The Struggle for Religious Equality: An Analysis of Dave Barry’s "Seeing the Forest through the Eyes of Our Children"

 In "Seeing the Forest through the Eyes of Our Children", Barry uses sarcastic realism to address the theory of social equality among all people.   Dave Barry uses repetition, logos, and hypophora as rhetoric devices throughout his essay to represent his claim to fight through the ridiculously intense struggle for social and religious equality for all humans.

     The author uses repetition, more specifically epistrophe to demonstrate that if kids from different religions can get along, then anyone can get along. Telling the story of his daughter, the author purposely repeats "head" at the end of the dialogue between the two children in the beginning of the essay to give insight on the maturity level of a four year old child.  His repetition evokes humor into the reader, by using childishly minded vocabulary to prove his point.  Also, this epistrophe or repetition evaluates Barry's argument by providing insight on the setting and topic before the big picture of the essay is revealed.  Dave Barry continues his repetition style through the essay, towards the end he brings back the children's dialogue and intentionally questions "But what is Jewish", to provide logical evidence or logos for his argument making him credible.   His repetition makes the reader ponder the thoughts of religion and why a kid who is Jewish is unaware of what it is.   Also, it proves that Barry is fighting for social equality in religion by stating that if kids can calmly discuss religion, then so can adults. 

     Dave Barry in his humorously interesting columns demonstrates several different types of stylistic and rhetorical strategies to provide detailed evidence for his purpose.    In the conversation between the two young girls evidence is revealed, and his daughter Sophie answers her friends question stating "that means they're Jewish.".  This use of logos allows the reader to ponder about why a child who has Jewish parents not understands what it means to be Jewish.  Also, this logos or logical reasoning proves that the author’s purpose is the fight for social or religious equality for all.  Barry continues his discussion in the essay by telling his daughters real question in the essay, "but what is Jewish", to allow real meaning to be brought forth in the column.  Barry's logo here causes the reader to rhetorically ask what it does mean to be Jewish, thus giving insight on the social backgrounds of religions.  Also, this proves that social and religious equality should be brought forth for all those involved in the world of religious quality.

            Barry, in his powerfully unsettling column, continues his stylistic and rhetorical devices to influence the reader’s insightful views of his magnificent work.  Using rhetorical questioning Barry towards the end of the essay speaks to the reader questioning “What’s my point?” to evoke humor, and then in the following sentence answers his question.  His use of rhetorical questioning and hypophora, together create a reoccurring pattern that the reader realizes in several of Barry’s columns, but also the reader understands his humor through his satirical answers to the rhetorical questioning.  Barry’s questioning and hypophora develop intense feeling to reveal the true so what he uses in writing his essay, which in this case is the race for the cause of social and religious equality.  Also, his questioning continues, a few sentences after his previously asked question Barry cranks out another question relating to the hypophora of the earlier question, asking “is that being too naïve?”  These rhetorical devices combined create intensely phenomenal humor to ease the readers mind to end the essay.  Also, these devices help demonstrate Barry’s argument of religious equality and why we should all get along no matter what religion or Yankee fan we are. 

            Therefore, Barry uses several different but interestingly similar stylistic and rhetorical devices to further produce his claim of religious equality for all who believe in it.  He uses hypophora, rhetorical questioning, epistrophe, repetition, and lastly logos to help back up his so what to bring about the big picture, or true meaning of his column or essay.

Kill 'Em! Crush 'Em! Eat 'Em Raw!

1.John McMurty's essay begins with a personal anecdote about the results of playing sports- especially football- since childhood.  When he can no longer ignore his physical condition, he seeks treatment and is hospitalized.  How does the anecdote lend credibility to his argument?
A).    The anecdote gives his argument credibility because it's the authors own personal story rather than just facts that some other random person said.  This makes the author credible because it lets the reader clearly understand that he knows and understands the topic of football and the consequences that come right along with it.  His use of his own personal story, also gives his supporting ideas in his argument variety making his essay more interesting and credible.

2. Paragraphs 5-7 compare and contrast football and war.  Is this comparison convincing? How does the comparison appeal to logos?
A).    The comparison between football and war is very effective and convincing in McMurty's argument, it reveals war as being a logic reason as to how football is dangerous to society.  The comparisons also stereotype football as being violent and deadly like a war, when in reality it can be if the players aren't playing the game correctly.   His contrast however leads the reader to view football as being better than war. The comparisons appeal to logos, because they are logical resonings supporting McMurty's argument the dangerous sport of football. 

5. McMurty also addresses the argument that games such as football allow us to discharge our "original-sin urge into less harmful channels than, say, war" (para. 15). Cite passages where McMurty counters this argument. Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
A).     McMurty counter addresses his earlier argument that people playing football "as [they] [move] through high school, college and pro leagues", make "[their] body dismantled. Piece by piece"(para. 9). This citied reference counters his argument because unlike the quote in paragraph 15, this quote shows football as dismantling bodies, therefore it being a bad sport, and in paragraph 15 football is viewed as an anger reliever.   Also, he counters his arugument proving "[he] had learned that physical injury- giving it and taking it- is the real currency of the sport"(para.11).  I do agree with what McMurty says in paragraph 15, football is a fun and entertaining sport for young men to participate in, it's a fantastic anger reliever as well as a stress reliever, if all players treat it as just a game.  I agree with the author because i'm a football fan myself, and the author provides good logical reasoning to support that football can be dangerous, but not always.

6. Consider the language of football, especially the words shared by the military.  What sports other than football have a militaristic side?
A).     Other than football, the sports of hockey, paintball, soccer,and archery all seems to have a militaristic side.  Hockey and soccer are militaristic in the way that you have defenders who defend your goal, just like in the military one group is defending their camp and position from being invaded by the opposing group.  Also, those two sports involve teamwork, because in hockey if you don't work as a team then the person with the puck couldn't succesfully score a goal without the teams help, the same relates to soccer.  Archery and paintball are militaristic because you aim at a certain target to obtain your goal, and in the military they have a certain goal and they obtain it by aiming at their target that's given to them.  In paintball and archery agression is brought out on the targets, just like in football and the military after you shoot or hit someone you relieve anger and stress on you once you take the shot.