This is Enrique's Wiki Page for CAS 100C course! Feel free to post, and to comment on my future outlines!

 

My hometown is really a toss up between Miami, Florida, Toronto, Canada, and Mexico City, Mexico. The earlier cities are terrific, but I plan on completing a Law Master's Program in the U.K. in the upcoming year, along with possibly living in Brussels after that. I am the former President of the Penn State College Democrats, the current Vice-President of the club, and I worked as a fundraiser for the Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee in South Florida!

 

I rarely check my facebook, but I do check www.ft.com religiously! And YOU SHOULD TOO!

 

My Speech 1 Outline! Feel Free to Comment Under the End!

 

 

 

By: Enrique Ortiz

 

 

I. Introduction

a) Attention Getter: So we know about Bush’s, Clinton’s, and Reagan’s great speeches to Congress! But, do we know about Tony Blair’s address to a joint session of Congress? A Brit PM in the Congress? Let me begin!

b) Credibility: I am a senior majoring in Economics and Political Science here at Penn State, and will be completing a Master’s Degree in European Union Law & Politics with a special emphasis on trans-Atlantic relations at the University of Edinburgh next year. My thorough background on Anglo-American relations has been the basis for numerous research projects on Prime Minister Tony Blair’s tremendous impact on global events, including this speech.

c) Background: Tony Blair, who rightly or wrongly followed the United States into war in Afghanistan and Iraq, delivered a speech on the importance of the Anglo-American alliance to a joint session of Congress on July of 2003. The Prime Minister also received a Congressional Gold Medal for his support of the Iraq War, and used the occasion to reframe the debate on the causes for invading Iraq.

d) Thesis: Blair’s address to the joint session of Congress called for a united front between the U.S. & the U.K., attempted to justify the Prime Minister’s decision in Europe, and was able to articulate Bush’s position in Iraq to a skeptical congress.

e) Preview: The speech touched on the importance of invading Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s continued misbehaviour, and the values shared by the U.K. and the U.S.

Transition: Naturally, we need to examine the underlying reasons as to why this speech was given, and not just the talking points about freedom, democracy,and liberty. And yada yada yada!

 

II. Exigence:

A) The Prime Minister’s speech was necessary to satisfy the Opposition in Parliament as to the presence of British Military Personnel in Iraq. And it is important to recognize that at the time of Blair’s speech, the administration in the U.S. was facing public scrutiny when the public found out there were no WMDs.

i) The New York Times says, “On a day when the White House came under increasing political pressure from Democrats to explain more fully how the passage about Iraq’s attempt to buy uranium got into the State of the Union address, Mr. Blair’s presence here helped the administration’s effort to shift attention to the broader question of whether the world is better off with Mr. Hussein gone.” (Stevenson, New York Times)

B) Furthermore, the message by Blair was aimed at European leaders, AT ONE in particular, who disagree with America and Britain, and to remind them that Europe’s interest are imbedded with those of this nation. This point is brought home by The Guardian Newspaper’s following report, “Mr. Blair's toughest message was for the French president, Jacques Chirac, who he hinted wanted to turn Europe into a rival power to the US.” (Watt & Borger, The Guardian)

C) Also, the speech was being used by Blair’s political advisors to distract the British public from his media guru’s scandal at home, and to win the following election. It’s simple, if you want to assuage the Democrats then bring in Tony Blair, a liberal, and if you REALLY want to calm down the Conservatives in the U.K., then bash Chirac!

 

Transition: Now, some of you might be wondering why the British Prime Minister would use his foreign speeches as a political tool, but let’s examine just exactly who was being addressed by our favourite British politico.

 

III Audience

A) The Blair speech was delivered to a Republican-controlled Congress who loves to hear about the protection of democracy, the importance of freedom, and the prominence of Anglo-American values as being those of universal acceptance. But, he was also speaking to the Democrats who have great respect and admiration for the man who defended President Clinton in the middle of the now-so-yesterday-feud that was the Lewisnky scandal. And, he was speaking to all of you, the American public who have made Blair a major figure in the U.S. and the world through your media.

B) As most of you will guess, probably by my earlier comments, the speech is targeted at a British audience or as the British Broadcasting Corporation reports:

i. “Mr Blair will hope his powerful speech in which he urged the US to accept its destiny, work with others and listen more, will pay dividends at home…It was clearly intended to be a keynote speech which would help redefine the relationship between Britain, the US and Europe.” (Assinder, BBC)

 

Transition: His message worked, since according to The Guardian, he received 19 standing ovations! Mind that it was a 32-minute speech! Obviously, there were certain things Blair could not flat out tell the American public, or his political opponents. But what were they? And, why would one of the most powerful men in the world hold back?

 

IV. Constraints

A) Mr. Blair, as a liberal European politician, does not see eye-to-eye with President Bush or America for that matter, on everything, but he cannot publicly disagree with issues like global warming, preferences for a Palestinian state, or Guantanamo Bay at the home of US Democracy. Instead, the speech is used to talk about common values, like any other reasonable diplomat would.

B) The fact that he would soon be facing an election, and had mutiny within his own party limited the level of frankness with which to address the US Congress.

C) And, let us not forget that as of 2003 the nation still suffered from the effects of the September 11th, 2001 attacks. Such definitely shaped the tone of his speech, and also influenced the content.

Transaction: In all, the eloquent Tony Blair delivered a marvelous speech which was shaped by important constraints, delivered to a receptive audience, and which needed to given.

V Conclusion

A) Restate Thesis: The call by the Prime Minister to have a strong front between the U.S. and the U.K. against terrorism, his message to join in the fight for Freedom to Europe’s leaders, and his perfect communication abilities were able to fruitfully convey the Bush administration’s message to a weary United States Congress.

B) Tony Blair spoke to all of America’s government, a global audience, and delivered remarks on the most pressing issues facing the United States, Britain, and the world at large.

C) The speech was received by its politically diverse audience on a magnificent manner, and was respectful of the many challenged faced by the Bush administration, the Democratic Party, and the American public in light of the 9/11 attacks.

D) Finally, the address by Tony Blair to the Joint Session of Congress was a major milestone in U.S. and U.K. relations, that proved to the world that the values of both nations are unshakable, and articulated by a terrific orator. The Man himself, who has been described as a master of the Queen’s English, Tony Blair!

 

 

Bibliography

 

Assinder, Nick. "Blair makes significant tone change." British Broadcasting Corporation. 17 July 2003 01 Feb 2008 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3076267.stm>.

 

Stevenson, Richard W.. "AFTER THE WAR: ALLIES; BUSH AT HIS SIDE, BLAIR IS RESOLUTE IN WAR'S DEFENSE." The New York Times. 18 July 2003 01 Feb 2008 <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400EFDD103CF93BA25754C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1>.

 

Watt, Nicholas, Borger , Julian. "'History Will Forgive Us'." The Guardian. 18 July 2003 1 February 2008 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1000624,00.html>.

 

 

 

 

Outline Feedback and Comments

 

Michael Chiang: I liked your speech a lot. You were really energetic and full of knowledge on your topic. However, I felt like you spoke a little too fast. Overall, great speech.

 

Derek Mohler: Your speech was good, I liked how you didn't stay stationary the entire speech and showed movement whether it was with your hands or actually moving. I also felt that u really showed your personality through the speech which definately keeps the audience engaged in your speech, so good job there. The only thing you may want to work on is a little less reading off something and a little more eye contact, but pretty much everyone has that issue so yea, overall great job

 

Sarah Dunning: I loveeeeed your outfit! Very well done with the tie and shoes,etc. Your intro was really good and I was immediately interested in your topic. Your eye contact seemed a bit sparatic and you seemed to be reading from your outline a bit. Your information was really well researched and it seemed as though a lot of it was personal information so you seemed passionate as well. I think you spoke a bit quickly, but it may be because you were so excited to share with us all! Overall, great job!

 

Liz Peters: I agree with Sarah, your outfit fit your speech!! I could tell that you were very interested in your topic and that it went along with your major, which gave you good creditability. At times it was hard to understand what you were saying because you spoke very fast. I don't know if you are, but you would be a great debater!! For your next speech just slow down a little and work on your eye contact. Other than that good speech.

 

Scot Brown: Well done, nice delivery, use of movement, but talked fast. Not necessarily a bad thing though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

OUTLINE: SPEECH TWO

 

Leave Comments Below

 

Blair Address to Congress Outline 2

By: Enrique Ortiz

 

I. Introduction

a. Attention Getter- So, how about that Tony Blair? Smart young chap, eh?

b. Credibility Statement- As many of you know, I am majoring in Political Science with an emphasis on Anglo-American relations, and will be completing an EU Politics masters next year.

c. Background- The United States and the United Kingdom have historically shared a close relationship, one that was strengthened by Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush as a result of the War on Terror. As I mentioned on my first speech, the Labour-Prime Minister was accepting the Congressional Gold Medal for his support of the Iraq War before a joint session of Congress.

d. Thesis- Blair used this opportunity before the United States Congress to establish the importance of the transatlantic relationship shared by the U.S. and the U.K., policy on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction or lack thereof, and the need for the U.S. to act on other global concerns.

e. Preview- The speech touched on the importance of invading Iraq, the strong relationship shared by the U.S. and U.K., and values shared by both parties.

 

Transition: In order to consider the substance and delivery of the speech, we must set aside the talking points and focus on the content of the piece.

 

II. Body

a. Point 1- After accepting the Congressional Gold Medal, Blair delves into a comparison of the U.S. and U.K., reinforcing the importance of this transatlantic relationship.

i. Blair uses a literary device known as parallelism to compare the two countries and thus linking them together within this historic relationship.

1. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provides the following audio quote, “Because technology, communication, trade and travel are bringing us ever closer together. Because in the last 50 years, countries like yours and mine have tripled their growth and standard of living. Because even those powers like Russia or China or India can see the horizon, the future wealth, clearly and know they are on a steady road toward it. And because all nations that are free value that freedom will defend it absolutely, but have no wish to trample on the freedom of others.” (2) (audio start at 3:50-4:24)

2. Blair establishes this relationship in such a way that appeals to the pathos of the audience by hitting on key “Western” not merely American values such as freedom. Moreover, he incorporates ethos when describing growth and an increase in the standard of living in the former third-world. This combination proves to be most effective in describing the threat of Islamic extremism faced by the West, and his firm comprehension of such.

ii. Furthermore, the prime minister defends this relationship by scolding Jacques Chirac for attempting to create an adversary out of the United States.

1. According to an article from the Guardian, Mr. Blair. … “hinted Chirac wanted to turn Europe into a rival power to the US.” (6)

2. Additionally, the Financial Times states that “in a tough message to the French and German governments, he warned: ‘To be a serious partner, Europe must take on and defeat the crass anti-Americanism that sometimes passes for its political discourse.’" (4)

3. In defending the U.S. against a fellow European Union nation, he further solidifies the strong relationship that has been apparent in a post 9/11 world.

 

Transition: This apparent relationship has played an important role in Blair’s policy towards Iraq, which is an integral point in the speech as a whole.

 

b. Point 2- The Prime Minister’s speech was necessary to satisfy the Opposition in Parliament as to the presence of British Military Personnel in Iraq and also had an impact on Congress. Therefore, his defense of the policy used in Iraq was a major facet within his speech

i. Blair continued to defend the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq, going so far as to say that he is confident that the weapons of mass destruction would be found.

ii. However, he also incorporated strong language to serve as a disclaimer to justify the war if the WMDs do not turn up.

1. According to The New York Times, “Mr. Blair's main message in his address to Congress was that the United States and Britain had no choice but to confront terrorism and, in Iraq, the possibility that terrorism would join forces with a nation that could make available chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons.” (5)

a. This statement was made in light of the administration in the U.S. facing public scrutiny, when the public found out there were no WMDs, which coincides with the pressure Blair was facing at home from critics of the war.

b. The Economist Magazine states that “two-thirds of those polled by the Daily Mirror, an (admittedly anti- war) British newspaper said that Mr. Blair had misled them over the Iraqi threat.” (3)

 

Transition- Although Blair’s concentration in this speech was the war in Iraq, he took the time to address other global issues that are of concern to his countrymen as well as the Democrats in Congress.

c. Point 3- As stated in the BBC, “Blair lavished praise on the US for its principles of liberty and freedom but he went on to insist it must act on crucial global issues including a Middle East peace, protecting the environment and resisting any moves towards isolationism.”

i. This statement serves as a way to bridge the gap between the British people and America as the support for the war deteriorates.

ii. Furthermore, it shows the British people that Blair still has an opinion and say in matters dealing with the U.S. and isn’t just Bush’s lackey.

iii. Moreover, these issues, especially protecting the environment, appeal to the Democrats in Congress, who are against the war in Iraq.

 

Transition- Overall, the content of this speech was designed to reinforce the close-knit relationship between the U.S. and U.K., and deal with the deteriorating support of the war in Iraq.

 

III. Conclusion-

a. Restate Thesis- P.M. Tony Blair, using a combination of ethos and pathos, attempted to establish the importance of the transatlantic relationship shared by the U.S. and the U.K., defended the policy used in Iraq and, and the need for the U.S. to act on other global concerns.

b. His ability to articulate these concerns in a charismatic and effective manner made this speech a huge success and warranted 19 standing ovations from members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike.

c. Overall, the content of his speech reflected the issues plaguing both leaders and the concerns of the people of the U.S. and the U.K.

d. Finally, this speech not only served as a major milestone in U.S. and U.K. relations, but as a reminder to the British people that Tony Blair serves the British interests abroad. Not simply a puppet of the empire!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Assinder, Nick. "Blair makes significant tone change." British Broadcasting Corporation. 17 July 2003 01 Feb 2008 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3076267.stm>.

 

Blair, Tony. "Tony Blair addresses joint meeting of U.S. Congress ." 18 July 2003. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 3 Mar 2008 <http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2003/07/17/blair_030717.html>..

 

"More questions than answers. " Economist.com / Global Agenda 18 Jul 2003: 1. ABI/INFORM Global. ProQuest. http://www.proquest.com/

 

Newman, Cathy and James Blitz. "Blair urges US not to 'give up' on Europe." Financial Times 17 July 2003 29 Feb 2008 <http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=blair+speech+to+congress&aje=true&id=030717007274&ct=0&dse=true>.

 

Stevenson, Richard W.. "AFTER THE WAR: ALLIES; BUSH AT HIS SIDE, BLAIR IS RESOLUTE IN WAR'S DEFENSE." The New York Times. 18 July 2003 01 Feb 2008 <http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400EFDD103CF93BA25754C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1>.

 

Watt, Nicholas, Borger , Julian. "'History Will Forgive Us'." The Guardian. 18 July 2003 1 February 2008 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1000624,00.html>.

 

 

YB - You showed great knowledge and credibility behind your research and speech. I also felt that the audio presentation went hand in hand with your speech. The most impressive part of the speech to me was your question and answers at the end. Great job.

 

 

Caitlin Leahy- you had a great opening and were very personable. Sometimes your volume got a little too loud and your speed a little fast. Watch your verbal fillers. Your tone adn emphasis were great and you really looked comfortable in front of the class. Great job!

 

Nate Scarbrough- Your speech was really good. You showed that you really know your material which helps loads with your credibility. The only thing iffy was that you talked really loud and fast, almost agressively, but hey, you had a nice suit on, so whatever.

 

Alex Franklin: I really enjoyed your enthusiasm. The fact that you were very knowledgable about your subject matter made you very interesting to listen to. I also enjoyed the little subtle humor you added such as Bush "nukuler" comment. My main criticism is the fact that your eye contact was off, which was strange, because you seemed to really know what you were talking about. It didn't match up. Also, your visual aid was really great, however, it probably would have been more effective if it was cued up properly. Anyways, your speech was excellent overall!

 

John Galvin: Enrique once again you did a really good job on your speech. You always seem confidence and establish your credibility very well. You had good body language, moving around a lot which helped to show your confidence. The only thin i noticed was it took a while for your visual to come up, but i understand that it was just technical issues. Great speech!

 

Scot Brown: You get the audience involved right away, but after a while fillers and eye contact problems start to creep in. But good projection. I know this wasn't really avoidable, but the problems with the audio clip definitely disrupted the flow of your speech.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMBINED PAPER

 

Enrique Ortiz

 

Professor Jones

 

CAS 100C

 

27 April 2008

 

The Motorcycle Diaries: Film, Socioeconomic Class, Race and Gender

 

The Motorcycle Diaries is a narrative film based on the published memoirs of Ernesto Guevara, depicting his adventures with his close friend, Alberto Granado. They set out on their journey in 1952, which takes them all across South America and forces them to experience the struggles of various groups of people on their way to a leper colony in Peru. They travel from Argentina all the way to Peru, making stops in Chile and Venezuela. During this journey, Guevara experiences a transformation in his outlook on political policy, social class, and treatment of the “haves” versus the “have-nots.” The diverse social problems encountered by the Argentine duo on the Latin-America-wide voyage, including socio-economic class divisions, racial inequality, inequitable gender roles, and clear rhetorical situations to the aforementioned problems, will be examined through ideological as well as form critiques.

Due to its biographical nature, the social situations do in fact represent the social reality of its time and place. The various class, race, and gender divides portrayed in the movie are those experienced by Guevara and Granado on their trip through South America. These universal themes are still relevant today, where people still experience such divides to a various degree. These divides can be seen in our own time and place where we have classes divided, racism and sexism plaguing the current presidential race, and religious coercion making headlines in the Mormon compound case. Therefore the themes portrayed in this movie incorporate the social reality as it existed then and still exists today. Moreover, the portrayal of these social ineptitudes creates a factual reality that meets the audience’s expectations of Guevara’s memoir on the big screen.

The narrative of the film is entirely brought forth by the successful co-operation of interjected first person narration, and the adaptation of the main characters’ journal or diary entries. Ernesto “Che” Guevara interjects throughout the picture to provide the audience with additional facts pertaining to the fruitful development of the plot, and such technique is able to compact the memoirs’ progression into a two-hour length feature film. Furthermore, the various interjections by Guevara provide a means by which to more adequately understand the personal emotions, self-interpretation of happenings, and his unapologetic attitude towards ill-advised neo-colonial policies. Other than during these key times, the characters speak for themselves, only revealing what Guevara himself, or, in some cases, Granado experience. The other characters, while seen as individuals, do not convey personal feelings to the audience, and do not provide additional facts unbeknownst to Guevara and Granado. As a narrator, Guevara also takes the opportunity to point out and highlight various societal conflicts and political themes. These presentations within the film, are able to frame the narrative style used and place it well within its intended genre. Moreover, this style of narrative poses unmistakable political ramifications as Guevara is transformed before our eyes from a young, naïve adventurer into a capable, passionate, and revolutionary Marxist leader. It is important to understand that the film’s narrative exposes the audience to a rarely-seen side of Guevara faced with fear, love, and the trip which ultimately transformed him into one of the 20th century’s major figures. (Dorfman 1999)

The audience is for this film is wide ranging, due to the common themes portrayed within the film and includes people from various backgrounds and tastes. Various social classes, races and genders are portrayed in the film making it accessible to such a diverse audience. However, there are some limitations that make the film more accessible to some audiences over others. For example, while subtitles are available, the characters speak in Spanish, which targets an audience in the Spanish language. Also, the cultures experienced by the pair are strictly those of Latin America, which also targets that particular audience. However, while the obvious intended audience is that of the Spanish speaking culture, it is still maintained that, due to universal themes, this movie is adaptable to a wide-ranging audience.

The Motorcycle Diaries deals with Che Guevara’s initial development of a desire towards a Pan-Latin American union, that would be match the ideals of fellow revolutionary Simon Bolivar. However, the film portrays the similarities between Latin American cultures, as well as the clear and distinct racial differences which automatically translate onto socio-economic class disparities. Naturally, audiences in the United States are already exposed to the correlation between race and class, yet the dichotomy existing between European-descended characters and Native-American characters in the film is omnipresent. Furthermore, class is depicted throughout the film as a trait inextricably related to European ancestry, and refers to Spanish ancestry in particular. The affluent characters, including Guevara and Granado, are medical doctors whom all live in grandiose homes in Buenos Aires, Lima, as well as Santiago. As one can easily see, the elites of Latin America are professionals with University degrees, travel beyond national borders, and call primate-capital cities home. Meanwhile, the poor-stricken individuals portrayed in the film are showcased as indigenous-descended people without higher education degrees, and as individuals residing in the rural areas of Latin America. Moreover, in a terrific example of such phenomenon, the duo travel to Macchu Pichu, Peru and participate in a tour of the former Incan Empire capital (Cuzco) which is guided by a local Incan-descendant boy. The boy in the Macchu Pichu tour informs the Spanish-descended, Argentine characters of the local name given to a set of walls, each built by the Incan as well Spanish civilizations respectively. Ironically, such walls are described by the tour guide as, “…the wall of the Incas, and the Wall of the Incapables! Which were the Spanish!” (Motorcycle Diaries 2004). In addition, the local tour guide informs the duo of friends as to the Spanish colonizers’ decision to move the capital to Lima, and ultimately destroying the political control once held by Cuzco.

The film makes a persuasive argument to the logos, and pathos components of its audience, when it showcases the stereotypes of Native-American culture, and attempts to bring the audience to a feeling of sympathy towards the indigenous communities. Numerous scenes display the white-Latin Americans’ oppression of the indigenous communities, and even include interactions between the Argentine duo with the local Peruvian Incan peasants. This powerful message is intended to be received by white and/or mestizo Latin Americans to truly think about the manner in which their states have mistreated its native peoples. Part of analyzing socio-economic class as well as race, involves the ability to understand how different groups interact with each other. Motorcycle Diaries illustrates yet another example of how poor, Native Peruvian individuals pour their hearts out to the two Argentine friends, and confide the abuses which the whites have placed on their way of living. Also, the film displays the example of a short indigenous (5’ feet or less) man telling the story of how his land was expropriated by a crooked white-landowning neighbor for the purposes of cultivation, and how there is now way he can afford to bribe authorities to get justice. (Unlike the white landowner who bribes the police to expropriate the indigenous man’s land)

High socio-economic class and European descent are linked to one another in Latin America much like white-Americans and suburbs. However, class in Latin America allows a person the ability to interact with individuals with significant wealth, education, and connections around the region. The movie allows the audience to witness the concept of structural imperialism, in a manner which highlights socio-economic class and race. Guevara and Granado enter Lima, Peru asking indigenous peoples for the address of a prestigious doctor, whom is obviously white, and are directed to a mansion with high-steel gates preventing the “natives” from entering the property. In a sharp contrast to fellow poor Peruvians, the prestigious Argentine doctors are welcomed to the home of Dr. Pesce, whom had received word of the pair’s imminent arrival from Guevara’s wealthy father in Buenos Aires. Structural-Imperialism theory dictates that the elites in any given country have more in common with the elites of another state, than with the poor of their own nation. Such concept is fully practiced in the film, and allows the socio-economic class and race analysis to become clearer as well as quantifiable.

The aforementioned serves as an excellent rhetorical analysis, however several examples from Guevara’s own narrative provide additional clues as to how socio-economic and racial analysis are presented. The film presents modern Mestizo or Hispanicized Latin America as the norm, and uses Guevara’s narrative to ask how the region would be shaped if the Spanish had not converted cities such as Cuzco into smog-filled metropolises like Lima, Santiago, or Caracas. Furthermore, the narrative of the story begs the audience to reverse the roles of Natives as well as Europeans, and wonder of the modern status quo in such an instance. Clearly, the plot provides this notion to force “mainstream” middle-class/mestizo/white Latin American audiences to analyze the impact that organizational racism and classism have caused. It would be important to note that the efficacy of Guevara’s narration, allows the audience to cement itself onto the perspective of the main character, and see things through Che’s white, upper-middle-class Latin American eyes.

Despite the excellent construction of socio-economic class, and race in the Motorcycle Diaries (As ought to be, since Che was inspired by the racial, and classist discrimination at the regional level for his revolution), the film addresses the issue of gender differential in a manner consistent with local values. At the beginning of the film, the audience is introduced to Guevara’s girlfriend, Chichina, whose parents disapprove of his non-lawyer status. Furthermore, Chichina’s upper-middle-class standing is shown to prevent her from sleeping with Guevara prior to marriage, and is used by her parents to justify an engagement to a wealthy-lawyer. The stereotypical notion that upper-middle-class good girls are supposed to marry up, and avoid being labeled as unchaste is reminiscent of Latin American double-standards on gender classification. Also, Chichina uses some of her alone time with Guevara to explicitly state that she will not wait past his Latin American voyage to cement any future formal relationship, since it would not be approved by her family. Meanwhile, the same film shows a middle-class biochemist, Granado, completely ignoring social norms, and taking full-advantage of lower-class girls as victims of his sexual conquests. In other words, the film accurately reflects the traditional Mediterranean/Latin American (U.S./Northern European countries share concept to a lesser extent) values , which praise men for tallying sexual partners, and labels women as unchaste, whores, or less-desirable on the exact same behavior. The latter forms part of the gender-interaction norm throughout the film, but provide an exception through the dealings between mean and the leper colony’s Catholic-Nun delegation.

The ideology advanced as it pertains to gender-interaction relates to the organization of power between masculinity and femininity. An example of such may be seen through the strict adherence to the Mother-Superior’s orders, as it showcases women in power whom lack the media-driven sexualized femininity. It seems as though the film criticizes the manner in which Latin American men go through with sexualized women like speeding cars, and yet it fails to address the need for reform in such field. Moreover, the mostly-Latin American/U.S. audience exposed to the named film, expects the Latin characters to treat women differently, and present such instance as just-another-day-at-the-park-ideal. In all, the rhetorical analysis for the abovementioned observations can be witnessed by the choice of dialogue used when referring to women, which is primarily charged with sexual overtones, and the methods by which the men dazzle women in the film. At one point, Granado enters a poker game that ultimately wins him enough money to afford a Peruvian prostitute, and satisfy his “masculine-needs” (Motorcycle Diaries 2004)

The numerous civic issues addressed by the film on a multi-national basis, ranging from differences in socio-economic class, racial discrimination linked to class, traditional inequitable gender roles, and the clear rhetorical situations which communicate the earlier, were examined through ideological critique along with form critique. The autobiographical basis for the film allows the content of the plot to convey personal emotions, which are powerfully transcended through an audience-friendly narrative. Further, the socio-economic class and racial inequalities addressed by the film reiterate the long-standing practices of structural-imperialism as is evidenced by the film. Despite the different origins of socio-economic class analysis as well as racial analysis, such concepts are not mutually exclusive, and are linked in the context of the film set in rural Latin America. Gender roles are fortified in the film in hopes of attaining realism in the picture, and portray the men of Latin America as adherers to the stereotypes already widely known to global audiences. Yet, despite the movie’s reinvigoration of stereotypes, as well as existent socio-economic class divides, the plot connects with audiences, and is able to abundantly inspire viewers of Che’s dream for unity.

Works Cited

Dorfman, Ariel. “Time 100: Che Guevara.” Time Magazine 14 June 1999. 26 Apr. 2008

<http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/guevara01.html>.

The Motorcyle Diaries. Dir. Walter Salles. Perf. Gael Garcia Bernal, Rodrigo De La Serna.

DVD. Focus Features, 2004.