The other is arguing that our country is not perfect and it has some flaws. in time it is going to prosper and that discipline is a real good thing. it says that "that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective." This shows that if we dont disicpline ourselves and train ourselves for the future that there may be problems but if we restrain our selves and follow rules that our country will be at a better place and will be flourishing.
How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?
The author first (logos) talks about how america is not perfect and that we need to realize that if we do not restrain and discipline ourselves that we may be doomed. The second part (pathos) it talks about how everyone needs to have a job and with a job many tasks can be accomplished and how important it is that everyone works. The third thing was (Ethos) that the author is saying that the people of the United States have not failed but have asked for help to improve themselves and within time we can make our country better.
What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
The historical Significance of this document is that it was written by President Roosevelt when he came into office in march 1933. it shows how right when he came into office his main focus was to improve the country and to make it better and to do that he wrote inaugural address in which he stated what he felt had to be improved and he did feel that in due time everything will be good.
Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
I do find the authors argument convincing because he stated all the things that he felt were wrong. He stated things such as "Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income" This shows that he knew what had to be improved and what the United States had to do in order to improve and better themselves since there were alot of problems which had to be addressed. His main focus was on how to make the country very prosperous and a strong nation.
I agree the F.D.R's speech was convincing. I also think that part of his ethos is he was a man with excellent foresight. He knew that if we did not stop living on credit the American dream would be drowned by debt. He cared deeply about his country and didn't want to see it become dependent on another country. His main focus definitely was to help build a strong and prosperous America.
ReplyDeletePriya did you also notice the negative terms he used for those in the financial industry? He calls them 'unscrupulous money changers' and says that they were propelled by "the mad chase of evanescent profits." His disdain is evident and he is obviously not afraid to point at the culprit. But, he doesn't stop there. He also offers a multi-part approach to remedy the situation. You're right that "his main focus is to build a strong and prosperous America!"
DeleteI really like how you summed up the last question, stating facts and detail in your answer. I agree with you that his address was very convincing, and it takes strong opinion to win people over, but he used both opinion and stated the known problems of the nation in his speech. Another example i saw of pathos was "In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor--the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others-- the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors." Although we cannot hear the words being stated, I can imagine Roosevelt speaking in a strong, determined, yet soft and genuine voice. Here, he is addressing the fact that those who respect themselves and others around them will result in a respectful nation in whole. The emotional tone behind it ensures the listeners and readers that these actions will soon take place, and hope for a peaceful place. He needed America to stand on its own, and for all peoples to come together as one, resulting in an independent and supreme nation.Roosevelt definitely showed how much he cared for America and his high hopes for the future.
ReplyDeleteGreat Job on your analysis !
ReplyDeleteI agree with how you thought that Roosevelt's argument was convincing because I thought that he had a lot of emotions in his writing. I agree with Ayanna that he is speaking in a strong and determined voice. I thought that he presented himself well and he had a lot to say without actually saying anything bad. I think he had very good intentions for the nation, and he wasn't really selfish with his ideas. I think that he really thought about the people, and how his decisions would effect them.
Manpreet you are right that FDR was convincing! His humble but forceful position leads the people to see that his plan is the only right way to proceed. I was mindful of the fact that he mentioned a few times that he was responding to the trust the people had placed in him. He refers to his 'constitutional duty,' 'the power that would be given to [him],' and 'the trust reposed in [him],' as the drivers for his charge. He assures the people that he knows the task will be difficult, but the restoration of values, satisfaction and a 'permanent national life' will be their reward!
ReplyDelete