At first I had difficulty finding the thesis in my article, "The West, the Rest, and the New Middle East: Obama in London" because the article itself is an analysis itself of President Obama's speech in London. It is not strictly a rhetorical analysis, however, which I believe was the source of my struggle. Essentially the main idea of the article is that President Obama's speech in London was much more effective than the previous two he had given, but that there would not be as much attention paid to this speech. The author, Bruce Jones, then takes the reader through some of the main points of the previous speeches, and then highlights the evidence behind the claim that the third speech was, in fact, the most important. I do not know much more information about the events for which the speech was given, outside of what was provided me by the author, but his claim seems to be reasonable.
There is great need for peace in the region, but also the growing question posed by much of the world: is the U.S. truly leading, or trying to lead from behind? According to Jones, this is is most effectively addressed in President Obama's speech in London. President Obama insisted that when measures for peace or changes in order where necessary that the U.S. was the clear authoritative center of negotiation. He also more directly addressed problems in the middle east; this is a claim that will be roughly tested in the near future. Without reading the speech myself, I can't say for certain how well President Obama represented his ideals, compared to the others, but Jones has definitely made me feel that way.
-Ashley Robinson
It sounds like you have a difficult task at hand: analyzing someone else's analysis is like going a step above and beyond the assignment. Good luck!
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like an interesting article. It sounds like a tough challenge, but certainly rewarding to be able to see one point of view concerning the speech and then create your own.
ReplyDelete