I wrote this a while ago, so I'm not sure whether it's alright or not. Would love to know what in particular with this piece I need to improve/address, and also if there's anything that I'm doing wrong in general. Thank you
-----
Recent statements from Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews have sparked heated debate in the media about the issue of Sudanese refugees. Three writers have presented their varying views on the issue, each using different persuasive techniques to encourage the audience to adopt their contention. The editorial claims to offer facts and truths, and employs inclusive and exclusive language as well as adopting a fairly rational and logical tone. In contrast, Galnore Atkins’ opinion letter makes use of emotive language, sarcasm, anecdotes and juxtaposition to persuade the reader to agree with her viewpoint. Neil Mitchell in his opinionative article adopts a calm, rational tone and uses exclusive language and rhetorical questions in order to sway the reader.
The editorial ‘Let’s get the facts’ from the very title, impresses upon the reader that its view is one that is supported by truth and evidence, and is therefore unbiased; this predisposes the reader to see the editorial’s view as one that is rational and reliable, and lends it more credibility. The editorial then goes on to state there is ‘undeniably’ and indisputably a problem in Melbourne’s Sudanese community; this statement is followed by a list of the crimes allegedly committed by them: ‘an alleged murder, gang violence and the bashing of a policeman’. This creates a picture of a very grim problem in dire need of a solution, evoking a sense of urgency and fear in the reader, compelling them to agree with the editorial’s contention. The editorial also makes use of inclusive and exclusive language in order to set up an ‘us’ and a ‘them’, to position us to see the Sudanese as alien and different from us and not truly part of our community, a vantage point further emphasized by the mention of ‘their’ ‘[in]ability to integrate’. This alienates the reader from the Sudanese while simultaneously instilling a feeling of kinship with the editorial and others who share its view. Descriptive language with positive connotations is used in relation to Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews and his ‘sensible’ and ‘generous’ views, whereas words with negative connotations are used to describe those who oppose the government’s stance on the issue. Repeatedly their ‘hysterical reaction’ and ‘hysteria’ are disparaged; this description positions the reader to see these protesters as irrational, illogical and biased.
In her opinion letter, ‘A little cultural understanding goes a long way’, Galnore Atkins begins by describing the situation of many Sudanese families in her community: she describes how many males were ‘killed in wars or are languishing in overcrowded refugee camps’, creating a vivid image of suffering which evokes the reader’s sympathy. She makes mention of the ‘ladies’ she knows who ‘go to the same church as [her] mother’; this and the mention of the Sudanese women ‘swapping recipes with the other women’ attempts to convey to the reader that not only are these women perfectly normal and civilized, they
have assimilated into Australian society. This positions the reader to feel that the vilification of the Sudanese community is unwarranted and unjust. Her use of sarcasm in describing the ‘terrorist cell’ which is actually a sewing group emphasizes how normal and harmless these women are as well as highlighting the absurdity of the government’s paranoia. She makes use of anecdote, personalizing the issue to the reader; also, through her description of the Sudanese woman’s consciousness of her good fortune, she compels us to realize that we often take for granted our own luck in living in such a country. This evokes a sense of guilt in the reader, and an inclination to share Atkins’ contention that it is our duty not to alienate and vilify, but to help.
Neil Mitchell, in his opinionative article ‘Above the law in the suburbs’ presents his strong view on the issue in a calm, rational tone, instilling in the reader a sense that he is logical and unbiased; this in turn positions them to see his view as reliable and predisposes them to agree with his contention. He also employs exclusive language to distance the reader from those who are ‘calling John Howard racist and inhumane’ – in short, those who are in extreme opposition to the former Prime Minister; by pitting us against ‘them’, we are predisposed to disagree with them and agree with Mitchell. Mitchell cautions us that our ‘generosity’, which has already ‘damaged what we have’ and has ‘reduced some streets to no-go zones’ will lead to the spread of these problems to other suburbs, evoking a sense of fear in the reader and also impressing upon them the urgency and magnitude of the issue. This fear is then reinforced and increasingly provoked as Mitchell details security camera evidence of theft, violent attacks and sexual abuse, compelling the reader to believe that the step the government has taken in disallowing African refugees entry into Australia is not unreasonable. He admits the step of banning refugees on race is an ‘ugly’ and drastic one, and asserts that carrying out this step is not to ‘suddenly lose compassion’, but he attempts to encourage the reader to believe, that as he says, ‘This is not racist. It is right’.
The three articles expound opinions vastly different to each other and make use of extremely different persuasive techniques, especially Atkins’ opinion letter compared to the editorial and Mitchell’s article. While Atkins greatly employs personal anecdotes and expresses her view that we should do more to help the Sudanese in a highly emotive and at times sarcastic tone, the editorial and Mitchell both attempt to express a calm, rational viewpoint which coincides with the government stance that we should ban African refugees until the Sudanese can better assimilate. All three writers employ inclusive language, albeit Atkins uses it to portray the Sudanese as truly part of our community, whereas Mitchell and the editorial use it to predispose the reader to side with their view and reject the opposing one.
Home
Help
Search
Login
