I found Thomas Friedman’s 30 Little Turtles, to be somewhat vague as to the actual purpose of the excerpt, which remained so until the very end when it is put in perspective. Friedman’s article talks about his first hand experience in situations dealing with young people from Bangalore and Ramallah. Through these experiences Friedman discovers some positive effects of outsourcing from Canada and the United States. These jobs translate to high paying jobs in other countries and enable people to obtain a higher standard of living (Friedman, 2008, p.176-177).
I believe the intended audience for this article is your working class American and Canadian, and I believe so because there is a lot of turmoil around sending jobs to other countries. There has been a lot of negative press around this issue and hearing the positive side of the argument might help people see how it can benefit us. Friedman uses a form of pathos by using first hand experiences and stating that the people whom he interacts with is just looking for a better standard of life like many of us are trying to do as well. This I find to be very effective, but the example where talking about a caller saying “I am glad I reached an Indian” (Friedman, 2008, p.177), this I find contradicts the general public’s opinion. There is also a form of ethos, which is not in the writing particularly, but in the mini biography before the writing. After reading the bio, which lists his numerous successes, I found myself thinking this has got to be insightful; he’s won three Pulitzer’s!
I found the ending to be quite strong, but it was partially because I was now finally learning his point, which I actually found to be more effective that way. One conclusion that does not seem to be effective is, “we make not only a prosperous world, but a safer world” (Friedman, 2008, p.177), which makes me question his thinking. In reality it is making North America a more unemployed continent, and although it helps them it also hurts us.
Do you think that there could be a better solution than outsourcing to help other countries have higher standard of living instead? Do you think that Friedman’s article length helps or hinders making his point?
I was actually pretty shocked at the short length of this article. I did however think he did get his point across, it changed my perspective of telemarketers completely. I would have liked more information out of interest but in the short essay Friedman wrote i do think he got his point across.
ReplyDeleteI really didn't like his essay. It was very stereotypical towards eastern cultures and his examples were unrealistic. I believe that keeping the jobs here is a better idea. To help less fortunate countries we can, with their permission, run businesses in those countries that strictly benefit the people. This could be everything from grocery stores to infastructure. By creating these jobs in their own country, run by their own people, less fortunate countries can start to build their wealth internally. Then we can step out and let the country continue on their own.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really good point Irene! Although the article was very short and clearly stated his purpose at the end, he only used 3 or 4 examples from those people in the jobs. How do we that the rest of them weren't really as keen? Could he have possibly chosen only positive reactions he came across to incorporate into his essay? Honestly, he did change my view of telemarketers when I read this, but now I'm wondering if it would be that way if he had given us more information.
ReplyDeleteHi Terrilyn,
ReplyDeleteI liked your deductive approach to this article and how you started by asking, Who is his intended audience and what message does he have for them? I agree that he's making an argument for outsourcing.
But here's a thought. What if he's being satirical? What if the whole article is satire and in fact, he doesn't believe in outsourcing at all?
I'm not saying it is, but I'm just posing the question. Sometimes we have to be careful with these 3-time Pulitzers. I keep looking at this article and the more I keep looking at its simple gung-ho approach, I look for the catch.
His stories are of Indian workers happy to be erasing their accents, eager to be working at call-centres, eager to serve Americans and help them with their problems. Good grief...is it all too good to be true? Maybe. Maybe that's his point and it just takes a few rereadings to get it.
I'm not sure though. I'm just wondering.