Caribbean tourism is a highly contested topic with two extreme polar views on the same subject. This is a fact plain to see in plenty of articles, and this case with two texts that provide different stances on the topic of tourist development in the Caribbean is no exception. First, there is an advertisement of a 1950s The Great White Fleet’s cruise vacations to the Caribbean directed towards a class of rich, (and at the time, most likely Caucasian) travellers. On the other hand, text two is the exact opposite of the advertisement; the second text, titled Squatters Take on Developers by Benjamin Shors, focuses on informing a Miamian audience of development on “squatter” land in Panama. Though the two texts are already different in the type of text, what exactly makes the two so different? The answer is through how each texts are directed for a purpose at a specific audience. In order to view how these texts act on an audience for a purpose, one must explore the rhetoric and language, compare the structure of the two, and delve into a closer look of how the contexts influence both audience and purpose. Between the two texts, rhetoric and language prove their biases.
…show more content…
Rhetoric acting to influence one’s stance is especially prominent in the second text, where Shors immediately uses a pathos anecdote in his introduction to draw a reader in sympathizing with people in a similar situation to Nicasio Jiménez, who lives on the poverty-infested, yet desirably scenic lands illegally bought by foreign developers through third parties; a situation that threatens displacements of thousands of households. On the contrary of the advertisement, the cruise line ad showcases large text at the top and a large picture of high-class cruise goers to highlight the luxury of the cruise. Using this appeal to luxury aimed at wealthy people, the advertisement shows a bias in persuading a wealthy, privileged group to enjoy a relaxing vacation. In relation to the purpose intended for a specific audience, the advertisement is an exact opposite of the article. While one text shows the elite relaxation of vacationing in the Caribbean, the other focuses on providing information of the impact of tourism booms on a local group. Additionally, the different structures of the two texts show different purposes. In the first text, pictures are a dominant focal point rather than the paragraphs of persuasion. The picture of people dressed in high class fashion while they enjoy relaxing on a luxurious cruise sway those who are privileged enough to enjoy vacations while emphasis of the Great White Fleet gather the attention of racially white individuals, portraying the grandness of “White” of the time period. Meanwhile, the article structures its information through providing a sympathy-gaining story right off as an introduction before moving onto an explanation of the situation. However, when mentioning investors and developers, Shor uses a passive structure, showing skepticism of the investors’ intentions and offers foreshadowing of later paragraphs’ descriptions of tension found in the area. Through even the quickest glance at the two texts, it’s clear to see the distinction between how each text is tailored for a specific purpose: one attempts to gather a privileged group to spend their wealth on relaxing on a luxurious vacation and the other heads a call for aid for poverty-stricken locals and shows displeasure those who are displacing said locals. Furthermore, it is not only just the structure or the rhetoric that shows shows a distinction between the two
Rhetoric acting to influence one’s stance is especially prominent in the second text, where Shors immediately uses a pathos anecdote in his introduction to draw a reader in sympathizing with people in a similar situation to Nicasio Jiménez, who lives on the poverty-infested, yet desirably scenic lands illegally bought by foreign developers through third parties; a situation that threatens displacements of thousands of households. On the contrary of the advertisement, the cruise line ad showcases large text at the top and a large picture of high-class cruise goers to highlight the luxury of the cruise. Using this appeal to luxury aimed at wealthy people, the advertisement shows a bias in persuading a wealthy, privileged group to enjoy a relaxing vacation. In relation to the purpose intended for a specific audience, the advertisement is an exact opposite of the article. While one text shows the elite relaxation of vacationing in the Caribbean, the other focuses on providing information of the impact of tourism booms on a local group. Additionally, the different structures of the two texts show different purposes. In the first text, pictures are a dominant focal point rather than the paragraphs of persuasion. The picture of people dressed in high class fashion while they enjoy relaxing on a luxurious cruise sway those who are privileged enough to enjoy vacations while emphasis of the Great White Fleet gather the attention of racially white individuals, portraying the grandness of “White” of the time period. Meanwhile, the article structures its information through providing a sympathy-gaining story right off as an introduction before moving onto an explanation of the situation. However, when mentioning investors and developers, Shor uses a passive structure, showing skepticism of the investors’ intentions and offers foreshadowing of later paragraphs’ descriptions of tension found in the area. Through even the quickest glance at the two texts, it’s clear to see the distinction between how each text is tailored for a specific purpose: one attempts to gather a privileged group to spend their wealth on relaxing on a luxurious vacation and the other heads a call for aid for poverty-stricken locals and shows displeasure those who are displacing said locals. Furthermore, it is not only just the structure or the rhetoric that shows shows a distinction between the two