 |
| Image courtesy of Frederic C. Chalfant |
Until last month, this monument stood in Bishop Square Park, in Baltimore. It depicts two women: one holds her dying son in her arms, while the other stands defiantly. The scene is one of great courage, determination, and tenderness, depicted beautifully by the sculptor J Maxwell Miller.
It's too bad, then, that the dying son is a Confederate soldier, and that the monument, called the Confederate Women's Monument, was installed not to remember his sacrifice but to advance the dangerously false, patently racist idea of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.
The monument was installed in 1917, and was funded by a combination of state grants and money raised by the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). Though ostensibly meant to honor the sacrifices of Confederate soldiers, its installation in a Union state shortly after the passage of residential segregation laws in Baltimore calls that motive into question.
My speech would examine the intent behind the installation of the monument, as well as the reasons why it stood for nearly 100 years and, if time allows, the reasons why it was eventually taken down, as stated in historical documents and contemporary news sources.
Moreover, my speech would analyze the rhetorical strategies used by both the UDC and J Maxwell Miller to glorify the Confederacy, such as the pathos of losing a child, religious symbolism, and parallels to other, better-known statues.
Particularly notable among these rhetorical strategies is the use of the commonplace. The monument was installed at a time when the portrayal of the Confederacy as a fallen hero was common, but monuments like it and the organizations that supported them were largely responsible for this belief. The analysis of this chicken-and-egg relationship would be an integral part of my speech.
As I see it right now, my hook could go one of two ways: it could either be similar to the start of this blog post (emphasizing the monument's artistic merits before revealing its meaning), or it could emphasize the recent events that resulted in the statue's removal (most prominently, the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville). I am leaning heavily towards the first option, so as to preserve focus on the monument itself, but I am welcome to any suggestions.
Sources
I really like the artifact you chose. I definitely see the kairos in picking this with the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville still very recent. I would personally pick the first hook, the one used at the beginning of this article, because as you said it focuses more on the statue itself. There was a similar situation to this one with a confederate statue. However the statue I am thinking of was knocked down in a car crash and there was a massive debate over whether to put it back up. It is definitely a dilemma and I would love to hear the rhetoric behind your artifact in particular.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love the idea of your artifact for this speech. It really does encompass a lot of the criteria to be considered civic and you seem to have good direction and ideas about how you're going to present this. The first hook would definitely fall into place with your talking points. It would really allowed to maintain a central focus and not shy too far from talking about the monument. I'm looking forward to your speech!
ReplyDeleteI had really heavily contemplated the idea of using the events that took place in responce to the taking down of this statue in recent news. I'm glad to see someone has decided to tackle the topic at hand. I feel like you could possibly encompass both of the two hooks into one over arching statement as both can relate to each others social effects.
ReplyDeleteLouis, this is a timely artifact for analysis. One tip: your speech can only be around 4 minutes, so I have a feeling that you might not be able to get satisfactory depth of all the points you mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteThis being said, for the speech itself, aim to stick to the civic focus and commonplaces more than the rhetorical strategies of pathos, symbolism, etc. (Your essay will permit you to delve more deeply into the actual appeals of the piece, whereas the speech is examining how/why the piece can be seen as civic and the civic commonplaces/ideologies inherent in it.)
I hope this helps!