When two rhetors are engaging in a debate, they can easily argue past one another if a mutual level of stasis is not settled upon. In the debate of “A Short History Of Torches And Intimidation” written by Sarah Bond and “Parents Fight Over Pledging Allegiance In Schools” written by Tovia Smith, both rhetors can agree that symbols serve a certain function and when those functions are abused it can cause conflict and uproar, especially when the function confronts the question of whether or not it is interfering with freedom of speech. Their level of stasis settles in definition, defining their respective symbols and how their connotation affects how they function in society. While the participants in the debate about symbolism are in agreement
…show more content…
Her conjecture begins with the events that unfolded in Charlottesville. She follows this by explaining the history of torches and fire present in violent moments over centuries and how in today’s society, torches can appear especially threatening and racist because of the symbol’s relation to the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi regime. “Torches became a consistently described part of the Klan's early parades and use of visual intimidation… Torches used as statements of power and racial superiority were even more prominent in Nazi Germany in the 1930s” (Bond). The symbolism behind the torch can be agreed that the function is a precedent means of intimidation, it is regarded as aggressive and oppressive. The symbol can be used as a source of light (both literally and figuratively) and warmth. But in this case, the symbol represents aggression, hatefulness, and a precedented confrontation with racism, extremists, and bigotry. “‘... In the context of modern white supremacy, the torch also likely echoes the burning crosses and torches of the Klan.’ The use of cheap tiki-torches put up at pool parties and stored in suburban garages may at first seem laughable, but the visual message of hate and intimidation advertised by these torch-wielding individuals has a long and terrible …show more content…
While Smith does not make clear her opinion of whether or not the pledge should be enforced, she explains that the argument about the pledge is about more than just saying the pledge for your country. Her definition of the symbol is that it represents patriotism and love for the country but the symbol can be interpreted as being abused and forced upon grade school children to honor the symbol, this definition is mostly shaped by contributing interviews opinions on the symbol. Those who disagree with the forcefulness of the symbol believe they are being shamed, "It's like if you don't agree with the group, we're gonna ostracize you," he says. "If you don't swear allegiance, you're considered disloyal” (Smith). The symbol has evolved from more than a patriotic act to whether or not it is encouraging peer pressure, and it is dividing communities based on whether or not the act of honoring the symbol should be forced. “...many in Brookline want more of the pledge, not less. ‘There is no question that this is a cherished, civic tradition — and cherished, civic traditions count for something,’” (Smith). Smiths debate over the pledge falls out of stasis in the argument of symbolism when she does not present a clear quality of the issue, nor follow that with suggested procedure to solve the
Her conjecture begins with the events that unfolded in Charlottesville. She follows this by explaining the history of torches and fire present in violent moments over centuries and how in today’s society, torches can appear especially threatening and racist because of the symbol’s relation to the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi regime. “Torches became a consistently described part of the Klan's early parades and use of visual intimidation… Torches used as statements of power and racial superiority were even more prominent in Nazi Germany in the 1930s” (Bond). The symbolism behind the torch can be agreed that the function is a precedent means of intimidation, it is regarded as aggressive and oppressive. The symbol can be used as a source of light (both literally and figuratively) and warmth. But in this case, the symbol represents aggression, hatefulness, and a precedented confrontation with racism, extremists, and bigotry. “‘... In the context of modern white supremacy, the torch also likely echoes the burning crosses and torches of the Klan.’ The use of cheap tiki-torches put up at pool parties and stored in suburban garages may at first seem laughable, but the visual message of hate and intimidation advertised by these torch-wielding individuals has a long and terrible …show more content…
While Smith does not make clear her opinion of whether or not the pledge should be enforced, she explains that the argument about the pledge is about more than just saying the pledge for your country. Her definition of the symbol is that it represents patriotism and love for the country but the symbol can be interpreted as being abused and forced upon grade school children to honor the symbol, this definition is mostly shaped by contributing interviews opinions on the symbol. Those who disagree with the forcefulness of the symbol believe they are being shamed, "It's like if you don't agree with the group, we're gonna ostracize you," he says. "If you don't swear allegiance, you're considered disloyal” (Smith). The symbol has evolved from more than a patriotic act to whether or not it is encouraging peer pressure, and it is dividing communities based on whether or not the act of honoring the symbol should be forced. “...many in Brookline want more of the pledge, not less. ‘There is no question that this is a cherished, civic tradition — and cherished, civic traditions count for something,’” (Smith). Smiths debate over the pledge falls out of stasis in the argument of symbolism when she does not present a clear quality of the issue, nor follow that with suggested procedure to solve the