#9

Robert Kaplan best defines “Contrastive Rhetoric” in saying that “CR assumes that languages differ not only in phonological, morphological, and grammatical features, but in the kinds of genres available to their speakers for the organization of discourse and in the rhetorical (and syntactic) features that co-occur with those genres.” Kaplan uses this idea of CR to explain the idea that there are differences in what may be discussed, who has the authority to speak/write, what forms writing takes, what is evidence, and what arrangements of evidence are appealing throughout discourse communities. For example, he tells how abortion in Finland is exclusively a medical topic, while in America it is primarily referenced as a political topic. CR is also demonstrated by our assumed ideas of what forms writing takes, according to Kaplan, since a poetical sonnet cannot be used to convey cooking recipes.

Accordingly, Sherman Alexie’s piece “I hated tonto (and still do)” is an example of contrastive rhetoric due to its exploration of Kaplan’s ideas: Who has the ability to speak/write; and What arrangement of evidence is likely to appeal to readers?

Alexie explores the first question in his writing by discussing the differences in the two discourse communities he personally experienced: the Native American Indian discourse community and the discourse communities of white American media. White American media had authority to tell these epic stories of blue-eyed Indians speaking in monosyllables, and the Indian discourse community had no apparent authority to add to the discussion. Additionally, Alexie explores the second question by showing how the White American media used appealing stereotypes of Indians as evidence of the nature of Native Americans. The White American portrayals of Indians, played by white men, were still preferred and acceptable to many Americans, including Alexie.