Amazingly enough, all three speeches were related to Indian independence from Britain and the many points of view on this topic. This is a text that informs and up to where I have read, doesn't contain many arguements, giving little space for there to be rhetoric.
Nothing will turn us from our path, or discourage us from our efforts.
This is a clear example of tautology, isn't Churchill just rephrasing what he said? As I read on I found another example. This time it was the many questions fallacy.
Can you wonder that they try in desperation to make what terms are possible with the triumphant Brahmin oligarchy?
Now, with this excerpt I'm not 100% sure but it seems like a many questions fallacy:
If that authority is injured or destroyed, the whole efficiency of the services, defensive, administrative, medical, hygienic, judicial; railway, irrigation, public works and famine prevention, upon which the Indian masses depend for their culture and progress, will perish with it.
I kind of ran out of fallacies in this speech, but I did want to inform you about my findings in terms of rhetoric. This text clearly uses logos and pathos. In an attempt to appear sympathetic, Churchill introduces the British as fair and who try to help the oppresed Hindi, which, after reading George Orwell's essay, we now know isn't true. Word choice is strong. Churchill uses words such as "despise" when he refers to the way Brahim feel about the Intouchables. You would support the group that despised nobody wouldn't you? So would I.
Following that I found more ethos and logos!
Were we to wash our hands of all responsibility and divest ourselves of all our powers, as our sentimentalists desire, ferocious civil wars would speedily break out between the Moslems and the Hindus.
No one who knows India will dispute this.
I'ma fall asleep alert! Buh - bye, over and out.
No comments:
Post a Comment