Chad M. Nelson Rhetorical Strategies

In this case study, Researcher Chad M. Nelson weighs in on the closing of Mexican American studies that occurred in Tuscon Arizona in 2012. Nelson uses a collection of Chicano literature published by Santino J. Rivera that includes a series of works from different authors that critique the decision to close the MAS program. Nelson goes deep into these texts to demonstrate how the texts employ certain rhetorical strategies to combat white privilege. Nelson refers to these strategies as In Lak’ech and mestiza rhetorics. The mestiza strategy illustrates the conflict between Mexican, American, and Indigenous cultural values and identities and an Anglo-American dominated world. The Lak’ech strategy is based on a deep principle of love and respect for humankind in the same matter as one feels for their own self. Nelson shows that both of these rhetorics are utilized by the texts.

Nelson starts off his paper by providing some background information on the issue, including a statement given by the politician who was highly involved in closing the program.

He then gives some historical context by touching on the many challenges that Chicana/o students faced in the past. For an example, he touches on the discrimination many Chicana/o students faced in the classroom during the 1960’s. Nelson then shows how during those times Chicana/o authors used stories and poetry to voice their feelings and experiences regarding the issue of discrimination in order to draw a parallel to the purpose of Rivera’s publication. Nelson goes on to dive into the Rivera texts and draws different examples of the authors’ strategies to expose the issue. Finally, Nelson identifies the two different rhetorical strategies of In Lak’ech and mestiza in the texts and explains how they play

out.
Nelson concludes by emphasizing the value of the texts in regards to the issues of whiteness and race. He explains how these are examples of counterstorytelling, which is the sharing of cultural stories and experiences in order to spark critical engagement of issues of racism. He ends the study by stressing the importance of texts like those published by Rivera in fighting oppression.
One of the strongest elements of this paper was its appropriateness. The paper was well structured, breaking down important parts of the issue effectively. An example of this was through providing extensive background information on the issue including historical context and analysis of different texts. One issue that I had with the paper is that some things could have been explained more simply. Nelson uses a lot of jargon to explain his points, including “whiteness,” “colorblindness,” and “white fear.” While one may argue that terms like these are well enough understood by a variety of people, they are most likely not understood by certain people who would benefit from reading this study. For an example, I doubt that Tom Horne, the politician behind the closing of the program, would understand the terms and their relation to the issue. Overall, this study was interesting and effective in shedding light on the issue.