Héctor Tobar is the sender of this text and known forbeing a well-respected journalist, and a fiction writer. The fact that Tobar hasearned such a positive repute both on the literary field and the media gives hima lot of credibility in front of potential readers getting his messages.
In hisjournalistic career Tobar has won multiple prizes including the Pulitzer Prize,which is one of the most prestige-worthy awards you can receive as a writer,which also helped him increase his popularity. Additionally, he has a lot ofexperience in journalistic, and has also been working for more than thirtyyears in the media. As for his ethnicity, he is the son of an immigrating couple,which says something about his understanding of immigrant children, and the feelings they mighthave in relation to Trump. The receiver of the text is theAmerican people and especially people reading The New York Times, since thearticle was published there. Even though Tobar mainly addresses the Latinoimmigrants and their children in his article, his message is meant to bereceived not only by them but also the people in the US in general.
He is tryingto show the readers the effects of Donald Trump’s campaign against immigrants. In the article, the writer usehidden argumentation, this means that his critique and arguments are beingpresented indirectly, “”He wants to kick out theMexican people from America and just leave the American people. I think that’spretty much rude. Everyone should be fair, and we should all be treated theright way.”” (l. 46-48). Tobar is trying tocriticize Trump’s campaign whichinvolves anti-immigrant feelings, by presenting and covering the Latinochildren’s (living in America)opinions. However, instead of criticizing Trump directly, he is letting theinterviewed immigrant children speak for him, which makes it indirectly.
Additionally, he is using irony whencomparing Trump to a boogieman taking on children’s perspective, to drawattention to the electoral campaign Donald Trump created against immigrants,which not only affect the children but the whole Latino community, “He’s a villain in a flaccid pompadour, spewing threats and insults thathave filtered down into the bosom of many a Latino family, to be heard bychildren gathered by the television set or at the dinner table.” (ll. 9-12) Even though the attack is pretty obvious and direct onTrump, the allusions and figurative language are both ironic and comic, andrather than being straightforward it is more suggestive, “But in the end, fearnot, niños. Monsters are really just myth. Andyou can always make one into a piñata, and beat ituntil its paper shell breaks and candy falls out.” (ll. 82-83).
This quote, isintended to make the Latino community and the American people realize they,themselves have the power to destroy Trump, metaphorically – mostly by not electinghim. Another argument that is indirect, yet pretty obviousis the allusion to Adolf Hitler, “Like certain politicians in the WeimarRepublic, he’s found a largely defenseless group to pick on — who also happento be reviled by a bankable minority of the electorate.” (ll.
41-43). This portray Donald Trump as someone with tyrannicaland discriminatory nature.As for the language in thisarticle, it is written in a very simple language even though some Spanish wordsare used, words for beasts and monsters from bedtime stories. Tobar is stillexplaining the meaning of the Spanish words and what the monsters are, sincethe target group is not only supposed to be the Latino community, “There is “La Llorona,” who is said to moan for her dead children. And morerecently, the Chupacabra, which sucks the blood from farm animals andmaybe a boy or a girl if he or she doesn’t behave.”(ll. 2-4)The reason for the choice of a simple languageis primarily because the whole article is based on interviews with smallimmigrant children in America, and most of the things they say are quoteddirectly, Hugo boiled The Donald’s message down to three words:”Mexicans are ugly.
“” (ll. 17-18) Furthermore, Tabor uses imagerywhen he is writing illustrative words to give us visual images so that we canimagine how people act or how certain things look like. Since it is an article,it limits the imagery so it is created in a minimal way, for example when thelocal mall is described, “…a Lynwood mall that celebratesMexican identity with replicas of Olmec sculptures, a statue of Pancho Villaand the facade of a colonial church.” (ll.
50-51), or when DonaldTrump is described, “A 10-year-old like Damaris watches The Donald descending an escalator in TrumpTower. Or standing at the border in Texas in a white hat…” (ll.
75-76) The main linguistic andargumentative features which helps Tobar deliver his message is the use ofirony, satire and humour all together with his resort to feelings or pathos madeby keeping the focus on immigrant children’s point of views on Donald Trump.When the children see Trump as a monster, it underlines the notion of fear. Also,by not interviewing parents but instead children is a way of using pathos as itmakes it easier for the writer to make the American people sympathize with theimmigrant children and refuse to accept Trump’s negativeview on immigration. Pathos is created through the useof the perspective of children, which creates figurative associations betweenDonald Trump and a boogeyman: “…Donald J. Trump has become afigure of dread and comic-book meanness to the Latino community.
He’s a villainin a flaccid pompadour, spewing threats and insults…” (ll. 8-10) Then, pathos is also created bypresenting the way the children feel about this politician; they are made sadby his words, but their responses are emotional but mild, making a sharpcontrast to Trump’s strong language: “It made young Hugo’sad’ to hear someone call his parents ugly, he said. And if he could meet Mr.Trump, he’d tell him, “Bad luck for you.
“” (ll. 19-20) The author’s intention was to criticize and ridiculeTrump and show the aberrant, exaggerated nature of his campaign against Latinoimmigrants. He managed to do this by presenting him from the children’s perspective, as a bedtime story boogeyman.
His implicit messages are thatthe politician himself is much like a caricature, which should not be takenseriously as a presidential candidate, but also that such discriminatoryattitudes affect the Latino community in many negative ways, from children toadults.To decide whether the author was,in fact successful, in delivering his message is merely a question of askingyourself if you felt convinced by the arguments and if you think otherswill too.I feel like it is smart by the authornot to directly criticize trump, but instead using children to cover up for hisown standpoints and perspectives about the situation.