Can America be generalized by humor or ignorance? In a cartoon written by journalist John Branch, there are many elements of language that can hurt and represent a social group. The world is filled with stereotypes, which may be good or bad, but not always true or accurate. In this cartoon there is a use of pathos an appeal to humor, association to connotate a social group, also use of a microaggression that can have an impact on a social group. All these elements of language and form of discourse poses a question of how and why a social group is represented in a certain way.
One might be swayed to feeling a sense of humor or feeling offended. The correlation is due to the effect of pathos. In this cartoon Branch is excellent in delivering …show more content…
The whole cartoon in its entirety is a microaggressions. One should look at the word, “you don’t look”. Yes, it may not seem harmful because it's just an observation, but the truth is that there is something wrong. Denoting somebody and associating them with a image, an accident, or an action is wrong doing in American Culture. The fact that the kid mention that the person didn't look anything like a Native Americans, can be seen as ignorance in America. The social group has been portrayed like that because America’s views has done the job of putting labels on a group, which then enhances the use of stereotypes, and made Americans become ignorant, this doesn't necessarily mean every American is like this, but unfortunately America as a whole can be seen as rather an ignorant country. Something that was brought to attention is that the structure of this cartoon is actually a huge phenomenon at work. The individual has no lines, and his/her facial is silent, and thats becuase thats reality, when a social group is exposed to constant microaggressions, they become silenced and excluded, and left with no words or opinions, because that's what America as the ability to dictate what are the morals of their
One might be swayed to feeling a sense of humor or feeling offended. The correlation is due to the effect of pathos. In this cartoon Branch is excellent in delivering …show more content…
The whole cartoon in its entirety is a microaggressions. One should look at the word, “you don’t look”. Yes, it may not seem harmful because it's just an observation, but the truth is that there is something wrong. Denoting somebody and associating them with a image, an accident, or an action is wrong doing in American Culture. The fact that the kid mention that the person didn't look anything like a Native Americans, can be seen as ignorance in America. The social group has been portrayed like that because America’s views has done the job of putting labels on a group, which then enhances the use of stereotypes, and made Americans become ignorant, this doesn't necessarily mean every American is like this, but unfortunately America as a whole can be seen as rather an ignorant country. Something that was brought to attention is that the structure of this cartoon is actually a huge phenomenon at work. The individual has no lines, and his/her facial is silent, and thats becuase thats reality, when a social group is exposed to constant microaggressions, they become silenced and excluded, and left with no words or opinions, because that's what America as the ability to dictate what are the morals of their