SERVE THE PEOPLE BY MAO ZEDONG OUTLINE

Purpose: The purpose of Mao's speech is broken down into three key ideas. The first purpose is that Mao wants to instill in his audience's mind that the idea of death, which is suppose to be a negative, is in fact positive. The second purpose is that any efforts and actions that will occur during this revolution is morally right. The third purpose is that every citizen and party member should be pro revolution.

Audience: Committee meeting officials for the communist party

Context: Mao wrote this speech to commemorate the death of a PLA soldier named Chang Szu-teh. During the Cultural Revolution, this speech was widely read. Mao was dedicated to improving China for the better, especially in education and he achieved that goal. He also had a deep passion for the Chinese culture and its history. Mao opposed Warlords and imperialist but was pro liberalism, democratic reform ism, and Utopian socialism.

Appeals:

-First Paragraph: Pathos: makes audience feel encouraged, up lifting, using words such as battalions; dedicated;l liberation; people's interest; ranks

-Second Paragraph: Mao builds his ethos: quotes Szuma Chien; Logos: quote justifies the point Mao is trying to make

-Third Paragraph: Majority of this paragraph builds Mao's ethos: mentions Mr. Ting-Ming; also by stating the Communist party can be wrong at times and will fix those wrong doings.

-Fourth Paragraph: Pathos: makes audience feel united, dedicated, as if they have to be pro revolution; use words like common revolutionary objective; liberate; love and help each other. Logos: throws in statistics: "Today we already lead base areas with a population of 91 million"

-Fifth Paragraph: All Pathos: Mao wants to really get the committee to see his point and get them to do as he says. Use words like: This should become the rule; memorial; honor; unite all the people

Figurative Language: Mao doesn't really use various figurative language but he does use a couple metaphors.

- referring to the Communist Party and Eighth Route and New Fourth Armies as battalions

- referring to certain peoples deaths as Mount Tai or Feathers

Effectiveness: I believe the use of these metaphors was effective due to the fact that his audience already support him so he doesn't have to do much to get them to agree. Just by saying battalions, which when you think about them you think of hard, getting the job done, handy; you will only assume that his audience would agree. Same with using mountains and feathers to compare deaths, they are so contrast that it makes his overall point seem even more powerful.

Claims and Warrants:

Claim:  "All men must die, but death can vary in its significance"

Warrant: Some deaths are more valuable than others based on the cause of the persons death.

Support: Quote by Szuma Chien

Claim: "If we have shortcomings, we are not afraid to have them pointed out and criticized, because we serve the people"

Warrant: Even Mao and the Communist Party mess up and have problems

Support: Mentions Mr. Li Ting- ming giving the party advice

Claim: "From now on, when anyone in our ranks who has done some useful works dies, be he soldier or cook, we should have a funeral ceremony and a memorial meeting in his honour"

Warrant: If a person does not do good works for the greater of the community meaning support Mao and his efforts, their deaths will be irrelevent

Support: Deeming it a rule; bringing it to the actual community

General Evaluation: Mao was very selective with his audience. I'm pretty sure he knew that no one would oppose his thoughts of "unifying" China. He used a lot of pathos which was his strong point but not a lot of logos. He did have one statistic and a quote but that was about it. I also don't think he had to establish his ethos since everyone knew that he was Chairman Mao and that he was very important. As far as he speaking to his audience, he did a good job but I truely belive that if the public were his audience if would have to try a bit harder to truely get everyone on his side.

 

                

 

 



Churchill and Goebbels: Winning The War

Winston Churchill and Joseph Goebbels had very similar ideals on the concept of winning the war. They both believed that if their citizens were united, did all they could possibly do, and have faith in their leader, they would overcome the obstacles of war and bounce back stronger.

Churchill and Goebbels felt very strongly about a nation’s unity. If all the citizens were not of one accord then everything would fall apart. This means that everything that Churchill has to say and everything that Goebbels has to say is correct and all the citizens should just accept it (sarcasm). Goebbels believe that the Germans gathered in such a great mass to “display” their “unity” and “unanimity” as well as “strong will to overcome the difficulties” they “faced in the fourth year of the war.” In Goebbels eyes, if they were not on the same page about war, they would not get far and basically lose the war as well as all human civilization. Churchill believes that his nation should just “go forward together with” their “united strength.” If some citizens were weaker than others, meaning not progressing towards the war, then they would not be in unity and Churchill’s war efforts would crumble. That is why Churchill and Goebbels want everyone to be unified because then there will be a nice flow through the country and also no problems on top of an already brutal war.

Goebbels and Churchill also felt passionately about everyone pulling their own weight. This meaning that everyone does everything they possibly can to contribute to the war efforts. Goebbels is notorious for this kind of thinking. Churchill knows that they are in “one of the greatest battles in history” so therefore he knows that “many preparations have to be made here at home.” This is a great strategy to use on a big crowd of people who you want to follow you. Churchill makes them feel like it is their obligation to participate in the war efforts since it is such a drastic war. Goebbels does a fantastic job at this strategy as well. The only difference is that he actually adds action to force people to get involved in the war. Goebbels understands “what an example German soldier have set in this great age! And what an obligation it puts on us all, particularly the entire German homeland!” so he closed down bars and night clubs, “countless luxury stores”, and makes people “work until the work is done”. Basically he cuts off all happiness for the German citizens so that they had no choice but to participate in the war effort.

Goebbels and Churchill also wanted their citizens to have faith in them. Goebbels let his people know that “the leadership’s measures are in full agreement with the desires of the German people at home and at the front.” That makes the citizens rely on him more and trust him. The same goes with Churchill; he lets his citizens know that he takes “up his task with buoyancy and hope” and that he feels “sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men.” This makes the citizens feel as if he really know what he is speaking about and that if they do work hard they will win. He gained their trust and they gave him their safety.

Machiavelli and Thoreau on: What A Man Should Be

     Machiavelli and Thoreau had similar ideas about how a man should act and present himself. Machiavelli believed that a man should be well balanced, meaning that he should have all the good characteristics of a human being as well as the bad characteristics. Thoreau believed that a man should have his own mind and think for himself. Machiavelli had many beliefs about how a man should act such as being feared over being loved. Thoreau and Machiavelli’s ideals about what a man should be may be questionable but are also accurate.

      Thoreau goes to state that “A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away”, but leave that office to his dust at least” Pg 278. What Thoreau means by this is that a man should not be used as a puppet for the benefit of the Government. He should have knowledge and conscience to think of his own words and actions. I believe that if Machiavelli were to read this he would agree because he states in his writing that some men are “feeble and effeminate, another fierce and spirited” pg 458. Fierceness goes with speaking up for yourself and not being afraid to say what you feel.

       Thoreau and Machiavelli have a strong opinion of being passive. They both do not like it at all. They believe a man should do whatever it takes to get what he needs done. When it comes to wrong doings, Thoreau believes “If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law pg 284. What Thoreau is saying is that if a law you have to follow is hurting other people, then by all means, don’t follow it. Machiavelli is saying the same thing but with a different situation. Machiavelli says that, “Thus a prudent prince cannot and should not keep his word when to do so would go against his interest, or when the reasons that made him pledge it no longer apply” pg 463” Basically Machiavelli is saying that a man can break his promises if they are no longer in best interest or are no longer needed.

       Machiavelli and Thoreau are very similar in ideals, not saying that they don’t have their contradictions with each other but they still have a lot in common. They are both passionate and strong about the topics they discuss in their writings and although the topics may be questionable, their responses are very close to accurate.  

Here's what I Propose, or should I say it Casually?

         Racial Profiling has been heightening for the past two decades due to false allegations by law enforcement agents against people of color. It has increased in number and frequency. This isn’t just talking about African Americans; It’s is referring to Hispanics, Indians, and many more ethnicities who have a darker skin tone. Racial profiling is very significant in today's society because it happens every single day. People may stereotype some one and not even realize that they are doing it.  Quantitative and qualitative evidence has been collected at a federal, state, and local level, confirming that racial profiling persists even though it was deemed unconstitutional. Although racial profiling has been brought up before and attempts to stop it has been tried, people have failed because society is still in a mindset that distiguishes through outer appearance. Racial profiling is unacceptable and needs to be stopped because it is belittling, demeaning, and hindering our world from growing together as one.
          Specifically I wiould like to address shopping stores in predominantly white areas. When someone of a darker skin color walks into your store, I don't think it is wise to follow them around. They most likely there to buy some clothes and outer appareal, not to steal. I'm not saying that they won't steal because there are people out there who would do that, but just don't assume that it is every dark pigmented person that walks into your store. I, personally has had some experience in situations like this. One day, while shopping in a famous store named after a former princess and her hidings, I was continuosly watched by retail workers and maybe even the floor manager, when all I wanted to do was buy some underwear. I felt very uncomfortable and as if I didn't belong. According to ABC news, shopping in a store and not being the right ethnicity is called "Shopping while black". In a survey done by ABC news, it showed that more than 60 percent of black shoppers have been racially profilled. In 2009, 54% of black respondents said that they were not treated equally in shopping stores. Only 15% of white stated the same response.
         Racial profiling should be stopped because it has a negative effect on shopping businesses overall. If customers are being harrassed while trying to shop, they won't come back to your store to spend money ever again. From 1990 to 2001, Asain buying power has increased 152%, Hispanic buying power increased 133%, Black buying power increased 101%, and American Indian buying power has increased 84%. White buying power has only increased 65%. Your business will lose profit by eliminating people of a darker skin color from your store. Racial profiling is a lose-lose situation for shoppers and business owners, so if it didn't exist, everyone could live in peace and do what they love.
     Resolving the issue of racial profiling is no walk in the park. Ofcourse it is going to take a lot of time. It may even never get resolved. It all starts with a person. If one person changes the way their store is run in order to eliminate racial profiling, they will recieve a lot of shoppers and make a lot of money. When other companies see that a business is making more money than they are-they will want to find out their tactics and basically mimick it. They will figure out that that business has a friendly environment and that every ethnicity feels at home there, so they will make their companies the same way. It will basically be a chain reaction. This idea is just a theory, but it is possible if carried out by the right person. Yes there are many flaws and objectives to this plan and I acknowledge that, but it is just something to think about.
        
            
       

Toulmin Analysis on My Pathos Blog

    
       In my pathos blog, I begin with a strong introduction sentence stating a problem that is getting worse over time. Unfortunately, as I read the introduction paragraph, I seem to notice that I lack a solid claim. If I were to add one in there now it would sound a bit like this; Racial profiling is wrong and needs to be stopped.
      Now I know that there are limits to my claim which is why qualifiers are good to add. By saying: Some people believe racial profiling is not an issue, it shows that I know not everyone is on the same page as me and I am willing to address that. I am also lacking qualifiers in my original blog.
      Now that I read my blog over looking at it with a Toulmin aspect, I notice that my reasons are not that clear and everything is just factual and ethos. If I could pinpoint some reasons I would have to say that they are

1. Racial profiling has been heightening for the past two decades
2. Racial profiling happens to many different races
3. it is very demeaning and belittling

   If included, my warrant would be; since descrimination is illegal, all forms of negativity against specific races/ethnicities should also not be practiced.
    To support my warrant, I have a backing. My backing is that racial profiling was deemed unconstitutional. To add to that I would say that, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that racial profiling violates the constitutional requirement that all persons be accorded equal protection of the law. 
    I have to say that throughout my blog I manage to include a lot of evidence and statistics. For example:

1. In the year 2005, drivers of African American descent were 4.5% likely to be arrested during a traffic stop than a Caucasian driver who only had a 2.1% chance of being arrested.
2. Hispanic drivers were 65% more likely to receive a ticket than Caucasian drivers who had a 56.2% chance and African American drivers who had a 55.8% chance.

    I built my ethos and credibility by telling a personal story of how I experienced racial profiling.
   Since I mentioned a qualifier earlier that was intended to acknowledge my rebuttal's. Some rebuttal's could be

1. white people experience racial profiling too
2. everybody is going to have their opinions and everybody has a right to that opinion
3. even though racial profiling was deemed uncnstitutional, no body will follow it.

  There could definitly be many more rebuttal's but those are the three that I can think of. To respond to those rebuttal's I would say

1. I will mention all races in my argument (including white people)
2. If your opinion offends and hurts people, don't state them.
3. If we all try to follow my second reason, then we will atleast start to decrease the occurances or racial profiling.

                     
     

Who am I talking to, you ask?

7 Possible Audiences

• All people of a Darker skin tone
• All people of a Lighter skin tone
• Police Officers
• Store Owners
• Store Associates (retail, etc)
• General public
• The whole world (stereotyping happens everywhere)

3 Top Choices

• Store Owners
• General Public
• All people of a Darker skin tone

Pros/Cons

• Store Owners: The pros for writing to store owners would have to be that they will understand that judging people just on their appearance is wrong. I want them to catch on to my point and hopefully stop doing it. My cons for writing to store owners is that they will ignore me and just continue on as usual. They might even get worse on the judgements. They could also get offended by what I have to say.
• General Public: The pros for writing to a general is that everybody will hear about what I have to say. It is a topic that applies to multiple people and not just one person. Everyone will have a reason to read what I have to say. The cons for writing to a general public is that I will offend certain people. It is a difficult task to write in a way where every audience is taken into account and try to gain their trust.
• All people of a darker skin tone: The pros for writing to this audience is that it will be easy to connect with them since it is a topic that truely relates to them. They will be more open minded to what I have to say. They can connect with what I have to say. The pros for writing to people of a darker skin tone is that some people within that group might have a different opinion than mine. Also it will be bad if they just ignore what I have to say in general, especially if racial profiling has never happened to them.

Since I have to choose one audience to write to, I would have to say all people with a darker skin tone. Like I said in the above bullet point, I have a feeling they will be more open minded and will really connect to what I have to say. I will gain their trust and make them want to listen to me and hopefully make a change.

It's Because I'm Black Isn't It?: ETHOS!

Racial Profiling and stereotyping has been heightening for the past two decades due to false allegations by law enforcement agents against people of color. It has increased in number and frequency. This isn’t just talking about African Americans; It’s is referring to Hispanics, Indians, and many more ethnicities who have a darker skin tone then that of our Caucasian associates. Quantitative and qualitative evidence has been collected at a federal, state, and local level, confirming that racial profiling persists even though it was deemed unconstitutional.

       I, being an African American female and teenager who has friends and family who love to joke around, hear stereotypes more often then I want to. For instance, not all black teenagers get pregnant at a young age. That stereotype is also portrayed with Hispanic teenage females as well. All black people do not like fried chicken either. I, myself personally know of a few black people who can’t stand fried chicken. Teenagers that are of Indian descent are not playing to blow up the school. Yes, that may sound ridiculous but I have heard a stereotype like that.

       Teenagers aren’t the only group stereotyped; you also have adults who are stereotyped as well. At airports, security guards are allowed to do random searches on passengers at any moment. They don’t have to have a motive or reason, just every once in a while they feel the need to do it. Why is it that when an Indian passenger goes to get on the plane, they are stopped to be checked for bombs or drugs or other substances of that sort? It isn’t right to treat people that way.

        As far as education goes, black people are not inferior to white people when it comes to learning. We have the same amount of capabilities to achieve high goals and surpass high standards. We can excel in Ivy League schools and go on to exceptional careers. Dr. Benjamin Carson did not start off as a good student. Because he was black and the only black kid in his class, he was expected to fail, but he over came the bullying and name calling. He became the first surgeon to separate Siamese twins successfully with out one child having to die.

        We, African Americans and other ethnicities of a dark skin tone do not like being racially profiled or stereotyped. We take offense to it even if we don’t verbally express it. Yes we may joke around with some stereotypes but truth be told some of us feel some type of way on the inside.