talk is a pro-Israeli Jewish mayor of New York. Last I checked, our own president wasn't even the voice of our people, but she expects us to go with the idea that all of America shares the views of one Jewish speaker? How about some words from his supporters and detractors? Really just poor debating skills there.
She takes issue with the American media making a hero over that US servicewoman who was captured by the Iraqis and rescued by the Americans--angry that this woman was made heroic while the media painted Corrie in a bad light. So a soldier's activism shouldn't be weighed with a civilian's. Really, I don't even see the correlation, but what bugs me more is how she takes issue with the rescuing soldiers' bravery because they rescued the soldier at a time when her guards were away from where she was being held. Despite my being anti-war this seems a bit too heavily double standarded: if the soldiers had one in and killed all the Iraqis holding her, they'd be demonized for killing more Iraqis, but if they save her without taking lives they're cowards. People, you can't have opposite sides of an argument at the same time and be right at both sides.
And I don't see the correlation between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the US-Iraq conflict at all. In Iraq we're invading a country and imposing our will upon it where our will isn't wanted after deposing a dictator who also had a history of invading countries that weren't his. Israel came and took over a piece of land and, surrounded by nations that hate them for their religion and presence there do what they feel is necessary (whether right or wrong) to defend the land they took over and the lives they've made for themselves from the people around them that hate them. For the war in Iraq to be the same thing, we'd have to invade and go to war with Israel for taking Palestine in the first place. While we're at it, we should go to war with ourselves for taking over America from the natives, England for still inhabiting Canada, Spain for taking land from the Mayans and the Azteks. . .please.
ANyway, my point is really this: if you hate Israel and want to give a speech about it, be honest about it from the front so that your listener knows what they're really there for and can decide more educatedly whether to stick around or not. Not being a fan of any hate speech, I could have done better things with my time than sit appalled by your own biases.
Posts
