A Narrative Analysis of Brave

Brave is a Disney/Pixar film that was released in 2012 and quickly became popular due to a spunky ginger with a bow and a serious attitude. Merida (our spunky ginger) became the first female protagonist in any Pixar film and defied the traditional gender roles enforced by all other Disney princess. Despite what her mother wants, Merida does not need a prince charming to help rule her future kingdom, all she wants is to be in control of her own fate. All she wants is a normal life!

Using a narrative perspective to analyze this film, I will evaluate the coherence (how the story hangs together and how plausible is the sequence of events) and the fidelity (to what degree does the story ring true with what we regard as truthful) using the sequence of events that occur as well as evaluating characters and settings. Many events takes place take place in a proper order: Merida disputes her betrothal, defies her parents, argues with her mother, “accidentally” turns her mother into a bear, uses the remainder of the film to break the spell, and finally restores their relationship. The events in this magical world occur in chronological order, giving the story a consistent flow that presents a unified story.

Although the story takes place in Scotland, there are several smaller settings, such as: the castle, the courtyard, and the forest. Merida and her mother are essential characters to understanding the moral. Merida is young, energetic, hopeful, and unpredictable. Her mother, Elinor, represents responsibility. Merida’s role is empowering and influential for all younger genders. She refuses to take part in traditional values set by her culture and rebels against her family in order to stay true to her self. Her actions have a revolutionary impact on her community and because of her bravery; she is granted the freedom to determine her own destiny. Being in control of your own fate or destiny is important and because of this, Merida’s desire to control that is plausible and justifies her actions. Thus, the moral of the story is acceptable. Her rebellion is a reflection on the moral of the story, which is to take chances, be brave, and control your own destiny.

Independence Day - a narrative analysis

 

The classic 1990's film Independence Day, directed by Roland Emmerich, is a good fictional example of the U.S going through a national tragedy or disaster. In this film, America has to fight off an alien invasion that takes place between July 1 through July 4. The main morals that are argued for in this movie are that we should not be separated by our petty differences such as race or gender, and that we have to fight(kill) for our independence.

 

I conducted a rhetorical analysis of the film Independence Day using a narrative perspective. A narrative perspective identifies arguments proposed as morals through storytelling, complete with characters plots and actions. Morals, in regards to narrative criticism, basically means the argument or point of view a story proposes about the way we should or should not believe or behave. One of the major steps in conducting a narrative analysis is to describe and interpret the text. During this step, one describes the setting, characters, events, and causal relations. Some of the main characters in this film are President Thomas J. Whitmore, who is played by Bill Pullman, Dr. David Levinson, played by Judd Hirsch, and Captain Steven Hiller, who is played by Will Smith. Some of the major settings in this movie include the white house, Area 51, and an alien mother ship. One of the major aspects of this film are the casual relations found in it. Aliens attack which cause the humans to go to Area 51 where they learn the secrets to defeating the aliens.The final step in a narrative analysis is to examine the narrative rationality. Narrative rationality is our assessment of the value-laden ideological arguments proposed. The two standards of narrative rationality we apply to stories are coherence and fidelity. Fidelity refers to the degree to which the values or morals conveyed in the story ring true with what we regard as truthful and humane. The first moral conveyed, as previously stated is that we should not be separated by our petty differences, such as race and gender. This moral is conveyed during the President's speech towards the end of the movie. The second moral is that we have to fight or kill for our independence. In other words, it is kill or be killed.

  



Music to My Ears

     When the stock market crashed in autumn of 1929 people of the United States did not have much to rely upon. Thankfully, a creative refuge emerged in the form of music. Pictured above left is one of the crooners of the day, Bing Crosby. In 1932, Crosby sang "Brother Can You Spare a Dime?," this somber tune described the woes of unemployment and the bitterness partnered with the Great Depression. Next to the picture of Crosby is Rudy Vallee, who was another popular jazz singer in the Depression-era. Vallee's song, "Life is Just a Bowl of Cherries," had a completely different feel than Crosby's. The song was one of hopeful optimism and looking past the current economic distress.        

    By looking through the lens of a narrative perspective, the rhetorical value of these Depression-era songs are brought to life. Now narrative perspective criticism brings these two concepts together: coherence and fidelity. Coherence is defined as the degree to which a narrative hangs together, and fidelity is the believability of a story. The story Crosby offers in his tune was very relatable to everyone after the stock market crash. A verse from the song reads, "They used to tell me I was building a dream/With peace and glory ahead/ Why should I be standing in line/ Just waiting for bread?" The struggle of impoverished life in the early 1930's is emphasized and relevant in and throughout the song. However, Vallee's song did not hold the same coherence to people of the Depression-era. Since he went for a more upbeat approach, "Life is Just a Bowl of Cherries" offered listeners a chance to find refuge outside of their current economic predicaments. The settings for these songs are quite different, too. In "Brother Can You Spare a Dime?" the setting is impoverished America where workers are promised the "American Dream" but given a bread line. Whereas, "Life is Just a Bowl of Cherries" has a setting of carefree America forgetting the troubles of the stock market crash. 


    The characters in each song are working-class men, and are either making ends meet or advised to slow down and enjoy life. There are multiple events engrained into the lyrics of these songs. Both have the major event of the Great Depression weaved into their messages. In "Life is Just a Bowl of Cherries" the major event is honestly forgetting about the recession and your worries. The minor event would be reminding those who are bustling around finding work to think about why they get so busy. The dominant event in both songs is the effect that the stock market crash of 1929 has on American citizens. The target audience of these songs are those suffering from these effects. All in all, these songs chime along with the hearts of those hurting people of the Depression era. The songs convey differing messages of, both, hope and reality. 

     

Shame on who? : A Burkean Analysis of Forks Over Knives

     The American waistline is growing. According to the CDC , more than one-third of U.S. adults are obese.  Obesity causes serious or fatal health conditions like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and strokes. In response to this rising health epidemic, doctors Colin Campbell and Caldwell Esselstyn produced the documentary Forks Over Knives. The documentary aims to dispel beliefs that we must have meat and dairy products in order to be healthy. The doctors argue that placing animal proteins on a nutritional pedestal is the very reason that our nation ended up in our current health crisis. 

     Forks Over Knives points a finger at the food industry. According to Kenneth Burke's redemptive cycle, victimage (blaming someone or something else) is caused by guilt. It it this guilt that spurs a society in to action. For guilt to be experienced, order must be broken. In our society, the accepted rule is that people remain trim and fit. Because humans crave consubstantiality (the need to feel like we are one of those fit and trim people that we deem "good" in society), we feel guilt when when our bodies don't measure up to the gold standard. Our society doesn't look kindly on people who have broken the rules regarding body image, and people are often ostracized for being overweight (fat shaming). Burke says this guilt must be purged. Guilt is purged through mortification (blaming one's self) or victimage (blaming someone else). 

     Forks Over Knives relies on this victimage to ignite healthy changes it it's viewers. Being overweight is not necessarily the fault of the individual, but instead the fault of a greedy industry. The documentary tragically frames the food industry as a money driven giant, concerned more with profits than people. For example, the documentary asserts that the USDA sets it's dietary guidelines on what crops it is subsidizing, namely corn. Corn, which is high in sugar, if often broken down into

Depiction of  how different calories fill the stomach 

high-fructose corn syrup and placed into processed foods- a major component of the American diet. This corn subsidy also serves the booming meat and dairy industry, since cows (and other animals) are fed corn to produce more meat, milk, and cheese.The documentary uncovers that 6 of the 11 members of the USDA have known ties with the food industry. Pointing out this revolving door that the food industry seems to have in Washington shatters our trust in the food industry and our government's ability to regulate it for the health and well-being of the nation. 

     By the end of the documentary, the viewer feels outraged at being mislead by the industry, the government, and media. If the documentary stopped there, little change could occur. Burke believed that true societal change could only happen through comic framing. Comic framing in this sense doesn't mean funny. Instead, it allows us to view ourselves as comic fools - as individual who have been duped by the industry,  Forks Over Knives offers us the opportunity to see the error of our ways. This is illustrated by showcasing the journey of the documentary's director, Lee Fulkerson, In the beginning of the documentary, he downs two red bulls and one and half Coca-Colas in order to start his day. He admits that he eats fast food on a regular basis.  He is overweight, has high cholesterol and blood pressure, and is a prime candidate for heart disease. Through education about his diet and the evils of the food industry, he is able to see the error of his ways. He changes to a plant-based, whole foods diet and his health greatly improves. With a significant reduction of weight and improved health, he is now redeemed. His body image and health are no longer unacceptable in terms of society because his body image more closely resembles the norm. 

     In the end, the documentary inspires us to all be like Lee. We can see the error of our ways, transform our diets, and in turn, transform our bodies and our lives. You can check out the website here for more information regarding the documentary.

 

30 Days

       The best way to learn about a person is to walk a mile in their shoes. Morgan Spurlock does just that in his show “30 Days”. (This show is available to watch on Netflix.) In every episode he lives in a given situation for 30 days. The documentary is exemplary of life for those living in poverty because of the low minimum wage. Though this was released in 2005, I feel that it still holds true across America today.

Morgan Spurlock and his fiancee Alex choose to live off of minimum wage for 30 days. They turn over all of their savings and credit cards, and start out with only what they would earn after one week in a minimum wage job. They chose to conduct their experiment in Columbus, Ohio because it is representative of the economic situation in America at the time. In 2005 the minimum wage was $5.15 an hour, and it had not been raised since 1997 but America, job openings, and the cost of living had certainly changed.After taxes they each got to start out with $178.47. At the time minimum wage had not been raised in 8 years,

Morgan and Alex narrate the documentary, but there are two other minimum wage workers that tell Morgan about their hardships while living off of minimum wage. The first is an older man who worked for GM 25 years before the making of this episode, and making less than GM paid all those years ago. The other worker is a young man in his early 20’s, raising 4 kids and supporting his wife as well. This man leads Morgan to think about the cost of children and child care while working for minimum wage. Morgan then decides to have his niece and nephew come to stay with them for a few days to see what it’s like. These kids have never lived in this kind of monetary situation before. All of these characters paint a picture of poverty and how it is received in America. The two minimum wage workers represent the variety of people working minimum wage, young and old. The two children represent a) Americans who don’t understand poverty and b)the children who should not have to suffer or see their parents fight over money when they are working full time.

The most important element of “30 Days: Minimum Wage” is the experience Morgan and Alex lived through and the hardship they encountered while trying to live off of an income that the federal government deems appropriate for supporting a lifestyle. 

One of the very first bad experiences being finding affordable housing worth living in. There’s cheap housing, then there is good housing, rarely do the two intersect. Even looking in the cheap housing, they find that the rent is still very expensive for minimum wage workers. Before the end of their first day they are deeply in debt. Later on in the episode, bills start to pile up, medical bills loom over them, and they are barely able to scrape together enough cash to pay their rent and electric deposit. All of these things speak to the fidelity of the documentary. Anyone who has ever lived off of minimum wage without any assistance would feel that this documentary holds true. They keep a running tally of their income and expenses throughout the whole episode, so you get a coherent story line. Every decision leads to income or cost, so the viewer doesn’t feel as though they are hiding anything. 

Morgan Spurlock’s documentary on minimum wage is a successful attempt to capture the lifestyle of minimum wage workers living in and on the verge of poverty in America. It is important for people from all walks of life to understand the hardships of others, and perhaps through a series like this, we can all become more compassionate towards one another. Like Morgan, I leave you with a challenge: if you have never lived in a situation like this before, do it for just one month. Limit yourself to just the income of a minimum wage worker, and try to live of of it for 30 days. It will change you.

Have You Forgotten? You Are Either With Us Or Against Us!

Have you ever listened to a song and felt a strong sense of patriotism? Has a song ever made you feel that you were not doing all you can for your country? Songs like Darryl Worley’s “Have You Forgotten “ invoke these responses in listeners. This song was written after our nation suffered a tragedy in the form of a terrorist attack. Millions of people witnessed the tragic events of this day in real time when the World Trade Center and Pentagon were both struck by hi-jacked airliners. Soon after this event, the country was united in war against terrorism. . In Darryl Worley’s “Have You Forgotten, the primary characters in the song are “I,” “we,” “you,” and “they”. In Worley’s story, he shows some characters on a positive light and others in a negative light. The people he projects as being positive and supporting his message are  “I,” “We,” and “You” while the people he paints as negative(enemy) are “they” and anyone affiliated with them. A central message of the song is that we must stay strong in our war effort because of the terrorist attack committed against us and in order to vindicate the lives lost on that day.  When the negative character “they “   is mentioned they are being made to feel guilt for a lack of support for the war and are being accused of “having forgotten.” The setting of this song is an  America torn in support/opposition  for the Iraq war.  IN this song Darryl Worley seeks to unite his listeners under a rhetorical vision. The rhetorical vision in “Have You Forgotten?” unites people under shared values and emotions. These shared values and emotions can be seen as a need to continue the war and fight against the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and that we must not forget what happened on that day in order to keep the justification for the war alive. Another vision brought about is that we should ostracize anyone that does not agree with the war because they are not patriotic and do not care about America. Songs like these can have negative implications by increasing nationalism to a point where people do not think rationally. Do you think songs like this promote a positive or ultimately negative message?

If you would like to view this video visit : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU

Olympus Has Fallen! Not Just an Action/Thriller

Olympus Has Fallen has everything to make a good action thriller. It's got Gerard Butler kicking Korean terrorists butt and saving the entire country. What more could you ask for? After a closer look, I argue that Olympus Has Fallen is not just an action/thriller movie, but a look at the way our country has dealt with terrorism. The message is clear throughout the movie: the United States does not negotiate with terrorists.
The method of analysis used in in order to support this claim was narrative criticism. Narrative criticism uses the descriptions of the characters, setting, narrator, and events in order to examine an artifact, and then analyzes them using coherence and fidelity. Coherence is the degree to which the story makes sense within itself and as compared to similar stories. Fidelity is how much the story resonates with real life experiences.
With these factors in mind, the setting of the movie is modern day United States of America. Much of the story takes place at the White House with cut scenes to the panic room at the Pentagon. Tensions between North and South Korea are growing and the United States has wedged itself between their civil war. This compares very well to our real life modern-day United States. Tensions between the Koreas and the United States still exist, and now other terrorists groups from the Middle East are threatening the United States.
The most important factor I argue is the characters in the movie. The movie portrays the protagonist Mike Banning (played by Gerard Butler) as an American patriot who would do anything for his president and his country. He is the failed hero, looking for redemption after a fatal accident involving the president's wife. Banning, with little help from the Pentagon, takes down an entire terrorist group on his own and saves the United States from the worst missile crisis in history. Banning cuts through government red tape and refuses to take orders from officials who want to give in to terrorists' demands.
Kang is the villain of the story. He is the ideal terrorist. He and his terrorist group are all of Korean dissent with black hair and tilted eyes. Unlike Banning, Kang does not care how many lives he has to sacrifice in order to destroy the United States. Banning goes to each of his fallen comrades and calls them by name. He knows each one and their families. Kang willingly sends two of his men as suicide bombers to take out the fence in front of the White House. These are two very different men representing to sides of a real life conflict: anti-terrorist United States and a terrorist group from Korea.
Upon further study, the narrator and events add to the coherence and fidelity of the movie. The narrator is the camera except for time cards strategically placed in the movie to let the audience know the real time and places in which the story is taking place. Events in the movie also lead to some chilling realism. For example, Kang says the military could reach the White House in fifteen minutes and his group took it down in thirteen. This happened with 9/11. Planes took down the twin towers and help could not get there fast enough. The situation in the movie is fiction, but the circumstances could be very real.
The movie begs a question: is one life more important than a whole way of life? By the characters in the movie saying the United States does not negotiate with terrorists, they are saying that they would rather the captured President Asher to die instead of giving in to terrorist demands. In the end, Banning found a way to rescue the president, but that doesn't always happen in real life. The movie is portraying that the good guys win in the end, but is it really winning if American lives are lost? Are we any better than terrorists if we sacrifice American lives for the greater good of our country? To be part of the discussion, you can watch Olympus Has Fallen on Netflix or DVD/BluRay now.

The L Word

Episode one of The L Word is set in West Los Angeles, California. This is known as the “gay” district. This episode jumps from place to place including, the Planet (lesbian restaurant), Bette and Tina’s house, and Jenny and Tim’s house.
In this episode, many of the main characters are introduced to the audience. Bette and Tina are partners trying to have a baby. Bette is a flat character, meaning she conforms to the social norms of a lesbian. She is slightly masculine while still having her feminine side, and she is the “bread winner.” Tina is also a flat character. She is the one who will conceive the child and is slightly more girly than Bette. Alice is another flat character. She is the bi-sexual member of group of friends. Alice is known to be confused which coincides with the preconceived notion of a bi-sexual woman. Shane, on the other hand, is a round character. She is the typical “butchy” lesbian, however she has a past that keeps her from fitting into the social norm. Shane has been with both men and women, yet the preconceived notion of “butchy” lesbians is that they have never been with a man. Dana is a flat character because she is a lesbian tennis player that cannot come out due to sponsors. This goes along with the idea that it is difficult for pro-athletes to come out. Tim, is the only important male character introduced in this episode. He is a flat character. Tim is the typical man, he loves women, is turned on by lesbians, has cheated on his girlfriend, handy, and strong. His girlfriend Jenny is a round character. She is straight but yet is enticed by the lesbians she comes in contact with. Marina is also a flat character. Marina, is a seductive lesbian that has a thing for the straight girl. These are the main characters that episode one introduced.
Within this episode, there were a few causal relations. For example, Jenny sees Shane and a girl having sex in the neighbor’s pool, this causes her to become interested in women. Another example is that since the first sperm did not work for Bette and Tina, Alice suggest that they throw a party so that Bette and Tina could talk to the eligible men in the area.
Temporal relations are also seen in this episode. This episode is ordered syntagmatically. Each event naturally leads to the next event. There are no flash forwards or flash backs in this episode. The episode is all about Bette and Tina trying to have a baby. It begins with Tina telling Bette that she is ovulating, they then go to their donor and receive the sperm, then they go to the doctor to get inseminated, they find out the sperm is dying, they tell their friends, then they throw a party to find another donor, they find one, he turns them down after finding out he cannot have sex with Tina, they tell their friends. The entire episode is syntagmatic like this example.
The intended audience is controversial. The target audience includes, lesbians, bi-sexual women, straight men, and straight women. Lesbian and bi-sexual women can relate to this show and learn about life from this episode. Straight men are reached by the sex scenes, men are turned on by lesbian sex. Straight women may like this show because it explains why they are straight and can give them insight if they have every questioned their sexuality.
The moral conveyed in this episode is that you can conquer anything as long as you have a good group of friends. All of the issues the characters face are resolved during lunch with the group of friends. They all help each other with the issues they are facing. For example, Tina and Bette are having trouble conceiving, therefore, Alice suggests they have a party and all of the friends show up to the party to support Bette and Tina.

To Kill a Mockingbird

“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…. Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.” 

This is a quote from Harper Lee the author of the book To Kill a Mockingbird. Lee’s novel was one of the best-selling in the sixties decade. The messaged she conveyed through this book was that children are innocent and do not have the ability to recognize evil unless they are forced to experience it. Adults are the ones whom give the meaning to the concepts of prejudices and racism in society, which then is passed onto their children.

I did a rhetorical analysis of the movie To Kill a Mockingbird produced by Robert Mulligan, which he based on Harper Lee’s novel.To do the analysis of this movie I followed the narrative perspective. A narrative perspective is used to understand the underlying moral of the story argued in the text. It consists of the setting, characters, narrator and events. The story takes place from 1933 to 1935, in a town called Maycomb. It was a dull and boring town, nothing exciting seemed to ever happen there. Until the trail of an African American named Tom Robinson who was accused of rape of a white woman. The main characters of the movie was Scout, Jem and Atticus Finch, Mayella and Bob Ewell, and Tom Robinson. Scout is the daughter of Atticus and the little sister of Jem. She was also the narrator of the story. Jem is the typical American boy, not backing down from a dare and dreaming about playing football. Atticus is the father of Scout and Jem and a lawyer in Maycomb. He is a widower, who instilled in his children his strong morality and justice. He is also the lawyer appointed to defend Tom Robinson in the trial and is one of the few residents committed to racial equality. Mayella is the unhappy daughter of Bob Ewell whom he abused. During the Trial, she tried to play along with her father’s story of Tom beating and rapping her, but failed when the testimony did not link together. Bob Ewell was very racial and prejudice in the story and was represented as the dark side of the south. The last character, Tom Robinson, was the African American field hand accused of rape and was one of the movies “mockingbirds” who was a good person but destroyed by evil.

The major event of the movie was the trail of Tom Robinson. Everyone in the town was in the courtroom. White people were in the chairs on the bottom of the courtroom and the black people were on the balcony. But Atticus’s children was on the balcony with the African Americans. They did not care where they were watching the trial from, which shows that their morals were different from everyone else’s. During the trail we find out Tom was unable to move his left arm because of an accident that had happened. The testimony from the sheriff of Maycomb presented that Mayella bruises was from someone who was left handed. Atticus then had Mr. Ewell write his name which proved that he was left handed. At the end of the trial, the jury’s verdict was guilty. The evidence proved that Tom was not guilty, but because of the color of his skin he was seen as guilty. The movie To Kill a Mockingbird used characters and events to prove that teaching children good moral values can, to some extent, make the world a better place. Atticus was able to educate his children on good morals by presenting it through his actions with certain situations. During that time era it was common for people to be prejudice against African Americans, but Atticus exhibited to Scout and Jem that they were equal and deserved to be treated with the same respect as white people.

How the Media Portrays Feminist

   

If I say feminist or feminism, who do you instantly think of? Some would think of a head strong woman in the business world. She dresses like a “woman” but acts like a “man”. Some may think of a woman activist. She may be burning her bra in front of the White House or at some rally about hating men. Some may picture a woman who dresses like a “man” with her loose fitting jeans, boots, and a flannel on. Few will picture a man and even fewer will picture a regular person. Society has sculpted an image of feminists. When people think of a feminist their minds go to these outlandish places, because that is what they have always been taught. Feminist cannot be the preacher at church or the stay at home mom or the male who lives next door to you in your suburb. Feminist have to be women, women to do not particularly like men, women who want to be men, women who are just bitter and angry looking.

Scandal and How to Get Away with Murder are two prime examples of how the media likes to portray feminist. Olivia Pope and Annalise Keating are lead female character names in Scandal and How to Get Away with Murder. Both the shows have to do with law, affairs, murder, love, and of course a dominant woman who does not need anyone but herself. They are the heroes for others, but never themselves. They seem shut off to the world, as if they are putting on a show. Both of these women are very headstrong and dominant. They both call their own shots; they are their own bosses. Both of these women's emotions go wild whenever a love interest is near. When a male is around one of the female leads she must put her guard up. Why? Apparently because society feels as though feminist cannot seem to get along with their male counterparts. Both shows are set in man dominated areas. Which feeds into the fact that women must act like a man to make it in a man’s world. If they act anything less than that, they are given the lesser jobs and not taken seriously. 
 

The overall theme that these two shows share is that feminist must be seen in the same light that men are. Feminist have to be harsh in tone. They have to be dominant. They must be cold. They have to act bitter and angry towards men. Each woman in these shows acts like feminist should according to society. The ones who do not are seen as gentle and warm. They are treated like victims and not taken seriously. They end up changing to become this harsh, bitter woman so they can move up in the world. Women have to be seen in a certain light to be considered a feminist. This is portrayed in all forms of media. Women cannot be warm and welcoming and be a feminist. Since society’s view of feminist is skewed women cannot begin to be portrayed as a loving mother and a feminist. Women cannot be a painter and a feminist. Feminist are cold and calculated. They care for no one’s feelings and hate men. They are terrible to work with and give off a bitter vibe. If the media ever displayed a woman as a kindhearted feminist, well then society might just label her a witch; because that is just unheard of. 

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Hipster Monarchs and the Future of Food

     When I think of British Royalty, I often conjure images of tea time, stuffy suits, and rousing cricket matches. As it turns out, His Royal Highness (HRH), Prince Charles of Wales, is kind of a hipster- at least in terms of monarchies. Deemed the "Radical Royalist", he devotes his time and energies to the promotion of sustainable farming. He's been, like, totally into organic since way before it was actually cool. Speaking at a conference on food at Georgetown University, he gave a speech titled ,"On the Future of Food", and what he has to say is important. 

I'm about to break this speech down old school in a neo-aristotelian fashion, focusing on the rhetorical canon of invention and the use of ethos, logos, and pathos. 

HRH with a gift for baby George

ETHOS: Ethos refers to the portions of a text that build a speaker's character. The food movement as long been accused of being elitist, and having the Prince of Wales speak on the subject could be problematic. HRH has to be relatable, otherwise his message is only going to resonate with the upper-crust of society.  He begins his speech by reminding us that his first grandson ('lil Georgie!) has just been born. This helps remind listeners that aside from being royal, he's a man that cares about his family. He also cares enough about the issue of our food system to show up and give this speech when he could be at home making funny faces at his new grandson. 

     HRH is more than just talk. He can roll up his, sleeves, throw on his Wellies, and get his hands dirty. He has been an organic farmer for three decades. This begins to detract from his royalty and we start to see him as being "down to earth"- literally. He's also an activist for the issue of sustainability, creating an International Sustainability Unit within his country and a charity, Accounting for Sustainability, which provides much needed research on how to solve problems regarding the environment and our food supply. Prince Charles assures us that he will not be "green washing" the subject and proceeds to frankly lay out his argument in a problem/solution manner. 

LOGOS: This is the good stuff. Logos refers to logical arguments in order to persuade an audience towards truth. HRH does this well, creatively blending artistic proofs (his own logic) and non-artistic proofs (facts or statistics). According to Price Charles and the United Nations , there are currently 7 billion people on our planet and that number is growing exponentially. While the population is growing, our natural resources are in serious decline. He outlines the major issues:

• The average meal travels 1,500 miles to get to you. That means your burger and fries also comes with about a gallon of gasoline per person/per day. 
• We develop one acre of land per minute of every day. At this rate, we're faced with a major dilemma of having enough space to grow the food and graze the livestock needed to support the growing population. 
• Soil is being washed away 10 times faster than the earth can replenish it, 40 times faster in China. 
• Water is kind of a big deal when we're talking about growing food. Rivers and aquifers are running dry all over the world. The situation is critical. Tie this to our obsession with animal proteins (It takes 2,000 gallons of water to produce only 1 pound of beef) and the message is clear- This is no bueno, ya'll. 

     If you're a little freaked out right now, you should be. However, Prince Charles doesn't leave us hanging. He also uses logos to offer us solutions.  The bottom line is that we have to get our act together, sustainably speaking. He suggests that we publicly analyze current policies and shift our subsidies away from Big Ag and towards farmers, "that are more sustainable, less polluting, and of wide benefit to the public interest." Since not all of us are in a position to change policy, here's what I suggest: 

• Educate yourself. Figure out where your food comes from and how it's being produced.
• Write to your elected officials that can change policy.
• Use your dolla bills as votes. Shop local and organic. 
• Plant a garden. It's a fun was to reconnect yourself with the food chain. Sometimes we forget that food is actually grown in nature and not just plucked off of grocery shelves. 

     

PATHOS: Pathos are statements that aim to emotionally appeal to an audience. This is where HRH tugs at our heart strings and answers the question, "Why should we care?" For starters, family. Most of us westerners don't trouble eating right now, but with climate change a reality and the population growing, how our our grandchildren and great-grandchildren going to manage? We'll be putting an unbearable weight on them. This is not something that we want on our collective consciousness as a society. 

    As promised, he doesn't "green wash" or gloss over the issues. Issues regarding the food supply in connection with the environment come down to life itself. This provokes fear, and hopefully, action. He asks us not to shy away from the issue, but to face it with bravery. Ultimately, he leaves us with a sense of duty and moral obligation. 

Prince Charles gave a speech that was worth listening to and you can check it out in its entirety here.

I have a new-found admiration for this progressive prince, however, I wouldn't look for him to grow a beard and start wearing flannel anytime soon.