Mao's "Serve the People" Rhetorical Analysis Outline

Purpose: To twist the bad situation of their soldiers dying into a positive situation through using moral back-up and relying heavily on pathos and the intimidation of their ethos. Also, to establish the ethos of the Communist party and instill intimidation in the Chinese people.

Audience:

• Literal: Mao delivered the wrote the speech and delivered it at a committee meeting for the Chinese Communist party. 
• Probable: Followers of the Chinese Communist party as a general whole, since he seems to be addressing the opposition when he talks about taking criticisms and that dying for the Communist party is only whats morally right. The actual audience who he delivered this to would have already felt this way. 

Context: 

• An address commemorating the death of a PLA soldier who died in a kiln collapse and had participated in the Long March
• September 8, 1944
• Chinese Communist Party came into power October 1949 (Speech was given five years before this)

Paragraph 1: 

• Purpose: Introducing the reason for the speech- the soldier- and an introduction to the party. 
• Appeals: ETHOS! Even before talking about the deceased soldier, which was the whole point (it was a commemoration), he says the CCP is "wholly dedicated to the liberation of the people and work entirely in the people's interests". He is pressing the issue that the CCP is in the best interest of the people and they want what is best for the people. Would there have been some question in the objective of the CCP as a reason for him to say this?

Paragraph 2:

• Purpose: To state the major claim of his piece: "All men must die, but death can vary in its significance."
• Appeals: PATHOS! His use of metaphors and emotionally loaded diction makes it clear Mao is trying to appeal to the readers on an emotional appeal. "To die for the people is weightier than Mount Tai, but to work for the fascists and die for the exploiters and oppressors is lighter than a feather." He uses the weight metaphor in his favor to convince the reader that the Communist party is not only the right way to go, but it is a deep honor to die for the CCP. The warrant here is that the CCPis the way to go. 
• Technique: the metaphor of weight that he takes from Szuma Chien and twists to be relevant to the CCP. 
• Effectiveness: Pretty effective. This is mild compared to what he has yet to say, so this is his way of building up to the heavier parts of his claim. This gives the audience a reason to want to listen to him (Well, if to die for the CCP is how one dies meaningfully, who wouldn't want to listen to him?)

Paragraph 3:

• Purpose: To establish the CCP's ethos. Mao is saying they are welcome to criticisms of their efforts, even coming from non Communists, and that they are willing to hear out anyone who has any idea that can benefit the Chinese people. 
• We have shortcomings, but so does everyone else. We are willing to admit out mistakes, but everyone else makes mistakes too. 
• Appeals: Ethos. If were wrong, then we will admit it, but everyone is wrong all the time. All we want is to benefit the people, we will even take criticism from non Communists, ex. we have adopted Ting-Ming's ideas. 
• Effectiveness: Pretty convincing. The CCP is open for suggestions and opinions. 

Paragraph 4 part 1:

• Purpose: The Chinese have "joined together for a common revolutionary effort" Warrant: the CCP
• Mao is calling for ALL the Chinese population to join his Communist movement: "to liberate the nation more are needed" Warrant: The CCP is going to liberate the nation
• Appeals: Logos- population numbers, we need more to make this possible

Part 2

• Appeal shift to heavy ethos and pathos starting with "In times of difficulty..."
• Purpose: To twist the suffering and death of the Chinese people as a result of the revolution into a positive situation
• Mao uses morals to bring support to his cause- "it is our duty" to save the Chinese people from their "suffering" 
• Brings back his major claim of death: "Because we have the interests of the people and the sufferings of the great majority at heart, and when we die for the people it is a worthy death." This is really Mao stating the warrant to his earlier claim that dying for the CCP is the ultimate honor and to die a death fighting for the CCP is to die a meaningful death. This gives his reasoning for the claim- because they party is for the benefit of the people, to die for it is an honor. 
• Mao is also showing the ethos of the military aspect by saying that even though to die for them would be honorable, our soldiers look out for the lives of one another and "love and help each other". He is painting the picture that the CCP is a morally right and benevolent organization. 
• Diction: "we",  "struggle" "sacrifice" "death"= "bright future"
• Effective in building the ethos of the CCP- Reasserts that they have the value of the people in mind, they realize people are going to die, their soldiers have, in a sense, a family attitude toward each other 

Paragraph 5:

• Appeal: heavy pathos
• Techniques: Hyperbole? He is saying that every time anyone who is in support of the party dies, that they need to be honored with a memorial meeting in their village. A little excessive? Does he really mean this?
• This is sort of an announcement as he is giving directions of something that should now be happening, very ordering tone.
• Warrant in the last sentence: To unite the people, we need to mourn our dead. Death will bring us closer together. 
• Effectiveness: Very effective. Takes all the accumulative bits supporting his major claim at the beginning and qualifies and reasserts them into a concise and directing conclusion. 

General Evaluation: Mao is really relying on his audiences pathos and his own claims on his ethos to sway the listeners. He uses intimidation through his ethos to create a sense of "wow, I should really support the CCP because they have me in mind and they really know what they're doing. Also what they're doing is morally correct." The piece is completely void of logos. There are very few, if any, rhetorical devices besides the metaphor in the second paragraph. Similar to Geobbels in that he has no logical backing for what he is saying and is really relying on his ethos to make his point seem correct. 

Churchill, Hirohito, and Goebbels

Churchill, Hirohito, and Goebells are all three very influential WWII figures whose words were so profound, we are still reading and analyzing them today. All three men use hyperboles to advance their arguments and gain the support and/or loyalty of their people.

All of their exaggerations use the method of rallying people to support their cause because the fate of the world or the future of humankind rests in their fight. Goebells uses this tactic often in his speech, as his claims usually contain no support and are in no way truthful. His figurative language rouses his audience, because who wouldn't support a war that "overshadows all previous human and historical experience"(3)? Although he is completely off target, his use of hyperbole creates no choice but for his listeners to agree with him. Hirohito, on the other hand, is not rallying people to fight as Goebells is, uses a hyperbole to covertly convince his subjects of something, and that is, that "all" have turned against Japanese interests. Considering this was after the atom bomb, the Japanese would very likely believe this idea, especially coming from their divine ruler, that the whole world is against them, however, Hirohito does this in such a simple and unknowingly effective way that one would not even recognize it.

Churchill is much more similar to Goebells in that his overstatements are explicit and dramatic. In an attempt to gain support, he informs them of the "monstrous tyranny" that needs to be stopped, and reminds that they are fighting "one of the greatest battles in history." By doing this, his tactics closely resemble those of Goebells in that both are using extreme, direct, forceful and aggressive language and statements to gain the support they need. Their hyperboles are undoubtably pathos driven, as Churchill describes the enemy as the devil himself, while Goebells believes the war to be the biggest event to humankind ever.

Furthermore, the use of hyperboles in all three speeches effectively aid the speakers in getting their claims across and fulfilling the intention of their speech. Althought Goebells and Churchill are looking to gain support while Hitrohito seeks to keep his people loyal, and Goebells and Churchill's over statements are more forceful when Hirohitos are covert, they all demonstrate the idea of hyperboles and how they are an essential part to a speech, and when well crafted, can push people into action without them ever knowing.

Machiavelli & Thoreau: A conversation on "Man"

Thoreau and Machiavelli are in complete contradiction when it comes to their view on men. While Machiavelli believes men to be incompetent and mindless, Thoreau stresses the capability of the individual to be his own advocate and an opposing force.

Machiavelli believes the prince, or for comparative purposes to Thoreau, the government, to be the all powerful and all righteous, with the people being its mindless followers. He gives men none of the credit for being the self-sufficent thinkers that Thoreau does, and is, in fact, in complete disagreement to his idea. Machiavelli believes that "men are so simple of mind and so much dominated by their immediate needs, that a deceitful man will always find plenty who are ready to be deceived,"(464) meaning that men are so simple of mind that someone who wants to deceive, there are plenty of men "ready" to be deceived. Thoreau is in complete contradiction with this view, as he believes individuals are capable of standing up to authority and injustices. He gives men the credit of being able to think for themselves and stand up to power, something Machiavelli does not. While Machiavelli believes there are plenty of men to be deceived, Thoreau encourages men to not be complicit, making his warrant that men are not deceived if they are recognizing an injustice.

Machiavelli also goes by the idea that "it is a good general rule about men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, fearful of danger and greedy for gain." (461) His belief is that people by nature are greedy and generally bad, while Thoreau has a different idea about the selfishness of man. Thoreau believes that "he who gives himself entirely to his fellow-men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist." (278)  Thoreau's take is that men who give themselves totally are selfish, while Machiavelli believes that all men are by nature greedy and therefore selfish for "gain". Thoreau distinguishes that men who give themselves to others are the better, while Machiavelli attributes this selfishness to all men. This really embodies the contrast between the two men and their ideology- Thoreau believes men choose to be complicit or self sufficient, good or bad, while Machiavelli believes more or less that all men are bad, except, well, if you're the prince.

Machiavelli and Thoreau have both completely contrasted views on men, both going to the extremes of each side. Machiavelli attributes all negative connotations to men, and Thoreau acknowledges the power men have to be great and have their own voice. One would think that the two men are writing these pieces in response to one another, as they are in essence arguing the opposition against the other.

Social Change Proposal: First Draft

Olivia Melendez

Period 4 APL+C

Social Change Proposal Final Rough Draft

Throughout my career as an inner-city magnet school student, I took for granted the tools that were always at my disposal which guided me in the right direction, the most influential of this being the teachers and administrators who were always there for me, who I confided in, who I respected, and who respected me. Once my friends, also in the magnet program, graduated and went off into our local high schools, many kids who had once been the best and the brightest began to lose their spark. Many got involved with drugs, and many were bounced from school to school as if “How to Get Expelled” were a new elective. Kids who once took pride in being handed their Honor Roll certificate every trimester now looked forward to passing by the skin of their teeth to the next class. There is something disgustingly wrong with this, and it made me think: What is the flaw in the system?

Well, as it turns out, teenagers are highly impressionable. Eighth graders cling to the latest trend like their lives depend on it, and everything you say to them carries weight. From my experiences, I’d say twelve to fourteen years old is when what is said carries the most weight.  

It also turns out that there were 15 murders per 100,000 people in 2012 after a rash of gun violence in Bridgeport, and at least 15 sets of gangs operate in Bridgeport[1]. In fact, Bridgeport has been initiated into the 25 Most Dangerous Cities in America[2] club, an extra curricular I don’t feel is making too positive an impression on our already impressionable youth.

So, what do we do about this? Well, as of now we have great programs and organizations within Bridgeport, like the YMCA and the Cardinal Shehan Center, which do a solid job of giving their participants a constructive environment in which they can participate. But with staggering murder rates and an unfortunate 66.3 percent of the 2012 graduating class of Bridgeport actually graduating, we need a more aggressive program that gets kids right when it matters, that is, the transition from middle to high school. This is a time in which kids really find their personality and friend groups, which can either put them on the right track, or unfortunately, like many others, the wrong.

My idea is to establish a program within these organizations that will act as a sort of mentor system for the kids of the mentioned ages. These teenagers will be partnered up with volunteers who are upper high school age, college age, adults- anyone who can offer positive guidance and support, and also be willing to extend some possible personal experience in the trials and tribulations of growing up faced with adversity- and exchange contact information, arrange meetings, or whatever system feels most comfortable for the mentee, in which they will build a positive relationship where they feel comfortable seeking advice and guidance in navigating the decisions a teen is faced with in developing themselves in one of America’s most dangerous cities.

Such a program would be extremely beneficial for those kids who don’t have access to positive adult figures in their personal lives, or even teachers like I did. They can now have someone who they feel comfortable considering their confidant, and by encouraging successful high school upperclassmen and college age young adults to volunteer as the mentors, teens will be more responsive, as they feel more of a connection to someone who has recently been through what they are facing and who they can more closely relate to. This will result in kids wanting to willingly participate in the program, rather than being forced.

By adopting such a system, our local organizations aimed at bettering the lives of our youth would see a plethora of success stories. I know personally that if some of my close friends had had such an opportunity available to them going into high school, then they wouldn’t have the questionable future they now have almost graduating. Kids can build relationships which will help them to stay on the right track, and having someone to seek help from when navigating through the confusing transition to becoming a young adult can make or break an individuals situation, as I’ve come to find out is essential through my own personal experience with the transition.

So rather than uniting as a community to accept our new titles as among the “Most Dangerous Cities” or other less than flattering names, lets come together to give our youth the tools they need to contribute to turning that name into “Most Safe City”, or “City With the Most Opportunity”. I propose our local youth organizations adapt this idea of a mentoring system and see the need for it. Because really, I would much rather the next generation of our community to be known for 15 out of every 100,000 going out into the greater world as positive representations of Bridgeport, contributing new ideas that began to fester when they sought out someone to guide them while they were young, rather than the current 15 per every 100,000 people being murdered because they lacked the guidance to sustain a positive output.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-connecticut-has-so-many-dangerous-cities-2013-6

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/High-school-graduation-rates-increase-4733257.php#

To be sent to the local newspapers for (hopefully) publishing

---

[1]

[2]

Proposal: The Guidelines

-Improving programs for inner-city teens
-Audience: Bridgeport community
-Speaker: Myself (establish ethos by talking about how I have seen how these programs would be beneficial and how without them kids end up going onto the wrong path)
___________________________________
Relationship: We need better programs for inner-cty teens within the Bridgeport community, which I have noticed needs to be improved through going to school in Bridgeport and my relationship with people who would have benefitted from such a program.

-Genre of Argument:  Open conversation with the Bridgeport community published in the local city newspaper

-Purpose: To lay down the groundwork for a positive future for teens transitioning from middle to high school.

-Argument of Proposal

-Major Claim/Plan: As a community we need to improve the programs for our youth so that they will want to participate and it will be constructive and successful in keeping them out of violence, drugs, bad stuff in general.

-Ethos: I have seen how these would be beneficial and what happens without them or when they arent successful (the programs), pathos to drive people to action and make it more personal, logos- how often is this happening? is this really needed? how are they not successful? rates? specific instances?

-Major changes (so far), I think I may now point out how existing programs need to be improved rather than proposing to create entirely new programs

Social Change: Argument of Proposal

Ali Rajohn Eric Henderson: Fourteen years old and a freshman in high school, well, should have been. Henderson was murdered before he could start the school year. He was involved with drugs. He was involved with gangs. He was involved with guns. He was impressionable.

You see, Henderson was a part of the critical age group- middle school into high school- in which transitions are inevitable and decisions begin to shape the person you’ll be for good. Teens become young adults and young adults choose who they want to become. In large cities like Newark, where Henderson was from, street violence and, as a result, murder are becoming an epidemic among young people, and little is being done about it. Communities rally for vigils to grieve the loss of their young people, but what do they do in order to prevent it?

Well, right now, I see very little preventative measures being taken to avoid situations of lives being cut too short from happening. What is direly needed are programs that young adults want to participate in, which are fun and constructive, and places and people available to them that can keep them on the right track toward a bright future. So many young minds are lost to the temptation of drugs and gang violence simply because they have nothing better to do or nowhere else to turn. Young adults of the impressionable ages of twelve through fifteen need a positive outlet in which they are encouraged and praised for putting out constructive things into their communities, and we as communities need to realize we have a responsibility to our youth to provide them with this.

Within our communities, there are so many wonderful individuals who can contribute to the future of these teens, just simply by offering themselves as mentors, speaking about their careers, helping host events, and many other simple things that can contribute to a better climate overall. Establishing places where kids can go to hang out or participate in something, or people who kids can confide in and seek advice from would, can, and needs to be a crucial element in the shaping of them as individuals. By providing youth with a positive influence and an exposure to opportunities they wouldn’t have otherwise been exposed to, we can work toward lowering the violence and related tragedies as a result of the lack of support for these young adults.  

So, let’s get together as a community and put together programs and opportunities (college tours, socials, games, classes, etc.) for our youth, and maybe someday by doing so we will never have to gather to grieve a tragedy like Henderson ever again, but rather, we will be gathering to praise the success of the kids whose lives we've changed. 

Source/More about Henderson's Case: http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2013/09/newark_teen_tied_to_gangs_drugs_is_murdered_before_his_first_day_of_high_school.html 

Toulmin Analysis

Analysis of my Pathos blog:

Major Claim(s)
- "I believe we need more community outreach programs for inner-city teens, ones which they will actually want to be a part of."
- "we need to come up with solutions to get teens off the streets and into a more positive, encouraging environment. "
- To sum it up, my major claim for this piece would have to be that there need to be more opportunities and programs for inner-city teens. This is a major claim because it is my solution to the problem of tragedies among inner-city youth and the product of all my reasons leading up (too many deaths, kids don't realize their full potential, etc. later pointed out in this post) 

Data
- No data, whoops

Warrants (I'm still a little unsure about these)
- I believe my warrant(s) would be that by creating more programs and opportunities for kids, we will see better outcomes within our communities and from these kids. Creating better opportunities = better things from our youth 
- Our priorities as a community should lie in our youth 


Backing
- Communities are affected deeply when tragedies happen among our youth, and have a sort of strength, but are not concentrating their efforts in the right things. 
- Youth are unaware of their worth, restricting them from reaching their full potential. 
- "I can guarantee you we would have a more productive, positive, innovative, successful society. I know that if at a younger age I had been given opportunities to participate in my community, and  to have been a part of something positive, I would have formed lasting relationships and found my way in life (which I still am realizing) a little earlier."
- "I can't imagine the number of times I've seen an incoherent mother crying on News 12, seeking justice for her 16 year old son who was the vicim of a hit-and-run, or her 13 year old daughter who was caught in the crossfire" 
- My backing, because this is the pathos blog, is all more pathos driven. Also, I use ethos as a backing because I identify myself as a part of this group, building my trust as the speaker. 

Rebuttal
- I don't have too solid of a rebuttal, but in a sense I address that some might be wary of my ideas because they require funding- something that is hard to come by these days. If elaborated upon, I feel this would become a decent rebuttal, as this would probably be the first opposition from local government.


Qualifiers
- I use "guarantee" a lot, which is kind of a stretch for a qualifier, but it ties into my ethos of being a part of the group that I am seeking change for, which qualifies both my ethos and the experience I am using as  my backing. The use of "guarantee" almost serves as a definite that if we provide kids with these programs, they will succeed. 




Okay, now a more formal version



This blog begins with the authors major claim, which is that she believes there need to be more opportunities and programs for inner-city teens. This is a major claim because it is her solution to the problem of tragedies among inner-city youth and the product of all her reasons leading up (too many deaths, kids don't realize their full potential, etc. later pointed out in this post). "I believe we need more community outreach programs for inner-city teens, ones which they will actually want to be a part of."


The writers ethos works as my backing, as they make clear that they am a part of the community that 
needs help and they identify with the age group. "because I see such a sense of community in my city"


She also uses her ethos as a backing by building her trust as a speaker. Because the speaker is a part of this group, she knows about such tragedies and how it affects communities first-hand. "I can't imagine the number of times I've seen an incoherent mother crying on News 12, seeking justice for her 16 year old son who was the vicim of a hit-and-run, or her 13 year old daughter who was caught in the crossfire" 


Also, the author uses pathos as a vehicle for their backing primarily, as this was a pathos geared blog. By stating things such as "I can guarantee you we would have a more productive, positive, innovative, successful society. I know that if at a younger age I had been given opportunities to participate in my community, and  to have been a part of something positive, I would have formed lasting relationships and found my way in life (which I still am realizing) a little earlier," readers can identify and understand how beneficial these programs would be. Also by using more obvious pathos, as when she says "The mothers sobbing on TV, the candles and balloons lined along street corners, the wholehearted teddybear shrines, the innocent, young lives gone in the blink of an eye, and the communities and families left to cope are exactly what I never want to see, ever again," leads the reader to feel an emotional response toward the cause and hopefully see that it is something worth going forward with. 


In relation to the backing, there is no data to support the claims. This piece would be improved and more driven had there been an inclusion of data. 
I believe the warrant(s) would be that by creating more programs and opportunities for kids, there will be better outcomes within such inner-city communities and from the youth being targeted. In essence, creating better opportunities equals better things from the youth. 


The qualifiers are more of a stretch, but there is a  use of "guarantee" a lot, which ties into the writer's ethos of being a part of the group that they are seeking change for. This qualifies both her ethos and the experience she is using as  her backing. The use of "guarantee" almost serves as a definite that if youth can be provided with these programs, they will succeed.  



There is  not a solid rebuttal, but in a sense they address that some might be wary of their ideas because they require funding- something that is hard to come by these days. If elaborated upon, I feel this would become a decent rebuttal, as this would probably be the first opposition from local government. 

Audience Brainstorm Post

7 Possible Audiences:

1. Teens, young adults (ages 12-18?)
2. Parents, guardians of teens/young adults
3. Local government (the mayor, etc)
4. Teachers, schools
5. Local businesses who can donate facilities, services
6. People who can offer their own time as mentors or volunteers (working people, older people, college kids)
7. People in a position to donate money (business owners, local newspapers, etc.)

Top 3
1. Teens/young adults
     Pros: The program will be designed for them, they will be the ones benefitting and participating,                    they are who the social change is for
     Cons: Most won't want to participate, broad interests, large age group, how to present it to them (text, video, exposure)

2. People who can offer their own time as mentors or volunteers
     Pros: can offer guidance, can give kids advice and lead them in the right direction, can be paired up with kids of similar interests
     Cons: how can you screen good people from bad?, such a broad group, how do you go about finding these people?, how would the time be organized, what would be expected of these people, how formal the style?, how to target them (writing, speaking)

3. Local businesses who can donate facilities/services
     Pros: It will help them gain business and enhance their own ethos (win-win), easy to present (conversation, approach), less money spent on our end on space and services
     Cons: How much would be asked of them, what exactly to ask of them, what businesses?, what do we offer them

WINNER: 2. People who can offer their own time as mentors or volunteers
     Pros: can offer guidance, can give kids advice and lead them in the right direction, can be paired up with kids of similar interests
     Cons: how can you screen good people from bad?, such a broad group, how do you go about finding these people?, how would the time be organized, what would be expected of these people, how formal the style?, how to target them (writing, speaking)

Applying Ethos

I've always hated when people ask me, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" Not only is it a loaded question, but to be honest, I was never really quite sure what exactly I wanted to be. 

Up until fifth grade, I went to your typical middle-class suburban school. All the mothers stayed at home, all the girls wore Limited Too, and I had an afro and an independent, full-time working mom. Needless to say I never really fit in. When those kids were asked what they wanted to be, they answered with the inspiring dancer or professional baseball player, but this didn't really faze them- they didn't have to worry, they could be whatever they wanted. The variables weren’t going to be a hardship for them; they were comfortable. 

From fifth grade on, I went to an inner-city magnet school, in which I finally felt at home. There was diversity, there was blending, and most importantly, there was acceptance. But when we, as 13 year olds, had to submit to the yearbook our answer to the question of what we wanted to be when we grew up, we answered with the same dreamy answers as the fifth graders I previously mentioned. Except fast forward to now, two years later, when a significant amount of those kids, the ones with the big dreams, have gotten into situations that took their dreams and hid them out of sight. The kids who two years ago I saw as the future president, or next leader of reform, or idol basketball player, have lost their sights due to lack of stimulation and encouragement, and also opportunity. 

If there were more programs for inner-city youths that provided an outlet, a support system, and guidance (and maybe was fun, too), less of us would have been derailed by the temptations of being curious and exposed. Having seen both sides of the spectrum (the side where if you were sidetracked, that it was okay, because there were people and opportunities to get you out of it, and the side which is less pardoning, where one slip can send you down into a rut you can’t get out of), I realized that it’s not the (obvious) money that gets you to where you want to be, although it does help, but rather the exposure to positive influence and encouragement, which is something we need to take responsibility for. We as communities need to establish programs to stimulate our youth and push them into the right direction. But in order to do that, we need to ask ourselves what do we want to be when we grow up, because those kids who day by day loosen just a little more of the grasp on their dreams are the future, and they deserve an equal playing field.