In the Muslim world, there are many women, but Benazir Bhutto was one of the first to shine. She fought for democracy and broke all the barriers set for the women of her time. Her greatest accomplishments are many firsts for the world – the first female Prime Minister of the Muslim world and the first female leader to give birth while in office (Yes, before PM Jacinda Arden). Bhutto’s primary struggle was against the military-regimes of General Zia-Ul-Haq and General Pervez Musharraf. Bhutto believed that oppression only existed in anarchy and tyranny. She saw Democracy as the solution to these problems.

As a woman who spent her life fighting against oppressive male dictators, one of Bhutto’s most powerful speeches was “Male Dominance of Women” orated during the 1995 United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing. The Conference on Women marked a significant turning point for the global agenda for gender equality. Bhutto seized the opportunity of speaking to a diverse audience of government delegates, NGO representatives, civil servants, and the media regarding the injustice women faced. She used multiple rhetorical techniques to showcase the problems women encountered and the solution to those problems. Bhutto’s speech serves as a timeless and empowering piece of rhetoric for women’s rights.   

Benazir Bhutto speaking at the 1995 UN Women’s Conference in Beijing.

At the beginning of her speech, Bhutto argues that “Women have become the victims of a culture of exclusion and male dominance”. The word choice of “victims” and “dominance” emphasize the imbalance in the power dynamic between men and women. The contrasting nature of the words furthers the idea that women face more than just deprivation. Women are oppressed. Bhutto then further proves her point by using statistics to give credibility to her claim. She states that “Seventy percent of the children who are denied elementary education are girls”.

Illiteracy hinders individuals from surviving in society. People who lack education are forced to the bottom of the socio-economic hierarchy and have little chances of mobility. These individuals work strenuous low-paying jobs causing them to become society’s scapegoats for poverty. Marginalized and malnourished these individuals struggle to survive. Feeding and keeping their youth alive is prioritized over educating them, resulting in a cycle of illiteracy.

The fact that the majority of these individuals are female showcases that women are inclined to struggle financially and socially. What makes the situation worse is that women are deliberately declined an education. Bhutto explains that this is because “…obscurantists believe in discrimination. Discrimination is the first step to dictatorship and the usurpation of power.”

Although such discrimination is specifically centered toward women, the goal of the oppressors is tyranny over men and women. The words “dictatorship” and “usurpation” hold negative connotations that evoke fear. The thought of someone ruthless seizing power is a universal phobia. 

Bhutto points out that the sexism women face is a part of something more brutal that will ultimately hurt everyone, regardless of gender. Her rhetoric works to convince her male audience to aid women because discrimination is harmful to men as well. Therefore, helping women is essentially helping themselves. 

Bhutto then goes on to discuss the possible solutions to these problems. She uses an anecdote filled with imagery to describe her visit to a poverty-stricken village. She states that the only solution to the problem’s women face is to “…invest in our women”. She believes that financial literacy is the key to independent and confident women. Bhutto talks about the importance of women beginning to work in “…far-flung villages where time seems to have stood still and where the Bullock, not the tractor is still used for cultivation”. Here she uses figurative language to emphasize that women’s rights are timeless and that humans are stuck in a paradox of time where development is halted due to the rigid structure of society.

Bhutto personifies time when she says, “time seems to have stood still”. She repeats this technique later in the next paragraph when she personifies poverty. She states that the areas that need to be prioritized are “Where poverty stalks the land with an appetite that cannot be controlled until we wake up to the twin reality of population control and women’s empowerment.” Her use of personification is symbolic because it introduces the idea that both time and poverty resemble humans. If they can act like humans, they can be controlled like humans. It alludes to the idea that these two major hurdles that stand in the way of women are controlled by humans.

To solve the issue of women’s rights, we need to recognize our part in the problem and work to help those who need it. Breaking the shackles that bond these women is an insignificant part of the duty we have towards women’s rights as humans. Empowering women holds greater value.   

Oppression is uprooted when the seeds of social justice are sowed. Bhutto uses repetition to cement this idea into the minds of her audience. She poetically states that:

“Social justice is a triad of freedom, of equality, of liberty:

Justice is political liberty.
Justice is economic independence.
Justice is social equality.

Delegates, Sisters !

Empowerment is not only a right to have political freedom. Empowerment
is the right to be independent; to be educated; to have choices in life.

Empowerment is the right to have the opportunity to select a productive
career; to own property; to participate in business; to flourish in the
market place.”

When individuals have equal opportunities and the freedom to make their choices society can start to develop. Therefore, societal progression is incumbent on social justice. She then goes into detail stating that pure social justice takes place when empowerment takes place in all three categories. Bhutto introduces that empowerment consists not just of encouragement but also of adherence to basic human rights.

Here, Bhutto also uses repetition to get across her point. Throughout the course of the speech, Bhutto is seen consistently using repetition. As an orator, repetition helps the speaker hold the attention of the audience. However, this example stands out amongst the others due to the short syntax of the sentences. The use of semicolons and periods creates a diverse range of pauses. This allows for shorter phrases that allow for more emphasis on each phrase. This allows for the attention of the audience to linger over each idea longer. In Bhutto’s case, the technique helped her bring attention to her proposed solution of empowering women by creating affluent educational, social, political, and financial opportunities for them.   

At the end of her speech, Bhutto conveys a feeling of hope towards the future. She accomplished this because of the optimistic tone she portrayed through selective diction. Bhutto used words like “opportunities”, “protected”, “peace” and “development” to end her speech in a positive tone. She ends with hope for the future based on the solutions she has provided for the problem she has highlighted.

Bhutto’s main goal was to inspire her diverse audience to act for women’s rights. She helped them understand the problems by giving specific examples. She then proposed the solution to the problem. But, in the end, she leaves everything in the hands of her audience, taking up the role of a mere messenger. Bhutto is successful in convincing her audience to work for women’s rights.

Bhutto’s speech is courageous and a reflection of herself as a woman and as a world leader. This speech is one of many rhetorical pieces by Bhutto that define her legacy as one of valor. Bhutto always embraced the truth, voiced it, and fought for it. She didn’t just speak to the world, she made the world listen to her.

Benazir Bhutto posing with her three children.

https://www.vogue.fr/fashion/article/vogues-fashion-encyclopedia-the-history-of-sneakers  

Sneakers have been making an impact on our society for centuries.  From the creation of sneakers till now, these shoes have completely evolved in the way we wear and perceive them. In an article written by Vogue, the author explains the history of sneakers and their key moments in time. The goal is to analyze the text and gain as much knowledge as possible; through the author’s rhetoric. Since the author is providing facts in the attempt to persuade the audience into learning more about the topic, this piece could be analyzed through the rhetorical lens of logos. Sneakers can be an interest for many; however, I believe this article will interest and help sneaker heads, like myself, understand more about the culture. 

The purpose of this article is to enlighten people on how sneakers came to be and how they have evolved to what we know a sneaker is in today’s world. The author is providing factual evidence about sneaker history in order to attract the audience to the text. However, one will only learn if the author makes the right choices in trying to persuade their evidence.

How someone expresses their writing can determine what the audience takes away from it. The author of the article, Rosalind Jana, expresses her thoughts and facts through words that show great imagery. When speaking about the variety of brands there are, Jana states, “And whether the object of one’s affections was basketball player Kareem Abdul- Jabbar springing for the hoop in his flat-soled Adidas or Charlie’s Angels’ Farrah Fawcett sporting that instantly recognizable Nike tick, there was plenty of inspiration to choose from, athletic or otherwise.” The use of phrases such as “springing for the hoop” or “instantly recognizable” draws the audience in about what they are reading because it gives the text a sense of excitement. Her inclusion of excitement and imagery is important when trying to express the topic in an attempt to persuade all kinds of readers. This helps those who are unfamiliar with the topic get involved in wanting to know more. 

The structure of the text is key when writing to an audience. The author here did a great job in showing somewhat of a timeline from the beginning to present day. She begins way back in the early 1800s when Charles Goodyear invented vulcanized rubber, which was then applied to the creation of a more durable shoe.

This is important to note because many people, especially young teenagers, do not know these specific facts that occurred many years back. She ends the text by showing that there is a variety when it comes to the type of sneaker we wear. In this situation, the lens of organization can be tied into the analysis as well because she organized the text to where  each section would point out a different time of history. This helps the audience understand how sneakers have evolved over a long period of time in our culture. 

Later on in the text, the author expresses this idea that sneakers, “speak to and participate in everything from class, to sports interests, to culture, to music taste, to a desire to bound around without feeling encumbered by uncomfortable footwear.” This is a great point to make because sneakers stem to many aspects of life. There is great diversity in the world of sneakers. Sneakers are made for everyone to express themselves in any way they would feel comfortable. They also provide different uses. There are sneakers used by baseball players and there are sneakers used by basketball players. Although the point was made, the author should have expanded on this idea for the audience to get a bigger sense of the context being demonstrated. If she would have chosen to go deeper with the idea about social class related to sneakers, I can guarantee the audience would have found it more interesting.  She also mentioned Instagram in the article but very briefly at the end. The role social media plays on fashion in today’s society is huge. All kinds of sneaker brands and influencers are constantly posting and being posted for all to see. This would have been a great point to elaborate on when talking about how sneakers are worn and portrayed in present day.

The history of sneakers is great knowledge for anyone to know, especially those interested in sneaker-related aspects. Opening your mind and reading about new ideas and topics will only make you a more interesting and more skilled person. With that being said, this article is a great read. For the intended audience, it was very resourceful and included many interesting facts about where the concept of the sneaker originated. The author gave detailed evidence of historical facts about the different people and brands that have impacted how we perceive sneakers in pop culture today. It could have been slightly better and more informative if Rosalind Jana and those at Vogue would have gone more in depth about aspects such as diversity and the role of social media. All in all,  the author was successful in the choices she made in persuading the audience. The rhetorical lens of logos, and even the lens of organization, helped greatly when analyzing this text. 

The Issue of Racism in the Film Get Out by Jordan Peele

Of all the movies that I have watched in the last few years, Get Out has been the most interesting and informative. It would be hard for anyone to believe that the movie was Jordan Peele’s directorial debut because it succeeds on almost every angle of analysis that one can think of. For instance, in a rare feat, the film achieved a 100 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes which means that all the critics, who are known for being among the harshest, approved of it being a masterfully done piece. Get Out might be perceived as an entertaining film by most audiences but anyone who takes a critical look at it will notice that it is a movie that explores the psychological underpinnings of passive racism that have permeated American culture and made it difficult for black people to identify the deceptiveness of the privileged whites and to forget about the nation’s racial past.

One of the messages that becomes absolutely clear when one watches Get Out is that American racism is very much alive. The nation has long shown apathy towards systems of racial privilege in addition to denying that such systems exist but Peele’s film refutes such notions and makes it apparent that racism is slowly eating away at individuals belonging to racial minorities. The clearest indication of racism in the film is when the Armitage family feign friendliness while secretly plotting how to take control of Chris Washington’s mind. To illustrate, Rose Armitage pretends that she is madly in love with Chris and thus invites him to meet her parents. However, when they get to the cottage in the country side, she appears disinterested in Chris. Similarly, Rose’s parents pretend that they are at ease with Chris dating their daughter but their true intentions are eventually revealed when they try to hypnotize Chris to become one of their victims. Peele thus challenges the Caucasian characters’ assertions of not being racist and forces the public to discuss the topic of passive racism which is often approached uncomfortably by a majority of white Americans. Alternatively, one could interpret Get Out as a film that illustrates how deeply-rooted racism has become in American society that it is almost impossible for minority groups to escape from it (Hepola).

One thing that I believe makes Get Out worth watching is the fact that the director uses the horror/psychological genre to explore the theme of passive racism. Several things add to the film’s categorization as a dark and foreboding thriller and one of them is that it explains how the Armitage family hypnotizes black people and transfers the conscience of weak white people into their bodies with the aim of prolonging the lives of the latter. The idea of the white characters wanting to receive a brain transplant from the black characters who are held against their wishes makes Get Out a film about more than just racial tensions. Rather it makes the film about the black characters’ fear of losing their minds to the racist whites. Alternatively stated, Get Out makes it apparent that the a person’s consciousness is linked to their minds and that the reason why another person would want the brain of another person would be because they want to perceive the word from the perspective of that whose mind they have inherited (Hepola). Thus, the film could be considered as a psychological thriller because it seeks to create social awareness about the scary idea of a person losing control of their mental faculties.

Further evidence of Get Out being a film that illustrates the horror surrounding the loss of mental control is the look on Chris’s face when he realizes that he has been duped into hypnosis by his white girlfriend’s mother. In this scene, Chris is paralyzed to the point where he cannot move a muscle. As a result, Rose’s mother, Missy, uses the opportunity to gain access into Chris’s mind and to manipulate his thoughts. On the other hand, Chris is extremely mortified but since he has been paralyzed by both the hypnosis and the absolute fear of losing his mind, he can only shed tears, try to fight back or await the eventual transference of his mind to another person. The fact that the scene where Chris is pictured with tears streaming down his face and his mouth wide agape is the one used as the promotional poster reinforces the idea that the film is indeed a psychological/horror work that emphasizes the fear of one involuntarily giving up control of their mind.

One could also state that Get Out is a film focusing on the psychological gullibility of the black people in their relations with white people. The film could be illustrative of the notion that in as much as black people have been subjected to cruel treatment and trickery by their white counterparts, they also almost always get deceived into believing that the latter has their best interests at heart. For example, Chris innocently assumed that the hypnosis was going to help him kick his smoking habits, but it turns out that the process was used to trick black people into enslavement at the manor. This scene serves two purposes and one of them is to demonstrate how black people were lured from faraway lands to come and work as slaves in cotton plantations in the United States. Simultaneously, the scene symbolizes America’s history of medical racism where minority groups, including African Americans, are wilfully manipulated and subjected to cruel experiments that eventually make them distrust the nation’s health system. As such, mental health issues such as trauma and depression remain high within such communities because of low rates of doctoral visits and a high likelihood of misdiagnosis due to racial prejudice in the practice of mental health care (Mays et al., 173). Thus, Peele appears to implore upon black people to literally get out of the “sunken place” where they have been weighted down by a lies that have resulted in a negative cultural history and racial trauma.

Get Out also passes for a psychological film when one takes an in-depth look at why Peele makes’s the hypnosis scene the point of conflict leading up to the climax. To explain, the main idea here is that the black servants playing host to weak white people would never have agreed to such an arrangement if they had been told to offer themselves up voluntarily. As such, the Armitage family have to resort to mental manipulation to ensure that they exercise their power over the black people. This concept aligns with a line in The Mis-Education of the Negro where Carter G. Woodson states that: “When you control a man’s thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his ‘proper place’ and will stay in it.” Thus, it can be stated that Chris realized that he was about to be hypnotized and manipulated into giving himself up to the servitude of the Armitage family and hence his blocking out of the hypnotic tools. In other words, Chris realized that his mental freedom was the key to achieving his physical freedom and so he had to do everything possible to avoid falling into the trap of mental manipulation. This goes to show that Get Out is not only a psychological film but also one that beseeches the audience to treat racism as a real problem and not an imagined one.

Get Out could not have come at a better time than it did because for a long time, racial tensions were increasing and threatening to boil over in post-Obama America. Even Peele himself was unsure that the movie would be made not just because of the state of social affairs but also because of budgetary constraints. It thus came as a surprise that it became one of the highest-grossing films of 2017 besides having been directed by an African-American director as a debut feature film. More than that, the film ignited a frenzy both on social media and in public discourse because it tackled the issue of racism head-on. Esquire magazine even called it the “best movie ever made about American slavery” because it utilized spectacular cinematography and story-telling to depict the theft of the black body (Thrasher). However, the film’s gist revolves around the fact that it was produced when the first African American president had just left office and police brutality against black people was alarmingly high. Furthermore, the Trump campaigns carried a hint of racial prejudice against black people and so the film Get Out targeted the racial hypocrisy that was prevalent across the nation. Interestingly, Peele infuses comic effect into the movie, thereby addressing racism while putting the audience at ease. Most importantly, Peele focuses on almost every aspect of racism ranging from interracial relationships to slavery and police brutality among other serious issues that affected the society both previously and at the time that the film was produced.

In summary, the theatrical success of Get Out can be attributed to the fact that the producer took it upon himself to create a film that was not just entertaining but that tackled a real issue affecting millions of people from racial minority groups. The first thing that the movie does is to express the explicit idea that racism is a very prevalent and enduring problem in America even though it is practiced subtly in some places and not in others. To make his point, Peele utilizes the horror/psychological genre to bring out the idea that racism is a horrendous to those who are affected besides being mentally draining to those who cannot wrap their heads around the idea that it is possible to manipulate individuals into assuming that they are not affected by negative racial occurrences. The director does this by showcasing how fearful Chris is at the thought that his mind is about to be taken over and his brain transferred to another person all while he is awake but incapable of doing anything to stop the action. Furthermore, Peele demonstrates how black people have been the subjects of psychological manipulation which prevents them from seeing the true picture of white racism. Chris’s ability to break free from hypnosis and his daring, violent escape in the end offer hope that it is possible to overcome racial white liberal racism and end its terrifying practices. The fact that the movie was written and produced by an African American director also adds to the credibility of the story being narrated and how it impacts the audience. Get Out thus remain one of the most pivotal conversation starters because it explores the whole spectrum of race and race relations while highlighting the consequences of prolonged or passive racism. I would definitely watch this movie again and again because every time I do so and analyze it, I realize something that I may have overlooked before.

MUSIC VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iywaBOMvYLI

Lyrics from Genius: https://genius.com/System-of-a-down-toxicity-lyrics

[Verse 1]

Conversion, software version 7.0

Looking at life through the eyes of a tire hub

Eating seeds as a pastime activity

The toxicity of our city, of our city

[Chorus]

You, what do you own the world? How do you own disorder, disorder?

Now, somewhere between the sacred silence, sacred silence and sleep

Somewhere between the sacred silence and sleep

Disorder, disorder, disorder

[Verse 2]

More wood for their fires, loud neighbors

Flashlight reveries caught in the headlights of a truck

Eating seeds as a pastime activity

The toxicity of our city, of our city

[Chorus]

You, what do you own the world? How do you own disorder, disorder?

Now, somewhere between the sacred silence, sacred silence and sleep

Somewhere between the sacred silence and sleep

Disorder, disorder, disorder

[Instrumental Bridge]

[Chorus]

You, what do you own the world? How do you own disorder?

Now, somewhere between the sacred silence, sacred silence and sleep

Somewhere between the sacred silence and sleep

Disorder, disorder, disorder

[Outro]

When I became the sun, I shone life into the man’s hearts

When I became the sun, I shone life into the man’s hearts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXD0OPFVO_k&feature=youtu.be&t=1h10m40s

In the above video of a concert in 2005, System of a Down introduces the song “Toxicity” as being about ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).  Upon first glance, the lyrics make references to medication and the daily struggle that people with the disorder face.  However, I believe that there is a deeper meaning to the title and lyrics.  Essentially, they illustrate how mental disorders and external societal disorders can’t be separated.

“Toxicity” has its multiple topics playing with each other to illustrate dual internal and external torment which weighs on the writer.  The first and most apparent, is related to drug dependency, which is caused by the ADHD diagnosis.  It is a tangible toxicity, because of the introduction of a foreign substance to the body.

https://www.additudemag.com/truth-nobody-can-handle-the-adhd-hurricanes-in-your-head-alone/

To get an idea of what living with ADHD is like, we can look at this blog post by Frank South, which likens the disorder to having a hurricane in his head.  He uses the imagery to explain how disorganized his thoughts can be and how difficult it is to focus on solitary ideas.  “When someone asks you something, and you realize that even if you stay stone still, dead center, you can’t trust your answer, because you’ve been so focused on not getting sucked in, you haven’t heard much besides the roar in your head. You get better with the balance as time goes on, and you get by, even do well. But the hurricane never goes away. ” Later, he interestingly brings up his motive to write the post.  A tornado that missed their house reminded Frank of how it felt inside his head.

The subject of the song may be experiencing a similar instability.  We can see this from the chorus – “Somewhere between the sacred silence and sleep, disorder, disorder, disorder”.  The subject is clearly not at peace here, but there is one word that sticks out to me – “between”.  Why are “silence” and “sleep” apart from each other and why is disorder in between them?  From the CDC website, one of the common side effects of ADHD medication is trouble sleeping.  In this short and brilliant lyric, we can now see the amazing paradox that is eating away at the subject.  He feels that he must choose between taking the medicine (as a reprieve from the “noise” of the ADHD storm) and having restful sleep (which brings on its own issues).

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/treatment.html

How does one cope with ADHD?  The second line in the first verse sets the scene – “Looking at life through the eyes of a tire hub”.  And how would one see the world as a tire?  You would be spinning in circles until an external controller stops you.  This plainly shows the sentiment that the writer wanted to express, the subject of the song does not feel in control of their monotonous life.  One must then wonder, who is the controller?

To connect with Frank South’s blog post, he often does not feel in control of his mind.  The answer to this issue is the most common treatment for ADHD: pills.  They are the driver of the metaphorical vehicle that is the subject’s life.  The third line in both verses, “eating seeds as a pastime activity” is a metaphor comparing eating seeds to taking medication.  People diagnosed with ADHD feel that they need to take medication to function in the way that society will accept them as “normal”.

This presents an interesting philosophical issue: to attempt to control their lives, they first must let a pill take control of their minds.  By drawing an equivalence between eating seeds (food) and taking pills (medicine), the normalization of drugs is framed in a very negative way by the writer.  After understanding this, the strange first line now makes more sense – “Conversion, software version 7.0”.  Besides the historical context of AOL 7.0 being released in 2001, the writer is likening the effects of the drug to a reprogramming of his mind.  Though, the reprogramming seems to be voluntary.

However, the song doesn’t end here.  We haven’t looked at the fourth line yet!  The fourth line in both verses, is “The toxicity of our city, of our city”.  Then the chorus, (“You, what do you own the world? How do you own disorder, disorder?) keeps escalating the scope of perspective from the individual, to a city, and then a worldview.  While the pronunciation of “city” is contained in “toxicity” and it works well musically, these lines convinced me that we have now transitioned to a different topic and a new definition of toxicity.

To fully understand the lyrics, we first need to know the band’s history and specifically, the writer’s personal background.  System of a Down is very consistent in their lyrical messaging.  The band covers a variety of political and non-political themes such as mass incarceration, war, drug addiction, and the environment.  Though they cover these and many other unpleasant topics, they combined them with other typically unrelated topics in an ingeniously artistic way.

The namesake album was released on September 4, 2001, and eventually sold enough to become RIAA-certified 3x Platinum.  Probably the most famous track, “Chop Suey!”- has a chorus with religious (specifically, Christian) undertones.  It serves as a vehicle for the main theme: drug addiction and suicide.  Essentially, the subject develops a god complex and equates themselves to Jesus Christ.  The lyrics cleverly use Jesus’s plea for death (“Father into your hands; I commend my spirit”), to convey the emotions of an addict in a desperate moment.

In a later album (“Mezmerize”), the song “B.Y.O.B.” has lyrics related to frenzied partying – “Everybody’s going to the party, have a real good time; Dancing in the desert, blowing up the sunshine”.  This is supported by the title – “BYOB” typically means “bring your own beer” – but it is done in a sarcastic and mocking fashion.  The main subject of the song is The War on Terror and the writer’s disapproval towards the upbeat enthusiasm of the American government and the young male recruits.  The song’s attitude is clear: war is not and should not be a “good time”.

I believe that “Toxicity” similarly uses the ADHD medication theme to bring attention to another issue.  While ADHD affects millions of people, I don’t believe that this is solely about the widespread prescriptions. In my opinion, the second theme is a visceral, societal toxicity that exists.  While there are no specific places mentioned, the key to understanding the sentiment behind these lyrics, is knowing the one that penned them: lead vocalist Serj Tankian, who is of Armenian descent.  In his time at California State University – Northridge, he was president of the Armenian Student’s Association and attempted to spread awareness of the Armenian Genocide.  The below link has some information about him.

https://www.csun.edu/magazine/homepage/power-serj

Armenia is a country that has gone through several periods of occupation and unrest, including: Roman occupation, Soviet invasion, and a revolution in 2018.  Though most painful, was when the region was under control of the Ottoman Empire from the 1500s to World War I.  Most Armenians were Christian, and faced heavy abuse and discrimination from their Turkish and Kurdish neighbors.  This continued for centuries, and any resistance was quelled.

Over time, Armenians appealed to anyone they could – including political or religious powers – for help to pressure the Ottoman government.  However, opponents led an ethnic propaganda movement to stir up anti-Armenian sentiment.  The coup of 1908 was only temporarily successful, and the tension eventually reached a breaking point with the countercoup of 1909.  The new extremist religious government sought to restore Islamic authoritarian rule and exterminate all political opponents and ethic outsiders.  Unfortunately, they were very successful, and it resulted in one of the worst genocides in human history.

Though the Ottoman Empire fell shortly thereafter, the current Turkish government still does not admit any wrongdoing.  By attempting to justify the genocide, Turkey has essentially “owned disorder”, which is the ringing refrain of the chorus.  “Disorder” is repeated 14 times in the song, as opposed to “toxicity” only being said twice.  It’s not hard to see why Tankian dwelled on that word, and his grief is conveyed in his singing.

The full line is “You, what do you own the world? How do you own disorder, disorder?”  From hearing the vocal inflection, these questions are extremely defiant and interrogative in nature.  Who is he speaking to?  I believe that this line might be speaking to oppressive governments (such as Turkey) who own land, but it might reveal a dual meaning related to the ADHD and addiction theme.

Who might “own” ADHD and the medication?  Certainly not the ones suffering from it.  These questions might be directed at psychiatrists who diagnose and write the prescriptions.  They are the final authority in treating this disorder, and the writer may believe that this is like “owning” it.  Thus, this contributes to the societal toxicity of the “civilized” world.  In asking these questions, Tankian has exhibited issues in developed and undeveloped countries.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3277258/

The above medical article examines studies on causes of ADHD.  In addition to exposure to substances in pregnancy, exposure to heavy metals and chemicals, and nutritional deficiencies, there are other environmental factors contributing to development of ADHD.  Such factors include maternal stress and childhood trauma.  The sad history of Tankian’s ancestors is part of his own identity, and perhaps like other System of a Down song lyrics, he was again trying to channel his related emotions into this song.

Such traumatic experiences can be perpetuated and exacerbated by society.  Other clues from the rest of the lyrics such as “More wood for their fires, loud neighbors; Flashlight reveries caught in the headlights of a truck” can be interpreted in two ways.  The first is a comparison to mental burnout and external disturbances.  However, the music video shows people huddled around a trash can on fire.  If we recall the “seeds” line, people eating literal seeds because they have nothing better to do is quite a dismal scene.

By intertwining these multiple issues in the lyrics, I believe that Tankian attempted to show the inseparability of mental disorder and societal disorder.  System of a Down has been consistently outspoken against societal destabilization and advocating for human rights.  Even if the lyrics were not to be taken literally, it still fits the expectations of their audience.  This seems to have been an intentional decision by Serj Tankian and helps solidify the band’s identity while “becoming the sun”, illuminating a taboo and uncomfortable topic and bringing it into public discourse.

https://adhdawarenessmonth.org/coalition/

October is ADHD Awareness Month, agreed upon by a coalition of nonprofit organizations and medical associations.

New York City is Dead Forever. Here’s Why… This is the name of an article that New Yorker James Altucher wrote in August 2020. When I read this title, I immediately felt insulted. “NYC better not be dead,” I thought, “I just committed to living in the city for four years during college, and one of the main reasons I wanted to come was because it’s the city of opportunity!” This bold title compelled me to further investigate. In the back of my mind, I was probably thinking, “Wow… I have to read this just to see how big of an idiot this guy really is!” And as I read, I realized that Altucher actually brought up some very valid and unique points. As much as I wanted to believe that Altucher was just a naïve pessimist, I couldn’t help but spend a lot of time considering the ideas from the article. To convince his audience that New York City is dead forever, James Altucher establishes his authority as a well-versed New Yorker who has always loved his city and presents statistical data that alludes to the dark future that NYC could have in store.

James Altucher is an author, an owner of a comedy club in New York City, and a former hedge fund manager who has lived in the city for many years. When he first moved to NYC, Altucher felt like it was a “dream come true.” New York was everything he wanted and more; the friends, the family, and the opportunity was like nothing he had ever experienced. For the readers who expected the author of an article like this to be somewhat biased, the fact that Altucher has lived in the city for quite some time and has enjoyed it so immensely makes his argument much more legitimate. This allows the reader to feel like they can trust what Altucher is saying because he has established credibility with his audience. By expressing his feelings about all of the things that he has loved while living in NYC, Altucher makes his audience feel like they are looking at this issue from the same side.

Altucher believes that business in New York City will take a tremendous hit from the pandemic which will be tough to recover from. One thing he highlights is that only 500 people – out of 8,000 – are currently working at the Time Life building in midtown Manhattan. This alarming statistic confirms that many New Yorkers are either unemployed or working from home. Because more people are able to work online, the need for a physical workspace is diminishing. This means that the need for office space will start to decline, and people will be able to work from any place with an internet connection. With such a low percentage of people who are still working in an actual office, we have to ask ourselves: will New York continue to be a major hub for business in the future?

On the topic of businesses, our author actually happens to have a business of his own. Altucher “co-owns a comedy club, Standup NY, on West 78th and Broadway.” On a somewhat special and spontaneous occasion, someone famous showed up at Altucher’s club. “One time, Henry Winkler stopped by to come on my podcast. He was the one who told me it had been a theater. He said, ‘I grew up two doors down from here and used to perform in here as a kid. Then I went out to LA to be the Fonz and now I’m back here, full circle, to be on your podcast. This place has history.’” By recounting this experience, Altucher demonstrates in greater detail part of the reason he loves New York so much. On top of the fact that he moved to New York to find opportunity and pursue his passions, Altucher has the privilege of spontaneously meeting people that could have an impact on him for the rest of his life. This is something that many people who either live in NYC or hope to live in NYC look at as an example of why it’s so wonderful. Altucher does a great job of relating to his audience to make them feel like they feel the same way about New York. Altucher once again demonstrates his credibility through a personal anecdote that highlights his love for the culture that is so unique to New York City.

Another big aspect of New York City that Altucher considers is the food scene. Everyone knows that NYC has the widest range of food options in the entire world. Food is definitely one of the best parts of NYC; no matter where you are, you can always find something good to eat. Citing the well-known restaurant review website Yelp, Altucher informs his audience that 60% of restaurants in the United States have closed, and the percentage could be even higher for restaurants in New York.  Because food is such a big part of the city, the frequency of restaurant closures is quite alarming. This could possibly mean that fewer people will be drawn towards the city since one of its greatest perks won’t be as great as it has been in the past.

Since people aren’t commuting to the office or going to restaurants and clubs, Altucher believes that we need to think about how New York City’s real estate market will be affected. As businesses start to close, Altucher claims that prices for real estate will go down which means that apartments and office spaces will become much cheaper. While one might think this is good because more people will want to move into the city, it actually could have the opposite effect. Altucher believes that as prices go down, people will wait… and wait… and wait, “until everyone loses.” To explain this point, Altucher puts the audience in the shoes of someone who is considering buying or renting a place in NYC. As someone who is looking to live in the city, you might have the thought: “Hmmm, everyone is saying NYC is heading back to the 1970s, so even though prices might be 50% lower than they were a year ago, I think I will wait a bit more. Better safe than sorry!” The result is that landlords and real estate owners end up going broke. By putting his audience in the shoes of a person who is looking to rent a place in New York, Altucher is able to shape his audience’s perspective to help them understand why this deflationary spiral might take place in New York’s real estate market.

Even though he has established and backed up his bold claim on the future of NYC, Altucher still understands why some people might be skeptical about NYC being dead: “New York always comes back, even after 9/11 and the 2008 recession.” But Altucher believes this time is different. Because of the increased internet bandwidth, high-quality video calls are now possible; and not only are they possible, but they have also become much more reliable than they were in the past. “People have left New York City and have moved completely into virtual worlds. The Time-Life building doesn’t need to fill up again. Wall Street can now stretch across every street instead of just being one building in Manhattan.”  By addressing a possible counterargument, Altucher reveals that he isn’t being closed-minded while discussing his stance on New York. Not only does this improve his overall argument, but it also adds to his credibility as someone who looks at an issue from multiple perspectives.

Right now, New York City might not be as great of a place to live as it once was, but it’s hard to say if it will be that way forever. It is important to consider the timeliness of Altucher’s article. The article was written in August 2020, which was in the thick of the pandemic. When things are bad, it can be quite hard to see how they could ever get better. Although Altucher makes many great arguments, we need to take a step back and realize that no one can predict the future with 100% accuracy. Since we don’t know what the future might have in store for us, all we can do is speculate with the information we currently have. This is exactly what Altucher is doing. He is generating claims from the things that he knows to be true at this current time. While it isn’t a bad thing to predict the future, we must recognize that any predictions made about the future come from a more narrow perspective than reflections made about the past.

James Altucher builds a strong claim that New York City is dead forever and he supports his assertion by establishing credibility as someone who knows a thing or two about life in New York, and by illustrating the effects that certain statistics will have on NYC. There is no doubt that NYC has taken a big hit from the pandemic; we can see how it has affected businesses, restaurants, clubs, real estate, and culture in the city. The question we should be asking ourselves is “will this be permanent?” Are the issues that Altucher discusses just a short-term effect of the pandemic, or will they change the city forever? There is a classic virtue that says “only time will tell.” This is something I believe we all should keep in mind when we hear bold statements about the future. Never expect to find the complete truth about something that hasn’t happened yet. All we can do when we see things like, “New York City is Dead Forever… Here’s Why,” is hope to gain a new perspective on a complex issue. So… Is New York City really dead forever? Only time will tell…