Cultural artifact speech

In this speech, you will provide an analysis of a cultural artifact ( the use of baseball in Puerto Rico) using public identity as a critical lens. Your goal in this speech is to explain to your audience the basis for your critical judgment about the artifact.

This speech should last at least, but no more than, 6–8 minutes. You will be given a 15-second grace period on either end. This time limit is not a suggestion. It is a requirement, and points will be deducted if you go over or under the time limit.

Instructions
The object you analyze ( the use of baseball in Puerto Rico) should be well known or easily shown to your audience. Your analysis should focus on claims made by the artifact on the audience in terms of the issue of public identity (race/gender/orientation, citizenship, or public memory). Additionally, your speech should inform us about the context of the artifact by presenting sufficient historical and cultural background for the audience in class. Ultimately, you should be presenting a clear and thoughtful argument about the object as something that can be understood as a material instance of rhetoric. This argument should not be limited to whether the object was merely aesthetic, functional, or in conversation with community standards, but should judge it according to the criteria of how it—intentionally or not—persuades someone to think, to act, or to believe in specific ways. Were the purposes of the object (assuming it had an intended purpose) fulfilled by its persuasive stance or contradicted? What were the consequences or potential impact of the artifact? Were the principles behind it valid?

This assignment will rely on logos. Logos is one of the rhetorical proofs that lead to judgment by the audience. Logos is based on evidence and reasoning, language, and structure. Your analysis, given in a speech, will demonstrate how you use criticism as a form of civic engagement. What you believe to be the persuasive dimensions of the cultural artifact will demonstrate that you know how to be a critic involved in public life, that you know how to do criticism that is engaged in civic matters, and that this functions in ways that are important for the good of the public.