Steph Brown
Eng 306
MW 3:00-4:15
Mohandas Gandhi Hunger Strike
Most Americans know who Mohandas Gandhi was. If you ask, someone would most likely say he was a peaceful man, then realize that is all they really know about Gandhi. Americans don't truly know of the man the people of India called "Mahatma" to which the direct translation is great soul. Gandhi was a one of a kind man, this is because of his unprecedented way of seeking independence from Great Britain. In 1776 America declared independence and we fought and lost human lives, British and American blood was shed. When Gandhi fought for independence and was imprisoned once in South Africa and three times in India it was for social change. In 1922 he was jailed for conspiracy to overthrow the British government. Gandhi is a great person to analyze his protest because of how unique he was and because of how revolutionary he was. Just the way Mahatma Gandhi talks about people is incredible he has respect for all living things. Gandhi practiced what is now known as civil disobedience, but he called it by a different name satyagraha. The english translation is tricky, but it translates indirectly to "unflinching adherence to the truth". Gandhi would become the founding father of India, but not without conflict.
One of Gandhi's most famous protest was his "fast unto death". Mahatma Gandhi on September 16 1932, while still imprisoned Gandhi started his fast. The reasoning as to why is the British who ruled India, and at this time had implemented a new Indian constitution that would seperate the Indian electorate by caste. Gandhi realized this new constitution would give the lowest class of Indians more commonly known as the "untouchables" a separate political representation, and would lead to injustice among the untouchables which Gandhi called "gods children". Trying to sway the British crown is never easy, but with Gandhi's constant preaching of peace if he died the British would have to deal with upset Indians. Gandhi would fast for six days until British rule agreed to his principal terms of a settlement between the untouchables and the Indians higher classes. Gandhi broke his fast by saying a prayer before drinking orange juice and exclaiming satyagraha has triumphed.
Gandhi's protests were never violent, some became violent, however Mahatma Gandhi never preached violence he even said the only way to beat violence is non-violence. However Gandhi's protests very rarely appealed to logic. When it comes to logos it was not that Gandhi was above using logic, but the British crown wouldn't hear it.
One of Gandhi's biggest assets in the 1930's was he was Mahatma Gandhi. He was famous for his time spent in South Africa, he is the great soul. I feel this appeal was used greatly in Gandhi's fast unto death, but it was used differently than others use it. When Gandhi began his fast it put the British on a clock. Gandhis appeal was the fact that he was Gandhi, but it was also that the British needed Gandhi on the earth more than Gandhi needed. Gandhi realized his influence was so great that his death would mean more death, riots, and possibly war. Mohandas Gandhi was a member of the vaiysa or merchant caste. Higher above the untouchables so he was not just famous among the lower caste he was well known, famous even in the vaisya and upper caste. As a member of the merchant caste he was able to not be another poor uneducated person complaining, he attended college and these facts made him the credible person he was. If a poor man who no one knew starved to death the British wouldn't care. However because of who he was the British were not willing to allow the man who lead a sixty thousand person peaceful march to have those sixty thousand people possibly rioting. Gandhi was aware that the British crown would not be able to deal with the public pressure put on for the one known as the great soul. Gandhi embraced it as well he said this is a god-given opportunity has come to me, "To offer my life as a final sacrifice to the downtrodden". The man was prepared to die and the British waited six days, but when push came to shove they were aware of what was at stake.
In an argument no matter if the president of the United States or president of nothing there will be an appeal to either logic or emotion, a good cause can appeal to both, but there will be an appeal to at least one. Gandhi's appeal to logic were worthless, it didn't work because his people were being oppressed so even if it made sense the British were making so much money and had the resources to oppress them, so it did not make sense to the British because all they saw was themselves losing a profit. Gandhi found another way, the fact that Gandhi was a member of the higher vaiysa caste gave him a voice no untouchable had, the fact that it was Ghandi's voice was something no one else had. However this caste gave him a platform to appeal for his children of god. The lower caste system was in jeopardy of being more suppressed for seventy more years, but Gandhi knew if this happened there would be no going back, that the greed of the upper castes would deny human needs to the lower castes. Although Gandhi never said it I believe the fast was representing the starving people of the lower caste. The people who would continue to starve if this lack of representation proceeded.
The great soul was concerned about others more than himself. The constant acts of selflessness are nearly unparalleled the man was ready to fast unto death in order to get reform for those less fortunate than him. He called the untouchables the children of god, a name that appeals to pathos. Gandhi fought for indolence through peace. He led more than sixty thousand people on a march to the sea the man was known from Berlin to Bangkok because he accomplished through peace whereas other men had used force. Gandhi did not fear death for he knew he would be more powerful in death than he was in life. What he represented still stands today, he laid the foundation for Martin Luther King Jr's civil disobedience, or as I know it satyagraha.
Work Cited
"A “Fast Unto Death”–Gandhi’s Legacy." Rentschler Library News. N.p., 2011. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.
@HISTORYUK. "Gandhi Begins a Protest Fast." HISTORY. N.p., 2015. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.
"Gandhi Begins Fast in Protest of Caste Separation." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.
"What Is Satyagraha? | FAQs - Myths about Mahatma Gandhi." What Is Satyagraha? | FAQs - Myths about Mahatma Gandhi. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.
"Years of Arrests of Mahatma Gandhi." Years of Arrests of Mahatma Gandhi. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2016.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOverall this is a pretty solid rough draft. Your argument is fairly strong and you give good background to Ghandi's protest. The extensive background information is definitely needed since like you said, most people only know Ghandi as a peaceful Indian man; not much about his individual protests. There are, however, quite a few syntax and grammatical errors; mostly run-on sentences, that make the paper a bit hard to read. For instance, the sentence "Just the way Mahatma Gandhi talks about people is incredible he has respect for all living things." could easily be two sentences and would give the paper a lot more fluidity. You did a good job talking about how Ghandi's protest appealed primarily to ethos and explaining why it worked. However, the third paragraph stating how the rhetoric of "Satyagraha" did not use logos is not really warranted. Since Ghandi's protest did not appeal to logic it doesn't really fit in the paper to talk about it. If you do feel it is necessary though, maybe just a quick mention of logos would suffice. I also noticed that you didn't really explicitly state who the audience for the protest was and what identities were formed as a result. Being a big part of the assignment, going into detail about the protest's audience would definitely strengthen your argument. Your conclusion is good. The sentence about the children of god and pathos doesn't really have a place there, but you did a good job tying the paper's main ideas together. In all, there are some structural issues and some topics that could definitely be covered further but this was a good first attempt. The writing, as a whole is great and if you address the grammar issues as well as spend a little time refining your argument, this will be an excellent paper.
ReplyDeleteThe paper uses the extended knowledge of Ghandi well. I was kind of confused throughout as to what audience the protest was for, you could add a few extra details so that way we know as readers. I know that this is a paper about ghandi, but this seemed like it kind of ended up being a history of Ghandi more than his finest protest work. You could also talk about how this has influenced the world and is still alive today so that way it gives us more perspective on how his protest actually manage to produce the change that he wanted.
ReplyDeleteHey Jake! I really enjoyed reading your paper, you clearly did a lot of research on Gandhi. There are a couple changes that I would recommend making to the organization and your approach to discussing rhetorical appeals that would benefit your paper.
ReplyDeleteIn your introduction, you have some good background about what your paper will be about. However, if you were to have a strong opening thesis statement followed by a brief outline of what you will be discussing in your paper I think it would flow better. For example, “(1) It is important to understand the political and economic nature of the time in order to fully comprehend the extent of Gandhi’s influence through rhetoric. (2) Gandhi’s success as a rhetor can be attributed to his ability to appropriately shape his appeals to logos, pathos and ethos to his intended audience.” would walk your audience through two body paragraphs, the first on background and then the second on rhetorical appeals. This sandwiched between your opening statement and a concluding sentence would be more coherently organized, in my opinion.
That being said, if you consolidated your background information primarily into one or two paragraphs, and then follow that with your rhetorical analysis, your paper would flow better. Obviously you want to provide some context by going over the social/political/economic situation during the time period that your rhetorical artifact (Gandhi) was most influential, discuss Gandhi’s audience, and some information on Gandhi. But other than that, unless there’s additional information supporting the claims you plan to make later in your paper, you don’t need any more background information. I think it would help if you went over what your claims are, what examples you can give to support those claims, and if additional background is required to fully understand your examples. For example, your opening statement in the second paragraph, where you discuss the “fast until death”. Is that specific thing the focus of your paper, not Gandhi in general? If it is, then it should be mentioned in the first paragraph. If you are just citing it as an example of Gandhi’s use of rhetorical appeals, then maybe preface it with that. Or, argue Gandhi’s use of rhetorical appeals and reference the protest as an example to support your claim. I would also think that paragraph three and five could be combined, both talk about logos. The arrangement of some of your body paragraphs could be changed in order to strengthen your arguments.
As I was reading your paper I was really curious about what you found on Gandhi’s use of rhetorical appeals! I think that would be a very interesting analysis that you should definitely expand on in your paper. The ratio of background information to rhetorical appeals could be more leveled out, because I think the analysis is supposed to be the primary part of our paper. I like what you pointed out about logos, but you could go further. What different ways could Gandhi use logos, depending on his audience (supporters vs. opposition)? Why would he need to change his appeals to logos? What about pathos and ethos? Why does Gandhi use the combination of appeals the way that he does? It’s something I think a lot of people would be interested in hearing about, and it would give more purpose to the background information that you’ve already provided.
When I began reading your paper, I was sort of confused on what your point was. The point of an introductory paragraph is to be focused and allow for the reader to understand what your paper is going to be about. I love your topic but I think you should be more clear as to what your introducing. I like the last sentence of this paragraph because it leads me to want to read more. I think it would be a good idea to expand on the previous protests Ghandi involved himself with during your third paragraph. This would give the readers who don’t necessarily know about Ghandi protests an exact idea of how non-violent or violent they were. You did well explaining Ghandi’s background life further into this essay and I think this essay is a well written rough draft, but you should elaborate and expand on who exactly your audience is!
ReplyDelete