Rhetorics of the Americas

The first three chapters of Rhetorics of the Americas shed new light on our discussion of non-western rhetoric. In the introduction, “te-ixtli: The ‘Other Face’ of the Americas,” we are introduced to the idea that colonization in the past has had a large impact on rhetoric. It is apparent that the European-American influence has affected the language and communication of all people. In light of this influence, it is interesting to consider what effective rhetoric is for other cultures? A similar question is raised in the introduction stating, how do indigenous writers and authors respond to Western expansion? The book serves the purpose of bringing together different histories and theories of rhetoric to provide a new understanding and history of how the different theories have worked together and competed against one another.

After reading this first chapter, I was left wondering what has been left out of the traditional Western teachings of rhetoric? What have we discovered that was left out? And what are we still missing? This book looks towards the “other faces” to explore aspects of non-western rhetoric and help to uncover aspects that are traditionally overlooked. An important point was brought to my attention about what is missing from Western rhetoric. Western rhetoric divides persuasive speech into three categories, forensic, epideictic, and deliberative. However, the first chapter makes the point that all communication is rhetorical. Rhetorical communication is not limited to these three types of speech, although it was the heart of rhetoric in ancient Athens. Just as we now know rhetoric is inherent in all communication, we also know that we must look outside of traditional Western teachings to see it at play in other aspects of life.

The second chapter, written by Victor Villanueva, presents the difficult reality that Europeans were harsh conquerors of the Taínos, commonly known as Indians. Christopher Columbus and the Europeans who followed him enslaved, kidnapped, and killed the native people in what became America. However, their memory remains in many aspects of our lives today. Their language and culture remains in our roots. Villanueva uses stories once again as a rhetorical strategy in this chapter to exemplify his points, raise awareness, and provide emotional appeals. I found it very interesting to learn that day-to-day aspects of our life such as baseball, tobacco, potatoes, canoes, and hammocks all came from the Taínos. Although there was not a lot of information about their rhetoric, it was interesting to read that they valued the valiant, noble, and good very highly. Throughout the semester we have seen the idea of virtuous speakers being the most valued in several different cultures. Confucius valued rhetoricians whose actions spoke louder than words, Cicero valued the good man who could speak well, the Egyptians valued those who spoke truthfully, and Plato thought that one could become closer to God through virtue.

The third chapter, “Imperialist Rhetorics in Puerto Rican Nationalist Narratives,” reminds us how closely connected religion and rhetoric have been throughout history. As a Catholic, I was most interested by the comparison of the creation story to the patterns of colonialism. I have grown up with the creation story serving as an important lesson to avoid temptation. I had certainly never considered it to connect to the brutal colonization of people. The parallelism explains that the colonial state is the creator in the story, the conqueror is Adam, and the serpent represents those who resist the power of the creator/colonizer. The whole story acts as a metaphor and has a powerful rhetorical effect. Here again, we see the use of stories to make persuasive arguments and provide new ways of looking at issues.

Questions:

1.     We agreed in class earlier that stories could be used in academic settings, do you still agree after reading these first three chapters? What stories were most effective in this reading?

2.     Do you agree that the creation story could symbolization colonization?

3.     What do you think is still missing from studies of rhetoric today?