What is the author arguing?
The author, which in this case is Dwight Eisenhower, giving his farewell address. Eisenhower's farewell address included the warning of the misusage power of the miltary. He starts his speech off by stating the biggest goal of the country, which was "keeping the peace," preventing wars. Eisenhower goes on to say that if we fail to spot out any arrogance, the whole purpose of keeping the peace will be ruined. He had two main concerns that could possibly disturb the peace, maintaining the peace of our miltary and maintaining the balance, which also involves the element of time. While mentioning the military, he states, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Through that quote, he is stating that if the military was to get ahold of the wrong kind of power, all peace will be threatened. Eisenhower mentions the maintaining balance of time, he states that we, America, should try to avoid just living for today but live also for the "precious resources of tomorrow."
How does the authur appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer's perceived character) with their argument?
Eisenhower uses a significant amount of pathos, the way that he worded his speech makes whomever reading or hearing the speech truly believe in his words. The way that he describes the "peace," he makes readers and listeners to believe that through the wars, America truly kept the peace. How he addresses the audience as his fellow "countrymen," it's as if he is trying to make the audience believe that he speaking to them as friends, or aquaintances. He also seems to be upset to having to step down from his position as he states that he was very happy to be able to accomplish so much with the congress. Eisenhower also uses ethos, he was warning us through his own character, what he thought could and would happen.
What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
The historical significance of this document is that first of all, it is Eisenhower's farewell address, but it was also his last warning to the country that if the miltary was to get in the wrong hands of power, all peace would be destroyed.
Do you find the author's argument convincing? Why or why not?
I find the author's argument convincing mostly because the large amount of pathos that he uses. The words in his speech would truly make you believe that you are his fellow American, and that you are his friend. The way he describes everything in his address truly makes you believe that he cares about the wellbeing of the country even if he is stepping down as president.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Inaugural Address, Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 1933
1. What is the author arguing?
- The Author, Franklin D Roosevelt is arguing that all Americans have the right to live a standardized life, and that he would like to help the poor and helpless live the life that the "greedy" financiers are obviously depriving them of. Roosevelt also states that happiness should not be from the money that we have but the achievements that we have made. He argues that restoration should be made that we can be a whole nation. Roosevelt concentrates on the fact that we should be working together and helping others. He feels that the primary job of America is to put more people into work so that they would not have to face poverty. Towards almost the end of his address, he also states that banking, credits and also investments should be "strictly supervised."
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer's perceived character) with their argument?
- Roosevelt uses a lot of emotional quality rather than logos and ethos, though he does use all often. Roosevelt tries to get his point across by using emotions by saying that we should all be working together, and etc. He uses words that could make people forget about money and politics by saying things like "happiness comes from our accomplishments and not money." Through his words people could emotinally get moved and really believe and buy into what he is saying. Roosevelt also uses ethos because he already believes that he, himself should be helping the poor and the helpless, that is his character so he takes his beliefs and tries to spread his beliefs to others by saying that we should be helping other people and that banking, credit, and investments should be strongly supervised.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
- The historical signifcance of this document is that this is when Roosevelt basically started a war with depression and was focusing on helping people that were going through the depression. Roosevelt states that people should be put to work and have jobs.
4. Do you find the author's argument convincing? Why or why not?
-I find Roosevelt's argument very convincing, mostly through his pathos. The way that he described how America should be working as a team is very convincing and also his perceived character and how he felt that the poor should be helped and that they should be working is very convincing. His use of emotional support was a huge help in making his argument convincing.
- The Author, Franklin D Roosevelt is arguing that all Americans have the right to live a standardized life, and that he would like to help the poor and helpless live the life that the "greedy" financiers are obviously depriving them of. Roosevelt also states that happiness should not be from the money that we have but the achievements that we have made. He argues that restoration should be made that we can be a whole nation. Roosevelt concentrates on the fact that we should be working together and helping others. He feels that the primary job of America is to put more people into work so that they would not have to face poverty. Towards almost the end of his address, he also states that banking, credits and also investments should be "strictly supervised."
2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer's perceived character) with their argument?
- Roosevelt uses a lot of emotional quality rather than logos and ethos, though he does use all often. Roosevelt tries to get his point across by using emotions by saying that we should all be working together, and etc. He uses words that could make people forget about money and politics by saying things like "happiness comes from our accomplishments and not money." Through his words people could emotinally get moved and really believe and buy into what he is saying. Roosevelt also uses ethos because he already believes that he, himself should be helping the poor and the helpless, that is his character so he takes his beliefs and tries to spread his beliefs to others by saying that we should be helping other people and that banking, credit, and investments should be strongly supervised.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
- The historical signifcance of this document is that this is when Roosevelt basically started a war with depression and was focusing on helping people that were going through the depression. Roosevelt states that people should be put to work and have jobs.
4. Do you find the author's argument convincing? Why or why not?
-I find Roosevelt's argument very convincing, mostly through his pathos. The way that he described how America should be working as a team is very convincing and also his perceived character and how he felt that the poor should be helped and that they should be working is very convincing. His use of emotional support was a huge help in making his argument convincing.
A place of ones own
Back in the early 1900's and now, homeowning was a very important and "big deal." Though houseowning has brought many Americans together, it has also turned us against one another due to the big competition of owning a house. Detroit, 1920. housing supply was very short. As the war began in 1925 thousands of "black newcomers" entered Detroit and scared White house owners. White owners felt that black house owners would make the value of the houses go down and increase burglary and such. There was a Dr. Sweet, a Black physician, that ended up fighting to keep his house that was in a white neighborhood.
1. Besides the fact that white owners thought that value would go down, do you think there was another reason for them not wanting black homeowners?
2. If Sweet would not have been allowed back into his house, do you think he would've fought for his house still?
1. Besides the fact that white owners thought that value would go down, do you think there was another reason for them not wanting black homeowners?
2. If Sweet would not have been allowed back into his house, do you think he would've fought for his house still?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)