Hi lauren,
can you please help me?
so for hw I have to analyse this quote, its just a sentence: 'sorry, but we don't get to be outrages at this. The fact that a person is dead, that another has been shot or that yet another has a fractured skull doesn't change anything'. the only background knowledge that I'm given is that the writer is trying to contend that detention centres are intentionally made as a place of 'horror', worse than what they fled their country for. the article is here:
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-whole-point-of-detention-for-asylum-seekers-is-horror-whether-it-is-acknowledged-or-not-20140220-333yw.html but we just have to analyse how it starts and ends for now. cause apparently the choices made when a writer starts or finishes an article is very important.
So what I've done so far is:
- we inclusive language to get audience feeling involved with the issue. However, the fact that 'we don't get to be outraged at this', gets readers thinking why their freedom is restricting, catching the attention of the reader
- 'doesn't change anything' - even if there 'is a person is dead, that another has been shot or that yet another has a fractured skull', to us doesn't make the situation any worse, portraying society as inhumane and gets readers feeling guilty. Is that right?
What do you think?
and lastly for the ending quote: 'The truth is we've never really come to terms with why it is people get on boats, and why it is that, faced with hopeless inaction once they're detained, they protest. In fact, our public conversation isn't even terribly interested in knowing. That's why, when we do finally discover the facts of Manus, they will mean nothing.
cause we won't act to change anything or improve anyways? does this has the intended effect of shaming readers who oppose him and encourages readers to change their ways?
Thank you Thank you so so much