What is History

Before I can discuss the role of history in shaping visual rhetoric, I'd have to define what history is. If we look at history as a series of past events, does history include people since people carry out the events? Does history only deal with communal history, or does it involve personal histories as well? In his blog, Ryan wrote about individual histories playing a large role in the reception of visual rhetoric. So, that is to say, an individual looking at a visual object taken outside of context would have to draw on his or her own historical experience to understand the rhetoric of the visual. It seems that personal history would be pretty different from what a high school history book recognizes as world history. Personal histories or experiences seem to work along with or against (textbook) world history. While peoples' interpretations of visual rhetoric depend on the meanings world history has assigned to visuals, one's own history can also influence the meanings conveyed by visuals. What you know from world history impacts what you see, but what you know from personal history can also change the way something was historically viewed. It seems that personal histories rewrite world history, and thus visual rhetoric is always evolving. 

I would argue that people embedded in history have shaped visual rhetoric. Bruce brought up the idea of the ichthys and how it was only identifiable as a Christian symbol to those who were in on the secret. However before that, the symbol was used in secular societies. Therefore, the Christians altered its historical rhetoric. Ryan brought up a similar case with the swastika since it was used outside of its original context or history and embedded with negative ideologies that were very different from the original positive ones it conveyed.  I feel like much of visual rhetoric depends upon the roles of viewers as insiders and outsiders. An image with historical meaning attached to it can be reappropriated to convey a completely different meaning. Only the people doing the reappropriating (the insiders) would understand the new meaning. Today, gang symbols could exemplify this since only insiders would know that these symbols indicate that a particular gang operates in an area. Gang symbols are rhetorical for gang members since they identify behind their symbols, and rival gangs may see other gangs' symbols as territorial warnings. Police may catch onto these symbols and advertise them to the public with negative stigma attached to them. In this way, the symbols would become rhetorical for outsiders since they would deter people away from areas where gangs operate. This could also change the way someone views a symbol. For example, the "Gangster Disciples" incorporate a star of David in their symbol, along with the letters, G,D and two pitchforks. People who are unaware that this is a gang symbol may associate it with the Jewish religion upon seeing it, since the star of David is historically tied to this religion. This would not seem like a dangerous symbol; however, by learning about its use as part of a gang symbol, the viewer uses personal history or knowledge to interpret the meaning conveyed by the sign differently. So it seems that personal history can work to reshape the rhetoric of visuals as it collides with a visual's original, historical rhetoric. 

I will leave you all with an insider's catalogue of street gang symbols so you can always be aware of pending danger in your surroundings.