TOW #20: Bright-sided: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America by Barbara Ehrenreich (IRB, written)

How many times have you heard the trite saying, “Think Positively!” when you have to deal with the worst situation? This week, I read Bright-sided: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America, which successfully argues against positive thinking and for realistic thinking. Despite the encouraging saying “Think Positively,” Barbara Ehrenreich, the author of Bright-sided: How Positive Thinking is Undermining America reveals that positive thinking does not alleviate the situation. She uses logos to prove her points, particularly a study done in California. The study proved that there was a high correlation between death of children and positive thinking. Positive thinking leads to more frequent risk taking tendencies. Also, more realistic teenagers are less likely to become depressed. These teens are more able to deal successfully with the harsh realities. Here, Ehrenreich notes again, the dangers of positive thinking. People naturally avoid the negative truth, because they are scared to get hurt by the negative truth. Ehrenreich does not argue for negative thinking either. She believes that the best is to see the reality. We have to be aware of the reality, and try to make things better, not fall into positive fallacies. Ehreich started to question positive thinking when she was first diagnosed with cancer. She was disturbed by the positive thinking during her years of struggle. In my opinion, I think Ehrenreich’s strategy worked. She argued against the fallacies of positive thinking very effectively with uses of realilife examples. Also, she successfully responded to counter arguments by proving that she also does not support negative thinking. If she did not note positive thinking, her arguments would have been less effective. However, at some points, she is a bit too negative, she does not allow any whiners. In conclusion, we want objectivity. We expect doctors, teachers, or anyone that we pay to get service from to be objective. We should expect no less from ourselves; we should be objjective when dealing with our own struggles and problems.

TOW #19: Saigon Execution by Eddie Adams (visual, photograph)

Taken by Eddie Adams during the years of Vietnam War, this photograph was the turning point of public opinion in the United States and other countries. Eddie Adams, one of the world’s top photographers at the time, claims that he did not intend to stir up any strong pro or anti war feelings in America. He took it as another cliched war photo. However, for the public, this photo symbolized the horrors of Vietnam War. In the photo, the general of North Vietnam aims a gun to the innocuous citizen of Vietnam. This aroused more hatred towards communism and Northern Vietnam government in the America, as the public was disgusted and shocked by the ruthless treatments of the Northern Vietnam general. Additionally, the deserted background of the photo suggests the horrid reality of Vietnam War. This picture also made many Americans worry about our own soldiers dying on the foreign soil of Vietnam. The black and white color also has an impact of signifying the dullness and fogginess of every war. It makes the war seem lifeless and somewhat distant. The civilian looks even more harmless and innocent, as he is unarmed and he has his arms hidden backwards, as to indicate that he has no intentions of harming the soldiers. Adding even more emphasis, it is not only the general who is standing against the civilian, but also other soldiers are standing behind the general. This adds to the threatening tone of the photo.

Although this photograph had an immense impact for the public of 1960s, I do not think it would have the same impact now. The public has become increasingly stoic and unemotional as they have watched numerous war videos and photos. Back in the 1960s, this photograph could connect people with the soldiers suffering. However, the current public lacks so much care and nationalism that they would rather take this photo lightly. Also, in contrast to the thin and gaunt civilian, the general who is aiming a gun at the civilian looks well-fed, bold, and daunting. This further reveals the horrors of Vietnam War that most Americans were unaware of.

TOW #18: "The Moses of the Colored Men" by Andrew Johnson (written, Speech)

The period after Civil War was full of chaos with reconstruction. Although slaves were lawfully freed in all slave states, there was some tension and objections at such a radical idea among Americans. In 1864, the military governor Andrew Johnson delivered a speech to proclaim freedom to every man in Tennessee, which was still found with racism and harsh treatments towards African Americans. Johnson uses powerful tone to deliver his speech that enforces his beliefs that all men have freedom. He especially uses short anecdotes to give life to his stories of racism to prove that a law to protect the African Americans is necessary. He said that when slaves were officially freed, “Thank God! thank God! came from the lips of a thousand women, who in their own persons had experienced the hellish iniquity of the man-seller’s code” (6).This appeals to pathos of those former slaves who have actually experienced this rush of joy. He also utilizes repetition to respond to counter argument. He claims that the freed slaves should get a share of the lands of the rich landowners of the South. Expecting harsh objections from the South who would claim that he has no right to take away the land that was officially given to them with various paper works and money, he repeats, “I am no agrarian” (3-4). He explains how it would be just to distribute land to the new citizens by taking away the land of the rebels, who, in actuality, did not have to compensate for anything. Although this is a very powerful speech that attracted many Northern supporters as well as former slaves, this speech was not as effective as it could have been. It silently alienates the Southerners as the rebels, and at some points, treats them as like a threat to the Union because of their former acts to secede. He should not have described the Southerners as “them”, because at the end, both Northerners and Southerners are citizens of the United States. He should have avoided using invectives such as “representatives of the corrupt, this damnable aristocracy” (5). This only opens bad feelings of the South towards the North. His speech was too polarized in favor of the North, and this is dangerous when speaking publicly to all states of United States as it could only provide further bitter feelings between the two already divided regions.

http://www.nps.gov/anjo/historyculture/moses-speech.htm