DRAFT Contemporary Rhetorical Analysis of National Park Service RISE documentation

I would like to analyze rhetorically  the NPS’ new RISE documents from the perspectives of Native lenses (Driskill, Powell, Wampum, Haas, Dougherty ), Racial Lenses (Chavez, Ore, etc.), disability lenses (dolmage, etc.) and does it meet the intent of its title: Respect Inclusive Safe Engaged?I would like the analyze the NPS’ new RISE documents from the perspectives of Native lenses (Driskill, Powell, Wampum, Haas, Dougherty ), Racial Lenses (Chavez, Ore, etc.), disability lenses (dolmage, etc.) and does it meet the intent of its title: Respect Inclusive Safe Engaged? I want to analyze the document in terms of where it is going and what it’s potential is rhetorically. I am considering using the Native lenses we have discussed (Driskill, Haas) in the class along with diversity (Ahmed), how the document is different from the historical narrative (Chavez), and maybe how the decolonial rhetoric (Dougherty, Haas) impacts what the document is attempting to say. How can the NPS use their Rise document to actually implement and maintain a diverse and engaged workforce to improve how the NPS communicates its mission to a diverse audience? Does the RISE documents begin that process. How can the NPS use their Rise document to actually implement and maintain a diverse and engaged workforce to improve how the NPS communicates its mission to a diverse audience? Does the RISE documents begin that process.