Dr. Rice and I are emailing back and forth over my presentation topic. I'm most comfortable (knowledgeable) discussing military rhetoric, but I can't quite narrow down which particular topic. So, at Dr. Rice's advice, I'm posting here to get feedback from my classmates. The one specific we agreed on is the difference between "civilian" and "military" rhetoric on topics of interest, and I intend to take a "boots on the ground" approach to the miltiary side - as opposed to what the service Chiefs of Staff say.
1. Snowden/Manning - are they heroes or traitors, or a little of both?
2. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl - the core value of "never leave someone behind, "he walked away willingly," and the role PTSD may have played in this situation
3. Women in direct line of fire
I'm looking at these current topics, though each has a historical background as well. Participate in your representative democracy and vote!
What do you all think? I wonder, Lancia, if you can find cases of famous rhetoricians invoking the military, too... Military rhetoric. A while back one of our students worked on military training through gaming and the dehumanizing of combatants.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at women in combat, then I'm guessing your audience could profit from your thoughts (however brief) on policy (via JCoS) as a way to frame your broader discussion re: the arguments of service members and civilians.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find the women in combat topic most interesting, but you probably could have guessed that from my response to your first post. As an outsider, I see the military's rhetoric as having a gendered double-standard in so many ways - the level of respect (or lack thereof) in ranking, instances of rape, etc.; the positions that are more "appropriate" for women; even the physical requirements of training, physical appearance (hair, uniforms, etc.). I would be interested to hear your take on the rhetoric surrounding women in the line of fire, but they all sound intriguing.
ReplyDelete