Borders: Rhetoric Diversity

Borders are created for a multitude of different reasons. Even though they may be constructed with good intentions or specific goals, borders provide an outlet for many to disregard a whole group of people based on defining features. Whether physical or nonphysical, these gestures of division can spark controversy and compose a thin line of tension — one that is easier to cross than the true border itself.

The topic of borders is often a hard one to discuss. When writing about this disputed issue, the most essential aspect to consider is the audience. One of the most common examples of this is literature regarding the U.S.-Mexican border. Border Insecurity by Sylvia Longmire asserts that “Border security means public safety and the sense in the community that the border is being reasonably and effectively managed.” Conversely, in Kathleen Staudt’s Human Rights Along the U.S.-Mexico Border, the U.S.-Mexican Border is mentioned as “the wall of hate.” While some American readers are highly in favor of an imposing boundary separating the two countries, the rhetoric used makes it clear that there is another side to the story.

Other outlets centered around the subject of borders further display a wide range of opinions and a distinct direction. Rather than continuing the discourse on physical borders, certain compositions monitor the injustices perpetuated by stereotypes and civil matters. These pieces of writing serve the purpose of enforcing daily, societal change instead of simply providing historical information. In Empowerment of Women in India, V.S. Ganesamurthy uses empirical evidence to present the disparity between the lives of men and women. Although this statistical analysis is not something that is common in other forms of literature, it shows the multiple ways in which authors and editors go about proving a belief and sparking change.

Finally, borders are much easier to create than to destruct. Once something even remotely divisive materializes, a ripple effect is induced and the repercussions are often serious. Ganesamurthy additionally addresses this issue by conveying the sheer amount of time it takes for a problem to be resolved: “Although the problems were well recognized and better appreciated, it took about three and a half decades of Independence to design policies and programmes that placed women as active partners in developmental activities from the dependent beneficiary status.” Every day the foundation of an estrangement remains, the more difficult it gets to tear down. People will start to believe that this dissolution is one made for the general good of society and become blind to the damage that the border has created.

In reality, borders are certainly necessary, but many are often created out of hate and remain because of ignorance. The presented literature explains how crossing one border does not signify the end. Rather, it demonstrates the constant flow of adversity and the ongoing battle of overcoming impending altercations. Whether that means immigrants in the U.S. facing lower paying jobs or the suppression of women in certain parts of the world, the common rhetoric used in these books and articles clearly represents the numerous borders that exist all around the globe.


One thought on “Borders: Rhetoric Diversity

  1. I completely agree with the fact that borders are much easier to create than to destroy. Who would destroy something that took millions of money to be back to square 1? But the hardest to overcome is the emotion that comes with the destruction of something that brought such oppression


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s