All
of Earth’s inhabitants have heard of climate change. Some tend to deny it is
happening, others accept and take action, and some become scared and fearful of
climate change… this I would like to point the finger at Bill McKibben for.
McKibben
tends to turn people away from action and force them into fearing climate
change and preparing for the worse. Mann writes in his article, “McKibben
provides occasional scenarios of the future as distant as 2215, stories quite
frightening. One example: sea level rise cause Bangladeshis, desperate for land
and food, to crash through a barrier erected by India, whereupon India
annihilates the Bangladeshis with nuclear weapons” (par. 1). This is a prime
example of the fear McKibben hands to his audience. This fear could result in a backfire and could make people run and hide
instead of prompt action. All in all McKibben’s writing is completely unhelpful
and has to got to go.
Gif courtesy of TwistedSifter.com
If you read the above quote from
McKibben predicting the future from the effects of climate would you be fearful
or inspired to go out and make a difference. My guess is that fear was thrown
upon you from reading. This is my point exactly. McKibben is supposedly a world-renowned
environmentalist, but with reading his book Earth
and according to the research I have done on him would beg to differ.
During my research, I discovered a comparison of one
of McKibben’s book and Walt Disney’s nature film Bambi . For example, “ McKibben, on hearing a chain saw in the
distance in the woods behind his home The
End of Nature writes, ‘It is harder on those days to get caught up in the
timeless meaning of the forest, for man is nearby.’ McKibben ignores that he is a man and is in the forest” (White
114). He continues to explain that the quote from the book is an assimilation
of Disney, whose talking animals stand in for man in order to proclaim that man
is alien to nature (White 114). The quote also echoes Bambi’s mother whose line
“man is in the forest” for shadows all the terrible things that happen in the
film, and the function of humans in the story is to destroy (White 114).
Through the usage of Disney’s film,
McKibben is telling his audience that the function of humans in the story is to
destroy. Humans are intruders who do not belong in the forest, and when they come
they disrupt and kill. Once again, McKibben continues to criticize the human
race as a whole, therefore in my opinion motivating not one of us to action.
Are these authors and I right in saying that
McKibben’s technique is not helpful?
Yes, because McKibben is forcing fear upon his readers. McKibben’s
attitude is that we have destroyed the Earth. There is clearly no turning back,
therefore McKibben simply continues to show examples on how we have destroyed
the world and hands us possible worse cases that will happen in the future due
to our actions. That is why McKibben’s attitude and approach is not helpful and he has got to go.
Works Cited
Mann,
Thomas W. “Major Reviews.” Interpretation
(2011). Academic OneFile. Web. 28
Oct. 2013
White,
Richard. “Bill McKibben’s Emersonian Vision.” (2011). Raritan. Web 28 Oct.
2013.
Danielle, from reading your blog post, I can clearly tell that you are passionate about your subject: Bill McKibben needs to be stopped. This is something I definitely agree with, seeing that his fear-instilling writing is unhelpful in this crisis, as you wrote about. I think your greatest appeal is to pathos. You write about how “this fear could result in a backfire and could make people run and hide instead of prompt action.” Global warming believers would definitely not be okay with this, so you are directly speaking to this audience and making them feel that it is urgent we remove McKibben for the good of our world. We want to take action, and we don't want anyone to run and hide in cowardice. This also makes you credible. Several times in the blog, you cite sources to back up your opinions. You show that you are not the only one who holds these opinions, and you instill in your audience the idea that McKibben is wrong to scare people. Your evaluative argument is 100% effective, in my opinion. In order to face this battle against climate change, we need steady and strong soldiers, not scared ones. This work makes your audience feel motivated to ban together and be strong through this battle. If I were you, I would have maybe used some examples in McKibben's text where he instilled unnecessary fear into his readers. This would more easily show your audience exactly what you mean. Since I have read McKibben, I totally understand your point, but if someone outside of the freshman English world were to read your post and had never read McKibben, they may be confused. Other than that, your post is completely effective. You evaluated McKibben greatly and made an excellent point overall.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I like that you got right to your main point in the first few sentences. I believe your persuasive purpose was to convince your audience that the way Bill McKibben writes about climate change is not helpful and will only turn people away in fear. I believe you accomplished your persuasive goal by using a combination of ethos, pathos, and logos. You used ethos by using credible sources and giving them credit by citing them. In your blog, you used pathos when discussing how McKibben blames humans for everything and makes us seem like monsters that want to destroy. Also, you inserted some comic relief into your blog with the gif of the man dramatically telling someone to get out, but it was also relevant to how you feel about Bill McKibben’s approach to climate change action. You used logos in your blog with all the interesting evidence used to support your beliefs that offshore oil drilling is not the answer. You definitely convinced me that McKibben should no longer try to persuade people to take action because he is only hurting the cause. If I could change one thing, it would be to use a picture to enhance your blog. Very well done!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your article Danielle! The thing that really stuck out to me was how bold and passionate you were about disproving Bill McKibben. I like how you immediately came out with the facts and did not tinker with transitional sentences around your main points. Your introduction was impeccable, and I could clearly see what the rest of the article was going to be about. I never knew a three word title could be so powerful. I commend you for that! You brought upon an ethos appeal when you referenced Thomas Mann's article. Bringing up the quite frightening sea level rise was a shock to me! You related to me on more of an emotional appeal when you brought up the classic Disney movie, Bambi. This related to my childhood, and I could clearly see the comparison of man being destructive in the forests. Danielle, I believe you were successful in accomplishing your persuasive purpose, because of all of the bold, straight up comments that you made in your blog. They were short and concise, but I enjoyed reading the Bill McKibben rip session. I loved everything, but if I was going to change one thing, it would be to introduce Bill McKibben more. If I had not read McKibben's Eaarth, I probably would not know who this passionate environmentalist was. Great Job Danielle!
ReplyDelete