Analyzing satire

The monument debate has brought an influx of opinions, questions, and attempts to persuade the opposing side. Most arguments use and appeal to logic, emotion, or even compassion, especially regarding the rather "touchy" subject to remove confederate monuments. However, in addition to the formerly mentioned techniques, satire can also be used. In Vulfov's article, he uses satire to mock the entire argument to keep the monuments. Written from the point of view of a doctor who wishes to leave a strong and dangerous tumor growing inside of his patient, the article challenges the entire essence of the argument to not remove the monuments. Throughout the article, the doctor emphasizes that the removal of the tumor would only destroy the patient's medical history. Most notably, though, the doctor questions why anyone would wish to enter the slippery slope of recovery. Such is the basis for Volfor's satire and mocking of Trump and those that wish to keep the statues. With the use of satire, he compares a cancer patient's physical health to the mental health of America, and the doctor to the government and higher forces who have the ability to make a change. The entirety of the article is the doctor explaining why he will not remove the patients tumor. The doctor states, "I want to celebrate that history and leave a monument to those awful memories inside your body forever." This challenges the notion to keep any public reference to the horrible, atrocious memories of slavery. Essentially he is asking sarcastically why anyone wouldn't want to keep the memories of brutality, dehumanization, and oppression. Through the use of satire he portrays such notion as silly, foolish, even childish, something that someone should never stand by. "As a medical professional, I want patients to celebrate the history and legacy of their illnesses. Tearing down tumors won't serve that cause," the "doctor" goes on to say. The doctor has the opportunity to rewrite history for the better, to change the patient's life and eradicate any previous memories and notions of the illness. Yet, he values the legacy of the trauma, pain, and suffering more than actually removing the patient's distress. Similarly, the higher powers of America, including Trump and local governments and city councils, have the chance to remove any previous idea of slavery, racism, or oppression. Unfortunately, though, they would rather hold on to the horrifying, brutal, and un-American history rather than healing the sensitive wounds of thousands of Americans. Volfor's satirical article doesn't simply disprove the entire notion to keep the monuments, it attacks every city, town, and park that has yet to remove such statues. In the article, the analogy refers only to one doctor and one patient. Although quite a sever illness, ultimately it only affects two people, the doctor and patient. Yet, the actual and present situation doesn't merely affect two individuals or even two groups. On the contrary, it affects each and every single American citizen; each and every person that thinks of this country as the land of the free. Volfor uses satirical and comedic techniques to point out each and every flaw, and makes the mistakes of the American government look so much worse. Volfor, from the doctor's point of view concludes the article, "To do so (remove the tumor) would be to participate in medical revisionism and body censorship." Thus, Volfor continues to attack showing that the government simply refuses to revise and better the American people, and the country itself. Simply put, the government shows an interest in clinging on to the journey of racism and hate, as opposed to putting in every effort to help remove such notions and build a better America. Through his use of satire, Volfor mocks and points out the flaws in vouching for the monuments. Moreover, not only does he make such beliefs seem childish and foolish, but un-American and inhumane.