Journal Article Critique-“The Presence of the Present: Hijacking ‘The Good War’? ” In the journal article critique “The Presence of the Present: Hijacking ‘Hijacking ‘The Good War’? ” the authors, V. William Balthrop, Carole Blair, and Neil Michel, critique the WWII Memorial, which was opened up to the public in 2004. They state clearly in their thesis that “[They] contend that the Memorial’s rhetoric affirms contemporary U. S. mperialism under the revered sign of World War II, ‘speaking’ more about the present than about the past. [They] argue that this interpretation forwards important issues for memory studies, about assessing the ethical and political legitimacy of particular renditions of the past in the present”(Balthrop, Blari, Michel 1). But how exactly did the authors come to these conclusions? Well, simply put, they analyzed the rhetoric of the dedication ceremony in order to do so.
The authors assert that the only reason they believe they can interpret the memorial and the many seemingly unrelated symbols to begin with is through the “event of its dedication”, and they “attend to it as the principal epideictic, present-focused vehicle for interpreting the Memorial”(Balthrop, Blari, Michel 2). They argue that without analyzing the dedication ceremony (as many of the other critics failed to do, thus yielding unsatisfactory critiques), the monument and its many symbols come off as illegible and inchoate, but with it, the authors are able to rationalize, as they see, the underlying meanings and motives behind the WWIIM.
Another rhetoric that the authors point out without necessarily stating, is how the government used pathos trying to evoke patriotism by connecting WWII with the present day Iraq War, and War on Terror as a whole, trying to evoke the American ideology within the citizens of fighting for freedom The way the authors organized their message, the structure, is quite important as well. The article’s design is set up in an easy to follow set-up format with clearly identifiable changes in topics, with titles labeling each main topic and then the individual subtopics within the overall main one being discussed.
With each new section the authors have a clear introduction that provides background information or other information they deem critical to mention before continuing with their main points, and ends with a conclusion wrapping the whole section up, yet at the same time also leading the reader the next argument or topic. Also, the authors tend to place the most important information/their biggest points at the end of each section, and this is true for the work as a whole too, creating both a good pacing of ideas because the reader isn’t bombarded by too much information at once, and a reoccurring easy to follow pattern for the reader.
After reading the article, I find it safe to say that the authors were quite largely effective in convincing the reader to see the WWIIM for what it truly is, or at least their interpretation of it. Although they didn’t us a multitude of rhetorical theories to support their critique (or at least that I could see), they made a strong case for why one must look at the present and the rhetoric of the dedication ceremony to understand the monument.
From the lack of foreign speakers helping to interpret the lack of any real mention to the other nations that fought in the war, showing how America was at odds with many of its western allies over the Iraq War at the time, to the symbolism of America as an imperialist empire policing and ruling the world with the imposing emotionless memorial standing above the waters symbolizing the world. Not to mention the fact that George Bush was running for reelection that year with an ever-decreasing popularity, and somehow his name appears blatantly described on the memorial in obvious and clear sight.
One of the most profound points made by the authors though, or the one I was most shocked to have pointed out, was how the government at the time under the Bush presidency, tried to use the dedication ceremony of the WWII Memorial to compare the War on Terror to WWII, by calling it “the good fight” just like WWII, making comparisons to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 along with others, blatantly turning the whole event into one big government propaganda campaign, thus in a way sullying the WWII effort as a whole by trying to bring it on the same level as the War on Terror.
This list of all the ways the symbolism of the monument connect to the dedication ceremony and the present time are seemingly endless. The structure of the article was definitely one of the strong points as well. Even though the article was on the long side, the structuring of the article made it easy for the reader to clearly separate arguments, and seemed to divide the paper up into a handful of short easy to read articles, helping to place an emphasis on each point hey were trying to convey, yet tying them all in well together at the end. The one criticism I must give is that throughout the paper is sometimes, the author tend to hint at some sort of underlying bias they may have against Bush/conservatives when they use words such as “imperialist pretensions of the Bush administration and its neo-conservative surrogates” (Balthrop, Blari, Michel 15), and I would recommend the authors use better word choices in order to not show this bias.
