In the short time of a week, I have read three drastically
different speeches, or so I thought. Although all the philosophers are
addressing somewhat different topics and different audiences, they do have many
rhetorical devices, claims and fallacies in common, in fact they even use them
in close to the same ways. The most distinct similarity was the scare tactic
and slipper slope used: if we don’t do something then we will die and
eventually all of human civilization. Oh, and all the speakers were experts in
making their country the victims.
In all cases they use slippery slope to say that they are
doing the addressed action to make sure that the end of civilization does not
happen, their actions are a benefit of the world. Specifically, Emperor Hirohito was
surrendering, and in some way said that this would benefit the rest of the
world, “Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate
collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but it would lead to the
total extinction of human civilization.” But he also didn’t make it sound like
a complete surrendering speech..he made it sound almost neutral, like there
great loss was supposed to happen. In ways such as saying that the war was “not
necessarily to Japan’s advantage…”, which was a complete litote. However
Winston Churchill is talking to the British Empire to do the exact opposite, he
needs everyone to stand up and take action, fight back! The beast has been
awakened! Churchill says almost the exact same thing as Hirohito: “Let that be
realized; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the
British Empire has stood for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind
will move forward towards its goal.” And with that being said Joseph Goebbels
also had the fact that he was rallying his people up in Berlin, Germany in
common with Churchill, but also said the end of civilization was near if they
did not do anything.
All parties also use the royal “we”, creating a sense of
unity, making sure the society is united in whatever they do whether its
surrendering or fighting back!
I think that your analysis of the rhetorical devices used by the leaders really enriches your writing. I also really like the organization of your thought. It flows very well, and it creates a kind of tempo to go with the reading that really makes this a memorable post.
ReplyDeleteSavannah, the ideas you present are solid and reasonable. A few points to consider:
ReplyDelete1. Since space is so limited, what does your intro add? Dive right in--quickly give us a purpose and thesis. That will give you more space to develop your ideas.
2. Pick a single focus and dive in deep. If it's the slippery slope, really analyze what each speaker gains from using it and why it might be effective in context.
I like how you used slippery slope to describe the contrast but I do think you could've emphasized more on the difference. Or explained it in a more cohesive way. But your comparing statement is good. Overall, great!
ReplyDelete