Rhetorical analysis of “Migration on Ice” Essay
Rhetorical analysis of “Migration on Ice”
“Migration, on Ice: How Globalization Kills Chickens for Their Parts” is an article that was written by Malia Wollan, a regular contributor to that New York Times. The article was originally published in an issue of a magazine called Meatpaper, a magazine devoted to discussing the policies, ethics and other issues that surround meat. Although Ms. Wollan does not have a direct call to action in the article, it’s argument is that globalization of the meat industry has a lot of ill effects on the people on the receiving end, in addition to it’s obvious benefit of cheap meat. The article uses the persuasive tactics of ethos, logos and pathos throughout in order to establish credibility with the reader and direct them to the conclusion that she wants.
The author uses Ethos effectively throughout the article. There was obviously a lot of research done about the topic, including personal interviews and statistical analysis. She wants the reader to think the globalization of the meat industry is essentially unethical. She writes, “In a country where more than 30 percent of the population lives in poverty, cheap protein is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, it provides affordable nutrition. On the other, it eliminates livelihoods.” I think that this quote appeals to the ethics of the reader and provides them with some form of proof that this practice should change. She also interviews chicken farmers in Ghana whose lives have been ruined by this importation of chicken, further appealing to the ethical side of the reader. Overall, Ms. Wollan seems to be making a fair request in the article. It appears that she is very knowledgeable about the subject and that she is a trusted source and isn’t trying to mislead the reader.