Jodie Nicotra

Dr. Nicotra

English 101-08

Essay 2

2/28/11 Jodie Nicotra 3/1/11 1:44 PM

Comment: Proper 101 formatting!

Echoes of 1776 in 2011:

A Rhetorical Analysis of Nicholas Kristof’s “Watching Protesters Risk It All” Jodie Nicotra 3/1/11 1:44 PM
Comment: title: does rhetorical work by
giving indication of content and purpose of
paper.

The beginning of 2011 witnessed what most had considered unimaginable: spontaneous

(and successful!) pro-democracy revolutions in several traditionally authoritarian Middle Eastern

countries. Sparked by anger from citizens who were fed up with poor living conditions and the

lack of political freedom, protests in both Tunisia and Egypt led to the ousting of dictators that

had held power for almost three decades. The success of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt

emboldened citizens of the nearby, equally authoritarian country of Bahrain to begin its own

agitations for revolution. But despite their initial enthusiasm, Bahraini protesters met with far

more resistance than did the Tunisians and Egyptians: brutal crackdowns from the Bahraini

government threatened to squash the revolution before it even got off the ground. Jodie Nicotra 3/1/11 1:41 PM
Comment: rhetorical situation: cultural
context for rhetorical analysis
Astonishing or not, historic or not, the events in Bahrain at first received only uneasy,

half-hearted attention from the United States government. In his New York Times op-ed article

“Watching Protesters Risk It All,” Nicholas Kristof suggests that perhaps this is because the

United States had for years “[turned] a blind eye to torture in repression” in Bahrain so long as

U.S. economic interests (like maintaining an uninterrupted oil supply) were protected. In part this

was because the U.S. feared that the “democratic rabble” might turn against it: at least with
 2

authoritarian regimes, one only has to deal with a small group of crackpots. But in his article,

published February 20, 2011, Kristof argues that the time has come to change this way of

thinking. Claiming that “Far too often, we were both myopic and just plain on the wrong side,” Jodie Nicotra 3/1/11 1:41 PM
Comment: rhetorical situation: exigence for
Kristof’s piece
Kristof argues that this time, we should make sure we’re on the right side: Americans should

support the Bahrainis in their quest for democracy. By drawing a comparison between the events Jodie Nicotra 3/1/11 1:40 PM
Comment: Kristof’s main claim

in Bahrain to a revolution near and dear to American hearts – i.e., the American Revolution of

1776 – Kristof delivers a powerful rhetorical appeal for Americans to stand behind the pro-

democratic enthusiasm of the Bahrainis. Jodie Nicotra 3/1/11 1:41 PM

Comment: My thesis: what Kristof tries to
persuade his audience of, and how he tries to
Like many opinion columnists, Kristof writes for an audience who is already likely to do it.

buy into his opinion about Bahrain. New York Times readers in general tend to be well educated

(the newspaper is written on a twelfth-grade level, far above national newspapers like USA

Today and more local papers like The New York Post, both of which are written on a sixth-grade

level). Times readers also tend to be fairly liberal – the Times is known for having a liberal bias,

something that can be seen just by perusing the other regular op-ed columnists: Maureen Dowd,

Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, and Bob Herbert are known for espousing liberal points of

view. And in addition to being well educated and liberal, readers of Kristof’s columns typically

are interested in international affairs. Kristof is famous for writing about the genocides in

Rwanda and Sudan, human trafficking in Vietnam and Thailand, and the need for foreign aid in

Africa. Thus, typical readers of Kristof’s article would have a good sense of at least Kristof’s

basic worldview before they even read his article. Jodie Nicotra 3/1/11 1:41 PM
Comment: rhetorical situation: audience

At the center of Kristof’s argument to support the Bahrainis is an explicit analogy

between the American and the Bahraini revolutions. “To me, this feels like the Arab version of

1776,” he writes. Kristof compares one severely wounded young Bahraini determined to
 3

continue protesting to Americans who showed “a similar kind of grit” in the U.S. revolution

against Britain. Simply by suggesting this analogy, Kristof sets off a chain of logical dominos in

readers’ minds. America is a democratic society, so democracy is good; therefore countries like

Bahrain who are protesting for democracy must by extension be good. Likewise, just as

Americans showed determination and fought against the injustice of a repressive government

several hundred years ago, the Bahrainis are fighting back against their own repressive

government. And finally, if Americans hadn’t had the support of outside countries like France,

we would have lost the Revolutionary War; thus, by analogy, it’s important for us to support

Bahrain in its quest for democracy. Jodie Nicotra 3/1/11 1:42 PM

Comment: Logos: how Kristof persuades
readers through the structure of his argument
Kristof repeats “democracy,” “democratic,” and “freedom” throughout the article, as if to (an analogy).

remind Americans not to dismiss the events in Bahrain as a regular old revolt, something that

seems to be happening all the time in those countries “over there.” Rather, as Kristof writes in

the first paragraph, these Bahraini men, women, and teenagers “risk torture, beatings, and even

death because they want freedoms that we take for granted” – again, creating an explicit analogy

between Americans and Bahrainis. Even though the situations of America in 1776 and that of

Bahrain in 2011 are vastly different, simply suggesting this similarity is likely to foster

agreement in Kristof’s target audience. Jodie Nicotra 3/1/11 1:42 PM

Comment: Logos: use of “democracy” to
reinforce analogy.
To persuade his readers of the importance and rightness of supporting the Bahraini cause,

Kristof relies heavily on emotional appeals to awe at the human spirit, to a sense of justice, and

to hope. Along with the example of the young man above, for instance, Kristof also mentions a

paraplegic who “had been hit by two rubber bullets and was planning to return to the democracy

protests for more.” Examples of such clear determination and drive for democracy are designed

to inspire awe in readers of Kristof’s article. If these people are willing to wait “until democracy
 4

arrived, or die trying” (just like we did 300 years ago!), shouldn’t we at least support them in

their cause? Jodie Nicotra 3/1/11 1:43 PM

Comment: Pathos: appeals to readers’
emotions (sense of justice, fairness, hope).
In fact, to not support Bahrainis in their quest for democracy, Kristof suggests, would put
Structure: make a claim, provide examples to
support that claim, show how this persuades
his New York Times readers on the side of a government that perpetuates systematic injustice. readers to accept Kristof’s main point.

Because the king and the government are Sunni and the majority of the Bahraini people are Shia,

injustice is built into the currently existing Bahraini system. As Kristof writes, the United States

has up until now “been in bed with a minority Sunni elite…that is also steeped in corruption,

repression, and profound discrimination toward the Shia population.” This discrimination

manifests itself in multiple ways: the majority Shiites have poor living situations and are

excluded from finding jobs in the public sector or in the armed forces, which are dominated by

Sunnis. By including examples of anti-Shiite prejudice by the Bahraini government, Kristof

appeals to the sense of fairness that’s deeply engrained in his liberal readers and makes his case

for supporting the Bahraini pro-democracy revolution more urgent.

Finally, Kristof shows that despite the depressing situation that Bahrainis have faced until

now, there is real hope for change. He begins his article with a harrowing situation. He, along

with other journalists are watching as pro-democracy protesters march toward the “spiritual

center” of the protests and their possible deaths by pro-government forces. He writes, “I flinched

and braced myself to watch them die.” However, miraculously the protesters didn’t die – and we

find out later that it was because President Obama had called the Bahranian king after he had

started shooting protesters and the shooting subsequently stopped. As Kristof describes it, “The

protesters fell on the ground of the roundabout and kissed the soil. They embraced each other.

They screamed. They danced. Some wept.” Including such moving scenes is designed to create a

sense of relief and hope among Kristof’s readers. It also gives readers the idea that if they
 5

support the Bahrainis, they will be on the winning side. And who doesn’t want to be on the

winning side – the side of justice, of freedom, and of democracy?

 6

Works Cited

Kristof, Nicholas. “Watching Protesters Risk It All.” The New York Times. n.pag. 20 Feb. 2011.

Web. 28 Feb 2011.