The Speech: Unfinished, The Oscar: Unaccepted - Final Draft

Anthony Burtman

Doctor Brown

English 306

2 October 2016

The Speech: Unfinished, The Oscar: Unaccepted

The evening of the 1973 45^th Academy Awards Ceremony at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Los Angeles ended in astonishment, disbelief, and realization. The top actors in lead roles of 1972 productions were to be commended with runners-up for the “Best Performance” Oscar award including Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier in Sleuth, Peter O'Toole in The Ruling Class, Paul Winfield in Sounder, and Marlon Brando in The Godfather. Brando, who was selected for the award, did not arrive at the ceremony, but instead sent a speech with Native American representative Sacheen Littlefeather to decline the award on his behalf. He would not accept the award to protest the treatment of Native Americans in the film industry. His refusal of such a prestigious award attracted the attention of his fans, viewers of the event, the Native American Community, and the film industry. Brando’s speech and Littlefeather’s appearance caused the audience to reflect on the country’s past injustices over Native American tribes and the portrayal of Native Americans in the modern American media.

Marlon Brando was a famous American actor and activist who starred in the role of Vito Corleone in The Godfather (1972) which earned him the Oscar nomination in 1973. By this point, he had already made himself a name with his iconic role of the Biker in The Wild One as well as the New Jersey longshoreman in On The Waterfront. Aside from his roles as an actor, however, he also had a history of being a political activist participating in the Zionist movement, the Civil Rights movement, and a fighter against the negative image of Native American Indians in the media. ("Brando for Our Times").

On February 27, 1973, exactly a month before the Academy Awards, an armed and hostile occupation took place Wounded Knee, South Dakota. The so called “Wounded Knee Incident” began with the American Indian Movement (AIM) leading around 200 Sioux Native Americans into Wounded Knee and taking hostage of 11 residents in the Oglala Sioux settlement. ("History, Incident at Wounded Knee").  The AIM had been proactive in occupying land claiming the right to unused federal lands and demanding that the U.S. launch investigations of Indian treaties broken by the U.S. government (Wittstock). The incident, up to the point of the Academy Awards, was viewed only as a savage display of incivility of the activist group and received little coverage from the inside. The AIM occupied the town for a total of 71 days placing Brando’s protest in the midst of the conflict. With the night of 45^th Academy Awards Ceremony following the events of Wounded Knee so closely, it was the perfect opportunity to seize the public’s attention and confront the United States’ treatment of the Native American Peoples.

Marlon Brando did not show up to the Academy Awards ceremony and instead had actress and activist Sacheen Littlefeather refuse the award on his behalf and speak to the viewers about the treatment of Native Americans in the Media. Sacheen Littlefeather, a native Apache, was at the time president of the National Native American Image Association and was not well known to the general public. She was able to act as a representative for the group as well as Native Indian Americans national-wide.

Sacheen Littlefeather’s appearance on stage can be deemed as a “performance.” She attended the American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco, California to begin her acting career in the early 1970’s (“Sacheen Littlefeather”). As an actress, her delivery of Brando’s message was particularly strategic. She employed many dramatic effects from the moment Brando’s name was called for the award. Even the entry music, the theme of The Godfather, caused a dramatic shift in tone as the camera panned to find not Brando, but Littlefeather standing from the audience. She appeared on stage dressed in Apache-styled clothing wearing a cotton calico-like dress appropriated for the formal event with bedazzled jewels across the top. At the very start of her speech, her presence on stage was strong but humble, her voice was full of somber with quivers on occasion, and her eyes gleamed with sadness ("Marlon Brando's Oscar® Win for The Godfather"). This was a clear appeal to pathos as she stresses the regretful circumstances under which she spoke and under which Brando decided not to arrive.

Littlefeather addressed the ethics of the unfair treatment of Native Americans by dressing in the Apache-styled dress and representing herself under her Native American heritage. The ethos and logos of her argument was highlighted by her discussion of Wounded Knee and why Brando felt that evening to be the time to discuss the matter. She also announced that Brando was headed for Wounded Knee to offer his support for peace in the conflict. This challenged the ethics of the U.S. government’s interactions with the Native American communities and past treaties not honored by emphasizing the actor’s desire to get involved.

Brando had intended for his entire speech to be read, however, Littlefeather was only allotted 60 seconds on stage and was threatened with arrested if she did not comply (WITW Staff). As a result, Littlefeather was forced to improvise on the spot and summarize parts of Brando’s fully pre-written speech. As she stated her purpose for appearing on stage, she was faced with a mixture of “boos” and applause from the audience. None-the-less, Littlefeather took advantage of the situation which resulted in a cleaver strategy to lure the audience and the press into curiosity of what the raw speech had said. She stated that she would share the full speech with the press shortly after the ceremony, only allowing for the message to be broadcast through other outlets of the media ("Marlon Brando's Oscar® Win for The Godfather"). The speech would later be released by The New York times on March 30 that same year, making Brando’s words public. His speech was more aggressive in tone as compared to that of Littlefeather’s as he wrote: “We cheated them out of their lands… We starved them into signing fraudulent agreements that we called treaties which we never kept” (Brando).

Brando knew that by refusing to accept the award he would capture his audience’s attention. On one hand, showing up to the ceremony himself would have defeated the point of his protest. As such, the replacement of himself on stage with an unknown Native American woman gave the Native American community the representation that they have been lacking. It was symbolic of bringing the underrepresented to the big screen as he stated “It was the first time in history that an American Indian ever spoke to 60 million people” (“Brando for Our Times”). But the result of Littlefeather’s limited time was a creation of an interfold within Brando’s protest. Brando was the primary initiator of the protest with his own message. With Littlefeather’s improvisation, his true message did not come across. The contrast between the two renditions is drastic enough that a boundary was created between Brando’s message and that of Littlefeather. Although this may have undermined Brando’s intent, it allowed for Littlefeather, as an aspiring native American actress who had not yet had the opportunity to make it big in the media, to not only speaking out for all other Native Americans in the media, but also for herself. She was able to resonate with other Native American women in the film industry.

This begs the question on how effective Brando’s approach truly was. Although Brando’s full speech was published with The New York Times, the effect was not as widespread as it could have been with television coverage. It is possible that if he had shown up himself, he could have read the entire speech and used his popularity to keep the attention of the audience as opposed to the interruptions Littlefeather faced onstage. None-the-less, his absence was able to emphasize his departure for Wounded Knee. Many Native Americans viewed the incident as inspiring, to see representatives of the Native American community speak out against the government that had failed to do just by the community many times. The general American public however, viewed the Wounded Knee Incident as showing Native Americans as violent and rash despite the conflict between Native Americans and police forces. Fire was shot from both sides and both the FBI and the U.S. Marshals Service were in the opposition, resulting in two Native American deaths. Only after Littlefeather announced that Brando was headed off to Wounded Knee was the occupation viewed more thoroughly by the media. ("Marlon Brando Rechaza Oscar”). People began to understand the perspective of the AIM’s plight and why Brando felt so strongly to protest.

Brando spoke out about how “the motion picture community has been as responsible as any for degrading the Indian and making a mockery of his character, describing his as savage, hostile and evil.” Although the later years after Brando’s protest did result in productions that focused on the accurate historical representations of Native Americans and sensitive narratives, including 1992’s The Last of the Mohicans and 1998’s Smoke Signals, most depictions and treatment of Native Americans in the media have not changed significantly (Webb). Native Americans to this day have little to no representation in blockbuster films and are mostly cast as extras. Additionally, following the Oscars, Littlefeather was blacklisted and would face criticism and challenging notions over her heritage which caused a detriment to her aspiring acting career. After the ceremony, Littlefeather. People questioned her authenticity and even as late as 2012, racial slurs have been directed towards her and her heritage. In the 2012 late night show with Jay Leno and David Miller, who said “[Elizabeth Warren is] about as much Indian as that stripper chick Brando sent to pick up his Oscar for The Godfather, all right?” (Gilio-Whitaker). This is to show that being of color in America is truly a struggle today.

Ultimately, Brando fought for Native American Indian justice through the end of his life (“Brando for Our Times”). His protest was able to capture the attention of many, but much more progress is yet to be made.

Works Cited

"1972 (45th) Academy Awards." Academy Awards Acceptance Speech Database. Web.

Accessed 13 Sept. 2016.

"Brando for Our Times." Official Marlon Brando Website. Brando Enterprises. Web.

Accessed 13 Sept. 2016.

Brando, Marlon. "That Unfinished Oscar Speech." The New York Times: Best Pictures. The

New York Times Company, 2002. Web. Accessed 13 Sept. 2016.

Gilio-Whitaker, Dina. "A Recent TV Slur Revives Debate About Sacheen Littlefeather and Her

Role in Marlon Brando's Oscar Refusal.” Indian Country. Indian Country: Today Media Network, LLC. Accessed 29 Sept.

"History, Incident at Wounded Knee." U.S. Marshals Service. U.S. Federal Government,

Web. Accessed 28 Sept. 2016.

"Marlon Brando's Oscar® Win for The Godfather" YouTube. YouTube, 02 Oct. 2008.

Accessed 13 Sept. 2016.

"Marlon Brando Rechaza Oscar." YouTube. YouTube, LLC, 2009. Web. Accessed 29 Sept.

2016.

"Sacheen Littlefeather." Sacheen Littlefeather. Web. Accessed 13 Sept. 2016.

Webb, Franki. "Under-representation of Native Americans in the Mainstream Media."

Nativeweb, 2009. Web. Accessed 30 Sept. 2016.

Wittstock, Laura Walterman, and Elaine J. Salinas. "A Brief History of AIM." A Brief History of

AIM. Web. Accessed 28 Sept. 2016.

WITW Staff. "43 Years Later, Native American Activist Sacheen Littlefeather Reflects on

Rejecting Marlon Brando’s Oscar." Women in the World. The New York Times Company, 27 Feb. 2016. Web. Accessed 29 Sept. 2016

Collin Kaepernick Final Draft

Micah Metz

Dr. Stephanie Brown

English 306

September 15, 2016

A More Perfect Union

Football, as one of America's most popular sports, is deeply infused with patriotic ritual. The singing of the national anthem before each game, and, on more special occasions, jets flying overhead, creates an atmosphere of national pride and reverence to all institutions that help protect it. With that common understanding in place it's understandable why Collin Kaepernick’s actions have started so much controversy within the football community. During the latter half of the NFL pre-season, Kaepernick began sitting during the national anthem before games. While widely interpreted as disrespect to flag and country, Kaepernick has identified his actions as a protest for racial injustice in the nation, most explicitly citing incidents of police brutality against minorities. With several isolated incidents of this kind of brutality being publicized in close succession in recent times, there is an air of distrust for authorities and animosity towards institutions that reflect a bias against people of color. With Kaepernick’s celebrity status and a taboo protest method, this comprises one of the more recent rhetorical strategies employed in the discussion about institutionalized racism.

            Kaepernick's actions follow a series of tumultuous events over the past few years involving police killings of unarmed black men. Individuals such as Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and the subsequent protests that arose because of their fatalities has created a political climate more sensitive to the methods of police forces and the most common type of victims in these instances. While there seemed to be a notion that institutionalized racism has decreased over the years since the days of the civil rights movement, the spotlight on these events has persuaded many that perhaps the nation has not come as far as many people once believed. Kaepernick, in an interview, alludes to the turbulent atmosphere between minorities and police force, and posits that there needs to be greater awareness:

People don't realize what's really going on in this country. There are a lot of things that are going on that are unjust. People aren't being held accountable for. And that's something that needs to change. That's something that this country stands for freedom, liberty and justice for all. And it's not happening for all right now (ESPN).

            Kaepernick’s purpose can be seen as a drive to raise awareness about unjust policies, tendencies, or laws that target minorities. Taking the current political climate into perspective one could assume that many people are already pretty familiar with the topic, but past demonstrations and decries have left many spectators with mixed, undecided feelings on the subject, with a specific divide among spectators of different racial backgrounds (Vega and Thee-Brenan). The rioting in Ferguson, Missouri, for example, was seen negatively for the destruction that ran rampant throughout the town, regardless of the persecution that the residents might have felt threatened their community’s safety. Kaepernick's nonviolent, celebrity-status protest is one that has the potential to speak to a wide audience of people who are both in the category that he intends to represent (minorities who have been consistently been more likely targets for police assault) as well as onlooker patrons of the sport whom he might sway. While his actions are still seen as disrespectful by many people, with a supposed slight decrease in popularity as a player in correlation with his protest (Rowell, ESPN), it’s presented in a way that the media tolerates; it has generated discussion with an interpretation more positive than that of a violent riot.

            Kaepernick’s contribution to this wider civil rights movement is a well-rounded strategy that takes advantage of the ethos of American values, the logos of how the current state of the nation is falling short of upholding these values, and the and the pathos of citing the destruction that comes as a result. The flag that is honored ceremonially along with the singing of the anthem is an important item of national identity and is closely associated with military forces who are said to protect the freedoms that it represents. Any protests involving the display of the flag necessarily bring up the positive attributes of our nation; the choice to use this object of protest in a way deviant to the customs of respecting it is taboo and generates emotional response. But when asked about whether or not his form of protest was acceptable or not, the NFL player said:

To me, this is a freedom that we're allowed in this country. And going back to the military, it's a freedom that men and women that have fought for this country have given me this opportunity by contributions they have made . . . This is something that has to be said, it has to be brought to the forefront of everyone's attention, and when that's done, I think people can realize what the situation is and then really affect change (ESPN).

While national pride is alive and well in America, an important distinction that Kaepernick makes and is popular in the minds of citizens is that the honor due to the flag is still optional; being a symbol of freedom, it grants the freedom to behave deviant from norms. This commonly held notion makes Kaepernick’s demonstration and proclamation of beliefs effective because it’s meant to deviate from norms in a way that doesn’t denounce the intended framework of the norm’s original implication. Through this superficial defiance there is potential to affect a meaningful change to come about; That is to say, his subtle decry of national trends is meant to say that the standards outlined by patriotic belief are not in effect in the real world, but need to be, and that there is potential for them to be.

            Considering Kaepernick’s purpose to raise further awareness and to inspire people to affect change, the media coverage his actions have garnered demonstrate, in some respect, a degree of success in his strategy; most notably by targeting an emotionally changed aspect of patriotic ritual. While Kaepernick has seen a decline in popularity as a player in the NFL among some viewers, he has received support from his teammates. And while the broader public’s reception of him tends to be mixed, he hasn’t been made into an anathema for his actions. The notion of his that national policy needs to change before the identity of this country is to be respected calls for a higher level of performance from Americans is a social criticism that is made from a perspective of a member of the society rather than an outside; that is what makes this protest agreeable to a wider audience.

Works Cited

Rowell, Darren. “Poll: Niners QB Colin Kaepernick most disliked player in league.” ESPN.com.   22  September 2016. Web. 27 September 2016.

 

Vega, Tatiana. & Thee-Brenan, Megan. “Poll Shows Broad Divisions Amid Missouri Turmoil.”            Nytimes.com. 21 August 2014. Web. 27 September 2016.

 

Wagoner, Nick. “Transcript of Colin Kaepernick's comments about sitting during national           

anthem.” ESPN.com. 28 August, 2016. Web. 15 September, 2016

 

Salt March Final Draft

Jake Barenholtz

Steph Brown

Eng 306

MW 3:00-4:15

Mohandas Gandhi Hunger Strike

Most Americans know of Mohandas Gandhi. Most would probably say he was a peaceful man, but then realize that this fact is all they really know about Gandhi. Americans don't really know of the man the people of India called "Mahatma"- meaning great soul (History.com Staff, Gandhi begins fast in protest of caste separation, http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/gandhi-begins-fast-in-protest-of-caste-separation) . Gandhi was a genuine man, in part because of his unprecedented way of seeking independence from Great Britain. In 1776, America declared independence from Great Britain through the Revolutionary war- we fought and lost lives on both sides of the battlefield. When Gandhi fought for independence, he was imprisoned multiple times, by multiple governments. In 1922, he was jailed for conspiracy to overthrow the British government (Years of Arrest and Imprisonment of Mahatma Gandhi, http://www.mkgandhi.org/arrestofmahatma.htm) . Gandhi’s method of his protest is valuable to analyze because of how unique and revolutionary he was. Gandhi practiced what is now known as civil disobedience, but he knew the term satyagraha. The English translation is tricky, but it translates roughly to "unflinching adherence to the truth". Gandhi would become the founding father of India, but not without conflict (Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths- By Mark Shepard). 

One of Gandhi's most famous protests was his "fast unto death". On September 16^th, Mahatma Gandhi, while still imprisoned, started his fast (A Fast Unto Death - Gandhi’s Legacy, Kathleen, https://rentschlerlibrary.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/a-fast-unto-death-remembering-gandhi/) . This is because it was the British who ruled India, and at this time had implemented a new Indian constitution that would separate the Indian electorate by caste. Gandhi realized this new constitution would give the lowest class of Indians, more commonly known at that time as the "untouchables" a separate political representation, and that this would lead to injustice among the untouchables, to which Gandhi referred to as "gods children". Trying to sway the British crown is never easy, but with Gandhi's constant preaching of peace, if he died the British would have to deal with many upset Indians. Gandhi would fast for six days until British rule agreed to his principal terms of a settlement between the untouchables and the Indians higher classes. Gandhi broke his fast by saying a prayer before drinking orange juice and exclaiming “satyagraha has triumphed” (http://www.history.co.uk/this-day-in-history/09-16/gandhi-begins-a-protest-fast).

The audience Mohandas Gandhi was trying to reach was British Parliament. More than one hundred and fifty years had passed since America declared independence. India had not been so fortunate. The process of Indian independence was achieved much differently. Gandhi wouldn’t succumb to violence, so he had to make his own path, a new way that he could appeal to the British government. The British had set up a trade deal in the late 1500s that would leave India in need of Britain for supplies. As time went on, this relationship was becoming more and more one-sided, leaving the British with no reason to free the Indian population (British rule in India, Chris Butler, http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/eme/18/FC123).

 Gandhi's protests were never violent - Mahatma Gandhi never preached violence, even saying at multiple times that the only way to beat violence is with non-violence. When it came to hearing logic and the voice of reason through logos, it was not that Gandhi was above using logic, but the British crown simply wouldn't hear it.

One of Gandhi's biggest assets in the 1930's was being himself. He was famous for his time spent in South Africa.I feel this appeal was used greatly in Gandhi's fast unto death, but it was used differently than others use it. When Gandhi began his fast, it put the British on a sort of clock. Gandhi realized his influence was so great that his death would mean more death, riots, and possibly war. Mohandas Gandhi was a member of the vaisya or merchant caste. As a member of the merchant caste he was able to attend college and the knowledge he gained here made him the credible person he was. If a poor man who no one knew starved to death the British wouldn't care. However because of who he was the British were not willing to allow the man who lead a sixty thousand person peaceful march to have his supporters possibly protest and riot. Gandhi was aware that the British crown would not be able to deal with the public pressure. Gandhi embraced it, as he said this is a god-given opportunity that has come to me, "To offer my life as a final sacrifice to the downtrodden". The man was prepared to die and the British waited six days, but when push came to shove they were aware of what was at stake.

In an argument, regardless of the speakers and the audience, there will be an appeal to either logic or emotion, and while a good cause can appeal to both, there will be an appeal to at least one. Gandhi's appeals to logic were worthless- it didn't work because his people were being oppressed,and he knew it would take more than logic to convince the British crown they were wrong, especially since this meant losing a lot of money and support for the government. Gandhi found another way- the fact that Gandhi was a member of the higher vaiysa caste gave him a voice no untouchable had. This caste gave him a platform to appeal for his children of god. The lower caste system was in jeopardy of being suppressed for seventy more years, but Gandhi knew if this happened there would be no going back, that the greed of the upper castes would deny human needs to the lower castes. Although Gandhi never said it, I believe the fast was representing the starving people of the lower caste. The people who would continue to starve if this continual misrepresentation proceeded. 

The great soul was concerned with the needs of others more than himself. The constant acts of selflessness are nearly unparalleled - the man was ready to fast unto death in order to get reform for those less fortunate than him. He called the untouchables the children of god, a name that appeals to pathos. Gandhi fought for indolence through peace. He led more than than sixty thousand people on a march to the sea. Indeed, the man was known from Berlin to Bangkok because he accomplished through peace what others had previously thought necessitated force. Gandhi did not fear death for he knew he would be more powerful in death than he was in life. What he represented still stands today, both in India, and here at home as well, as he laid the foundation for Martin Luther King Jr's civil disobedience, or as I learned it to be called, satyagraha.

Work Cited

"Gandhi Begins Fast in Protest of Caste Separation." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.

"Years of Arrests of Mahatma Gandhi." Years of Arrests of Mahatma Gandhi. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.

"What Is Satyagraha? | FAQs - Myths about Mahatma Gandhi." What Is Satyagraha? | FAQs - Myths about Mahatma Gandhi. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.

Shepard, Mark. "Mahatma Gandhi and His Myths (Gandhi, Civil Disobedience, Nonviolence, Non-Violence, Satyagraha)." Mark Shepard's Home Page *Gandhi, the Flute, More*. N.p., 2002. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.

"A “Fast Unto Death”–Gandhi’s Legacy." Rentschler Library News. N.p., 2011. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.

@HISTORYUK. "Gandhi Begins a Protest Fast." HISTORY. N.p., 2015. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.

Rhetorical Analysis of "Same Love" FINAL DRAFT

Kathy Kuang

Brown

English 306

29 September 2016

Rhetorical Analysis of “Same Love”

            Homosexuality. The concept it encompasses embodies a negative connotation, a product of societal opinion. In fact, “gay is synonymous with the lessor” as Macklemore asserts (RyanLewisProductions). This prejudice and discrimination of individuals that identify as part of the LGBTQ community was apparent in the prohibition of gay marriage in numerous states; manners regarding marriage (such as the legalization of same-sex marriage) were under the jurisdiction of the state government. In the state of Washington, this issue was addressed in 2012, when Referendum Measure 74 appeared on the November 6, 2012 general election ballot to approve or reject Senate Bill 6239, which would legalize gay marriage ("History of Referendum Measures”).  In order to influence the results of this general election, Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, supporters of the LGBTQ community, released a song titled “Same Love” on October 2, 2012 to protest the societal disapproval of homosexuality (RyanLewisProductions). It was broadcasted in pop music radio stations to primarily impact anyone who is against homosexuality (most likely heterosexuals) as well as registered voters of Washington. The manner in which “Same Love” protests against marriage inequality and thereby civil injustice against the LGTBQ community is through its lyrics; Macklemore’s appeal to ethos, pathos, and logos are interspersed throughout the song and intertwined with each statement he makes.  

Macklemore initiates with “When I was in the third grade, I thought that I was gay, cause I could draw, my uncle was, and I kept my room straight” to develop his credibility by stating his own experience with homosexuality as a heterosexual man (RyanLewisProductions). He initiates the song by first developing his ethos, so that his following arguments would be more persuasive, especially since he does not belong in the LGBTQ community, which would potentially be an adverse fact against his arguments. He then continues with an appeal to pathos, stating that the mere idea that he was gay caused “tears [to rush] down [his] face” (RyanLewisProductions). This image of a crying eight-year-old child functions to provoke sympathy from the audience. Furthermore, he includes a logical argument that the reason of his sexuality crisis was due to a “bunch of stereotypes”; his suspicion of being gay was due to his artistic capabilities, relation to someone who was gay, and tendency to be organized (RyanLewisProductions). His logical argument lies in the fact that these traits are not indicative of sexuality; for instance, anyone could be talented at drawing, but that does not necessarily represent their sexual orientation or even superficially unearths it. However, Macklemore claims that the stereotypes related to homosexuality have caused these characteristics to be associated with it, even though it should not be reasonably related.  He protests against its inaccurate association.

At the early middle part of the song, he again appeals to ethos by saying “the right wing conservatives think it’s a decision and you can be cured with some treatment and religion” (RyanLewisProductions). He demonstrates his credibility by dismissing opposing perspectives against homosexuality, specifically republican and religious beliefs (that homosexuality is a decision), and the corresponding notion that this “ailment” called homosexuality could be ameliorated. By acknowledging the existence of these opinions, he simultaneously proves his knowledge about the issue and reaffirms his ability to speak about it. He proceeds to protest against the conservative perspective. He claims that this attempt in altering a person’s sexuality is “man-made rewiring of a predisposition” and that this “rewiring” is equivalent to “playing God” (RyanLewisProductions).  Here Macklemore is unquestionably appealing to ethos; God, to those who are religious (which most U.S. citizens are) is the almighty entity.  “Playing God” is not acceptable because only God himself should have the power to decide a person’s life; by extension, the thought of influencing a person’s destiny should be condemned as it is technically committing a sin directly against God. Macklemore claims that God decided the sexual orientation of its inhabitants on Earth. If man decided to rewire this predisposition, he is stating that God made a mistake, or they outright disagree with God’s decision. Continuing with that notion, he states that this desire to change others is due to fear of the unknown, “America the brave still fears what we don’t know” (RyanLewisProductions). He juxtaposes and thus, highlights the irony of the idea that America is brave, yet fears the unknown (homosexuality). Logically, that is nonsensical; thus, he causes Americans to self-reflect on the validity of this bravery, ultimately, evoking a sense of shame and guilt. With this phrase, he appeals to logos and pathos, encouraging the alteration of this fear and mentality.

Near the later half, he continues with pathos, and again induces empathy; he points out the phrase “Man, that’s gay” is omnipresent in “YouTube comments” and the entire “hip-hop” industry (RyanLewisProductions). Macklemore kindles the audience to recognize that because the term “gay” is used in a negative context and that it is pervasive, homosexuals are prone to feel that practically everyone “hates [them]” (RyanLewisProductions). The resulting hurt that consumes a gay individual can be unbearable especially since this hated is towards something “predisposed”, and therefore, unresolvable (RyanLewisProductions). Near the end of the song, he mentions this idea again, but now specifically refers to young homosexuals, mentioning that “kids are walking [a]round the hallway plagued by the pain in their hearts”. (RyanLewisProductions). By describing the kids as plagued with this pain, he suggests that this hurt is severely debilitating, analogous to the symptoms of a plague. It is so wretched, in fact, that it even convinces some people to die “rather…than be who they are” (RyanLewisProductions). He calls attention to this desire to irreversibly end one’s priceless life to justify his disproval of the consequences of societal rejection of an inherent trait.

Throughout the song, Macklemore protests against the discrimination against homosexuals – specifically regarding same sex marriage – through multifaceted arguments in regards to modes of persuasion. He initiates with ethos to develop his credibility so that the resulting arguments would be even more convincing. However, he utilizes mostly pathos to persuade his audience of the error in removing civil rights of a person due to their sexuality. His protest extends even further; he asks Washington voters to actually act against this discrimination by voting for Referendum 74, hoping that his rhetorical lyrics has exerted some force in compelling the heterosexual residents (RyanLewisProductions). As a product of activist action, including this widely disseminated protest, this social injustice was removed on February 9, 2012 in the state of Washington and three years later on June 26, 2015, the entire nation.

Works Cited

"History of Referendum Measures." Elections & Voting. Washington Secretary of State, n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.

RyanLewisProductions. "MACKLEMORE & RYAN LEWIS - SAME LOVE Feat. MARY LAMBERT (OFFICIAL VIDEO)." YouTube. YouTube, 02 Oct. 2012. Web. 10 Sept. 2016.