La Memoria

Today, I was lucky enough to sit in the Bryce Jordan Center and hear an eloquent group of speakers talk about the life and legacy of a very powerful Penn State figure. Sometimes the words that the speakers used were enough to move the audience, but sometimes it was the words left unsaid that made the best impact. There were many parts to the equation that made the entire thing as amazing and impactful as it was.

First of all, the way the speakers (for the most part) spoke made a large difference. Mostly, they told us a story about how they met Joe Paterno, and how after that he had made an impact on their lives, not just on the football field, but in the academic area as well. Their emotions and their feelings toward the subject of their speeches had a huge impact on the audience. The fact that we could hear how they truly cared, and the stories that they each had to share made their speeches more effective, and gave the audience glimpses of the man that Joe Paterno truly was. My personal favorite was the man who decided to do his research on the case that has been in national headlines for the past few months. He showed the part of the responsible citizen-speaker by doing his research and presenting it properly, which it seems that the media has failed to do recently. I think that the parts of his speech that were the most compelling were when he said that he believed that if anything should be focused on, it should be the investigation from years ago (which got an immediate standing ovation), and the part where he asked about the true trustee. He seemed to be able to say just the right things to connect to the emotions of his audience, and to be able to say the things that the media has neglected to say for so long.

Furthermore, the speakers seemed to be able to control the emotions of the audiences based on what they said. Many times, the stories that they told and the emotions clearly written on their faces were enough to make members of the audience, including myself, cry. However, they were also able to say something funny and insightful about Joe that made their audiences chuckle, as if they were also sitting in the room during the moment when the statement was first uttered. Overall, most of the speakers performed eloquently and passionately, and it made a difference for the people who were listening while watching either in the Bryce Jordan Center or via the broadcast.

However, there was one speech which I did not like particularly, because of the content and the delivery. The member of the Paterno Fellows who spoke had some good moments that managed to impact the crowd, but her speech seemed to clash with the rest of the memorial. While she spoke about Joe Paterno, the emotional connection did not seem as strong as it was with the other speakers. Watching her speak, it seemed as though she spent more time talking about the Paterno Fellows program and her accomplishments through the program than she did talking about the person behind the memorial service. While the speech was clear and articulated well, it felt as though the speaker was advocating for the Paterno Fellows rather than remembering someone who made such a large impact on our university.

The videos that were played of Joe Paterno were also very effective. While there were very few words that were shown in the videos, the few words that were played at the end seemed to sum up the feelings that the videos invoked, and wrapped it up to the point where many of the members of the audience were in tears watching it. Each video seemed to capture moments that showed who Joe was and why he became such an important figure to the university. These videos used the small amount of time that they were played in to make a large impact and to thoroughly reflect on Joe Paterno. At the end of the memorial service, I was left wondering whether they could have picked better people to speak, and I realized that they could not have. Without the speakers who spoke from their hearts, and without the pure emotion and compassion with which they presented themselves to the audience, the memorial would not have been as effective and would not have had as much of an impact.

The Horrors of Skewed Writing

For our Global China class, we were asked to read an excerpt from a book which was simply titled "Chinese Horrors." This should have been a clear giveaway that the entire article was going to be bleak and at least somewhat biased, as it begins on such a dark note. In the beginning of the chapter, the author describes his trip to China, specifically the area of Canton, and says that he viewed atrocious acts committed to his “fellow-creatures” in the hopes of gaining some sympathy from his audience. He says that the reader does not know the “real” China unless he or she was able to witness either firsthand or through something such as the article the true corruption of the Chinese legal system of the time.

Immediately I came to the realization that he was using his limited knowledge that he had gained through briefly visiting the country to pass judgment on the people who lived there. His chapter on his experiences starts with an emotional appeal, trying to portray a semblance of feeling for the people whom he writes about. However, the rest of the article proceeds to tear the entire first paragraph to shreds, and to expose how he truly feels about the Chinese people.


He uses this emotional appeal to set the reader up to be appalled and disgusted by what he proceeds to say throughout the rest of the chapter. After he finished describing the horrors that the Chinese government officials committed upon the people who had done crimes, and the gruesome executions of pirates and murderers, he uses his imagery and blunt details to regard the Chinese people as no more than savages.


It was really difficult to read parts of the article again while knowing that he used the power of his words to coax the reader into taking a specific view, especially when they were in a period of time where most people would readily do so anyway. I found myself wondering how often we really use our words in the beginning of our argument to appeal to our listeners to agree with our point of view. How often do they notice that we do, and how often do we get away with using our opening argument to make any information that we provide seem all the more biased and damning of the other party?