# data[].attributes.body
I tried to stitch two impactful scenes from this movie together in this drawing. the first, is the scene where one ML is expressing distaste for the FOB asian store that he feels shouldn't have this much success in his community. The other scene is when the rioters after trashing Sal's Pizza shop, come to Sonny's store(the asian man) and he defends himself by saying that he is like them in that he is a part of their community and that he too is a person of color. I felt that this was important because the tangential story line of of Sonny the store owner shows how racial conflict and tension goes in many directions and that acceptance in different communities is a whole different breed of exclusionist experience. I chose to put these two together because it shows how sometimes folks misdirect anger and i wanted to re-use ML's words to show how the threat to an innocent man's store is no way to deal with these issues.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose to draw this picture because when I re-read some of Baldwin's The Fire Next Time I had this image in my head that I wanted to try and capture. I portrayed Baldwin at the center in a contemplative pose because I viewed his work as not only a contemplation but also a persuasive piece. I had, on both sides, two images that represented a couple of the realities he hoped to present. One of them being, on the right, the pursuit of fraternity as a way to break down racial barriers. This concept, was a bit hazy when I first read it and I still don't think I have fully grasped it, but my personal take away was that Baldwin did not agree with a segregationist, nationalist point of view and that he felt that African Americans had the undue and unfair burden of accepting the white man in order to find peace in this conflict. The fire on the right, whcih baldwin is somewhat looking at, is the inevitability of "the fire next time" if America is unable to solve this reckoning with racial divisions.

# data[].attributes.body
I found Rich’s poetry really odd but interesting. I noticed a lot of parallels between poems which was actually kind of cool for me. I am not normally someone who likes poetry or how people interpret poetry, but for me, analyzing multiple poems from Adrienne Rich meshed with how I reasoned with language. I was able to see how certain words she uses, like “bombarded” are always in reference to some form of subjugation based on sex. For example, in Planetarium it is talking about the expectations of women through the eyes of the German astronomer Caroline Herschel. I also felt like I could notice some stylistic similarities. In all the poems, she loved tactile and visual imagery. Whether that was going in depth on describing the snow for Phantasia for Elvira Shatayev, or just the use of modifiers in describing Aunt Jenny’s knitting needles as being made of ivory. Along with these more superficial similarities, I have seena mood element that seems consistent throughout in the character analysis she does in her poems. From my point of view, these characters are not so much people but examples. I have noticed how they are not created to be emotionally complex. This could be either that she only wants to frame their experience from one view, or that this is a commentary on how society never asks the feelings of the woman or how women are often looked down upon for being emotional. The thing is, I am not really too certain the extent of Rich’s research but it seems like she is imprinting emotions on people to fit a narrative she feels all women experience. One notable one is with Aunt Jenny, the wife who feels her marriage is a burden or trap. Rich has been pretty anti-marriage, saying it is used to oppress women, and to express this she uses this character who she only creates to feel fear and subjugation, yet yearns for freedom that she expresses through her tapestry or whatever.

# data[].attributes.body
Ann Romney's RNC speech was really important for the Romney campaign. As a potential first lady, her speech had to humanize the figurehead that wanted to be president. Only she could tell the story of him as a person, not a stuffy, tax-dodging millionaire. In order to present this image of Romney as the “Average” american, Ann had to craft her speech on a lot of pathos appeals, deliberate language, and reminders of her motherhood and upbringing in order to lend herself credibility. To start, one of the important aspects Ann needed to highlight was that she was a mother. This is something many Americans can relate to or value, and one of the few things she can honestly say puts her on level ground with middle class americans. Most of her comments on love, and unity were prefaced or accompanied in some form by “as a mother” or “only a mother”. Along with this, she goes a step further by using collective pronouns, such as “we’re the mothers. We’re the wives.” to imply that she is just like any other American woman living a normal lifestyle and that she is in the same boat as the rest of Americans wives and moms in their contributions to this country and how they may bear the brunt of its problems. Along with that, she told a very carefully worded story about her humble start out with Mitt. She describes how Romney made his success and had the gall to compare this success story to the American dream on par with the rest of Americans' journey. To highlight how Mitt was just a regular guy, she used really visual diction in order to create an image of Mitt that is more relatable. For example, “we ate a lot of pasta and Tuna fish… door propper up on saw horses, our dining room table was a fold down ironing board.” THis is supposed to convey how they were struggling just like may Americans have, except this is very misleading since it was Mitt’s dad who bought him this apartment right out of college. Overall, the themes of love and collective energy were really compelling devices utilized by Ann Romney. Unfortunately Mitt still lost the election.

# data[].attributes.body
Richard Nixon's Checkers Speech was a really impactful moment for Nixon's political career. He had to change the mind of many Americans and to do this he needed to be as persuasive as possible. He needed to a) defend himself against the charge of misusing campaign contributions, b) market himself as a relatable person, and c) use this opportunity to campaign for Eisenhower and his ticket and throw shade on the Stevenson campaign.  A lot of the speech rested on ethos, pathos, and logos appeals. In the beginning, he used logos as he went through his expenditures, home equity, and income. He used concrete numbers in order to show the truth and explain his case. He outlined his salary, inheritance, etc. and explained in detail his expenditures as a Senator i.e. travel, office expense. He also made a point of saying that his wife was not on the government payroll, an important logos contrast with other politicians. Along with that, he  would also intermingle pathos appeals. He would reference a sympathetic angle, like his dog checkers and talk about how that was the one gift he had taken personal benefit from because his kids loved the dog so much. Along with that, he would also explain his meager upbringing and his standard of living. He tried to lend himself credibility to be able to relate to the average american and to do so, had to outline how he was living and how he grew up. He also used rhetorical questions to guide his argument, trying to frame, as best he could, his actions as the only logical steps in his position. Lastly, he used a lot of emotionally charged issues to turn the table from defensive to offensive. He used pathos and logos to support how he and Eisenhower would be tougher on Communism and explained how the Stevenson ticket would not be able to match up. Along with that, another emotional appeal was having his wife in the video since she was very popular. Typically having your partner by your side during a scandal projects strength. One final appeal I felt was really powerful, was his body language. Near the end of his speech, Nixon gets from his desk and starts speaking with more force. This transition is important because it separates his attitudes of contrition in the first act, to political posturing in the second. He projects passion in his words and stance and in many ways this could symbolize him getting up after being knocked down by a media catastrophe.

# data[].attributes.body
The discussion of the use of language brought up in both of the essays focus on how "language proficiency" is an instrument for discrimination and exclusion, as well as the perceived need to assimilate and change their language based on their community. The essays contrast in how they tell their stories: one is a more personal narrative and one is a character analysis.

# data[].attributes.headline
Analysis and thoughts on Amy Tan's Mother Tongue

# data[].attributes.subject
Analysis and thoughts on Amy Tan's Mother Tongue

# data[].attributes.body
Of the two essays relating to language in the Asian American community, Amy Tan's Mother Tongue was especially interesting to me. When I did my initial research, what really stood out to me was the criticism of her work. A lot of people felt that she portrays Asian men stereotypically and that the norms she portrays about Asian cultures are misleading. This was something I did not really see too much in this essay. In fact, the more dominant figure it seems, from both her life and in the essay was her mother, especially since her father died when she was young. From the readings I have seen about her life, it has been her mother laying down the law and the more restrictive cultural and gender norms upheld by her mother, a female figurehead. However, what is interesting is that contrasting the toxic relationship she has with her mother in general, this essay seems to be sympathetic. Tan pities her mother's experience being a stranger in her country and struggling to command respect because of language barriers. She also seems to place a lot of value on the opinions of her mother, in spite of the fact she has manipulated her with suicide threats, slandered her white partners, and held a knife to her throat in an especially tense conflict between the two of them. Another highlight I felt was interesting was about how Tan defends herself against the criticism. One article I read shows that Tan is speaking from her experiences, yet she also adds that her work is fiction. This is something I find contradictory especially since it seems like these are accurate personal narratives told from experience. Any hyperbolizing must be coming from somewhere so that doesn't seem like a valid defense.