TASK: Add at least two sentences of commentary for each example. Explore the importance, relate to the rhetorical situation, and connect to the claim.
Throughout the letter, Gandhi continuously emphasizes that he intends no harm, but that his only goal is to help Britain perceive the wrong they have done to India by issuing the Salt Act, effectively doing so by including a short anecdote, and emphasizing the prejudice his people face, to force Lord Irwin to connect with his own people in the same way Gandhi speaks for his. Gandhi begins his letter by stating his perspective clearly, acknowledging that nothing can be done without taking any risks. He asks Lord Irwin to “pave the way for immediate removal of those evils,” (36) because “I do not seek to harm your people. I want to serve them even as I serve my own. I believe that I have always served them” (12-15). ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________. Gandhi even states that “if you cannot see your way to deal with these evils and my letter makes no appeals to your heart,” then India will move on with a civil disobedience movement. _________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________. Furthermore, he asks that once the British nation sees the sufferings Gandhi and his people undergo, that it “will be enough to meet the stoniest hearts,” subtly implying that Britain is cruel for imposing such a tax upon them. He even includes a short anecdote about serving Britain “blindly” until 1919. He uses a metaphor to state that even when his “eyes were opened and [he] conceived non-co-operation,” he continued to serve them with equal love, further asking Lord Irwin to do the same. ____________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1st claim:
ReplyDeleteGhandi says this to assert his reasoning upon Lord Irwin, because he wants to make his argument heard in front of such a high power. He does not want to set the taxation off of Britain by force, but he knows that he must take a sort of risk to help these citizens; even the ones he has served. It is apparent that Gandhi is frustrated with Lord Irwin’s monopoly on the salt resource, and that he wants to give Irwin a chance to leave hold of this taxation, so that all people can have something so neccessary to their lives during that time.
2nd Claim:
Here Gandhi is showing his unshakable leadership and his willingness to help those in need. Gandhi is exercising the risk factor he previously stated and blatantly reveals to Irwin that he is not going down easily, by developing a movement of disobedience.This act of heroism turns the tide for Gandhi and the people that he has served for a long time, as it shows his fight, but in a somewhat harmless way.
3rd Claim:
Gandhi states these phrases and metaphors to get to the pathos of Lord Irwin, through showing that only time will tell before he changes his mind on his overboard taxations when he sees the hardships that this has bestowed upon the nation of India . Gandhi, however, does restate that he will not make Lord Irwin change his mind by force, but change it from his own heart, in a non violent way, by means of this civil disobedience movement. Irwin will see the difficulties this tax has placed on the people that Gandhi has served, and it will have a lasting effect on Lord Irwin, and he will have no other option but to lift such a heavy burden off of India.
Mark, I think you had really great commentary overall. You included great examples, that were very in depth. That greatly added to your commentary, so really good job there! I think my only criticism comes from your 3rd example. You began to summarize a little more than explain in this example. That isn’t necessarily bad, I think it just lacked the detail the others had with more of a retelling of what happened, as opposed to backing up what was said. However, all that aside, you did a very good job. Super successful, I’d say!
DeleteFrankly, for a better appeal, you should work on improving your diction or try different sentence formats. The length and descriptiveness of your commentary allows the evidence to flow well into the discussion and analysis. All three of your claims expand on the provided text. The third claim is a tad too explicit in reference to the rhetorical situation, but could be justified if further expanded upon. Overall, Mark, your commentary is insightful, good job.
Delete1. By using very simple sentence structure, Gandhi shows with great clarity he is not trying to manipulate, harm, or exploit Irwin or his people. He then establishes his good intentions through a comparison of the British to his own people. This is evidence of how deeply he cares for his cause, and the well being of everyone involved, as he shows willingness to help whoever he needs to achieve his goal.
ReplyDelete2. This bold statement shows Irwin that even though Gandhi will do no harm, he will not have his stance overlooked. By giving an explicit date in the text for this movement, Gandhi creates more concrete imagery, and makes the situation and its consequences seem more realistic and impending for Irwin. This paired with the fact that Gandhi presents himself as so rational and harmless, then makes such a bold claim, is an effective way to help Irwin begin to shift his perspective.
3. Gandhi uses a few forms of comparison here to warrant an emotional response of guilt. The fact that the peaceful people of India suffered so greatly compared to the British, yet were still serving for their prosperity is questionable to begin with. Then, being pushed further into the struggle by Britain with the tax creates a clear display of moral injustice. By reminding Irwin of his power to change this, he imposes an increase of accountability, and encourages him to respond to any guilt he may be feeling.
I definitely agree the most with your first section of commentary and how it was emphasizing his stress on nonviolence. I also liked with your emphasis on pathos in the third section. My main point of constructive criticism would probably go for all of us, including me, and that’s making sure the commentary sticks to proving the claim you made. The commentary shouldn’t address new claims or be irrelevant to the claim, rhetorical situation, thesis, etc. Overall, good work!
Delete1st
ReplyDeleteGandhi included the statement that he did not want to hurt anyone to show his true intentions and let his main goal of helping his people be the focus. His words are very simple as he explains that his intentions are to help his people and serve them the way he has served Lord Irwins. This is more proof that the things he cares about the most is his people and getting justice for them.
2nd
This statement is a major shift from the calm explanation in the beginning of the letter. By telling Irwin that if he ignores his cause he will not stop fighting. Gandhi knows that if the letter does not change the Lord’s heart more action will need to be taken.
3rd
Gandhi wanted the British to release the pain and suffering that the people and India were living through and still continue to honor their rulers. Britain applied harsh taxes upon the people even in the conditions that they were living in. This would make it very difficult for the citizens to remain loyal to the Lord but they never fought back.
Your first and second commentaries were very good in the context of the importance and connecting to the claim. I think you need to add more to the rhetorical situation, and dialing in on the purpose and the message. Things, in my opinion, switched in your third commentary; you did an excellent job in relating this to the rhetorical situation, but now just try to add more so you can connect to the claim! You did have a small sentence at the end speaking to the importance, but I do think of you connect it to your claim, that itself will show the importance of the evidence. Getting in more depth in your commentary; your first commentary was good because you focused in on his intentions, and I thought it was good how you did not get off topic. I liked your second commentary, but add just a bit more. Show, don’t tell. What kind of action? Your third bit was probably your best one, but again, show and don’t tell. How was Gandhi going to release pain and suffering of the Indian people? Really good job though!
DeleteFirst Example:
ReplyDeleteIn a the battle over the Salt Act, it would be very easy to come off as threatening or attacking towards Lord Erwin, and Gandhi knows this. In order to stay on Lord Erwin’s good side and enhance his persuasiveness, he uses phrases like these to make it so very clear that attacking or threatening is not his intention.
Second Example:
Here, Gandhi is trying to give Lord Irwin every possible chance to settle the evils without violence, and this sentence serves to illustrate the alternative civil disobedience that would other wise ensue. Gandhi doesn’t say this to threaten Lord Erwin. He says this because he hopes it will help persuade him into ending things now in a way that would avoid any sort of violence.
Third Example:
Gandhi is emphasizing that he is aware civil disobedience will be difficult, and doing it without violence will cause lots of suffering; however that will not stop them from pursuing their goal. He uses the story to help illustrate that he has always submitted to Britains requests with peacefulness, and this time, perhaps Britain could return the favor.
I relate to many of your points, and I think it’s interesting how we each phrased them differently. Your commentaries were clear and easy to understand, but I think you were a tad vague when describing your points, especially in the first commentary. You mention how “Ghandi knows this,” when suggesting how easy it would be to come off as more aggressive towards Lord Irwin in the letter. How does he know this? I think you should elaborate more, even on the small points you make. The second half of the first commentary is also vague, so I would suggest adding a small explanation as to how “these phrases clarify Ghandi’s intention”. Your last two commentaries were much better since you went into more depth. I totally agree with everything else in the second commentary; Ghandi is trying to be assertive not aggressive. For the last commentary, what you say hints that Ghandi has some credibility since he cooperated with the British. Perhaps explain why this matters in the sense of him achieving his end-goal of peace? Overall, elaborate just a little more, and I think your future commentaries will be much improved!
Delete1. Ghandi is not afraid to be bold, and he was undoubtedly successful in keeping a balance between stern and threatening. By using such strong words he asserts his dominance, ensuring utmost clarity; however, he does not leave this point to be solely confrontational. Ghandi creates a more peaceful tone, once he mentions he does not look for harm of the people.
ReplyDelete2. Here he moves back into a more upfront, stern tone. Though, yet again, he remains respectful in saying he does not want chaos, but he remains firm in his stance. This shows the great power he has on the people, that his influence is unmatched.
3. Ghandi acknowledges the hardships that could follow this proposal, but he remains hopeful, knowing it is ultimately for the greater good. He explains that he and his people are simply fed up with the current situation, and he feels that, though not without difficulty, change could occur.
This is good, clear commentary, but it could use a little more depth. I think the "Show, don't tell" idea could be useful to improve your first piece of commentary. The last sentence is really good, because you mention what part of the text makes the tone peaceful. At the beginning, just a few words that would make the connection as to what parts make it bold, stern, threatening, and so forth would bring the commentary together really nicely. The second piece is great in my opinion. You clearly display the message he is sending, how he is sending it, and why he is sending it. It is simple, yet includes the importance as well as connects to the claim. Maybe a reference to the rhetorical situation would be nice, but I wouldn't say it is necessary. In the commentary on third piece of evidence, the ideas are good, but don't really connect to the claim. You establish the context and a bit of the rhetorical situation nicely, but a tad more of a connection to how he is conveying his message would make a more bold statement. Overall, well done!
DeleteFirst claim: With Gandhi’s goal being to state his perspective clearly, he repeatedly uses the world serve to stress his point. This repetition effectively shows Irwin that listening to Gandhi’s wishes will not only benefit him as a person, but also benefit the way his people perceive him. Without this repetition, Lord Irwin would not have fully understood the importance removing the Salt Act will have for his people
ReplyDeleteSecond claim: By pushing the idea that he does not seek to harm Lord Irwin, he is efficiently gaining his trust, which will help him eventually persuade Lord Irwin to agree with him. He establishes this trust by addressing Irwin with a calm yet urgent tone. By choosing to use words such as “ If you cannot see your way”, he is putting himself in a position where Irwin is the one who has all the power. By giving Lord Irwin the power in this situation, it reads like he has a choice in the matter of the Salt Act, when in reality Gandhi will precede with or without his approval.
Third claim: Gandhi uses the anecdote of him serving his people blindly to show Lord Irwin what a true leader should act like. He must take accountability for what he has done to the people of India and work to give them a better life. This should bring an emotional response from Irwin because it acts as a way of showing how he has been cruel to his own people, who he should have been leading and supporting.
.
You did a good job including the rhetorical situation, the importance, and connecting back to the claim in your commentary. You make good points in your first commentary, but I think you could have developed on it just a little more, such as what impact would be without Gandhi's use of repetitive language. This would create a clearer picture of your points and make them stronger. Your second commentary is great. It is well developed and it connects back to the claim very well. Your third commentary does a good job of tying in the emotional response that Gandhi was seeking. I think it could have been a little more developed, but it was still very good. Great job Megan.
Delete1.) Here, Gandhi very clearly builds up his ethos and by passively reasoning with Lord Irwin. What Gandhi says is strong and profound, but never aggressive or threatening. He makes it apparent that he does not want any harm, and he wishes to serve Lord Irwin’s people just as he has served his own. Gandhi purposely uses this way of speech as a great way of persuasion and solving of a meaningful issue.
ReplyDelete2.) This statement sways from Gandhi’s earlier ones, it is strong and cautions Lord Irwin of what he will do if he does not get his way. This statement is very impactful because, had it not been included, it would have been difficult to persuade Lord Irwin by only being respectful and reserved.
3.) Gandhi urges the British to understand the struggle that has come with the tax they have wrongfully imposed. It affected Gandhi and his people, and he wants them to be aware of that. He appeals to Lord Irwin’s emotions by explaining the injustices he, and his people, were served from this tax. Gandhi once more shows his strength by saying he served Britain with equal love, despite the injustices he was dealt.
I think your first example of commentary was done well, but needs more explanation. You said that he uses this way of speech as persuasion, but never spoke about how he persuaded him. You maybe could have used a connection to the rhetorical situation and wrote about how if Lord Irwin would help is people with the injustices of the salt act, they would respect him more as a leader. In the second commentary, you clearly focused on the importance, which I think was well done. I also think your third commentary was done well, as it addressed the rhetorical situation and connected back to the claim. Overall, the only issue I had was that you needed more explanation for the first example.
DeleteClaim 1:
ReplyDeleteBy clarifying his lack of ill intentions repeatedly, acknowledging the risks he is intends to take, and carefully choosing his words so as to appeal to the understanding of Lord Irwin, Ghandi paints a pure image of his letter’s purpose. Manipulation is not a part of his agenda; he makes it known that he doesn’t have a hidden agenda, and establishes his credibility. Ghandi can be seen as trustworthy because of his letter’s transparency.
Claim 2:
Ghandhi's letter, although not in any way aggressive, is not passive either. He asserts his position with his tone that a movement for civil disobedience will occur regardless of whether or not Irwin agreed with him or not or if he fails to see the injustice of the British over India. He is transparent with the outcome that will occur by stating that “India will move on with a civil disobedience movement”. His tone even sounds matter-of-fact, as he uses logic to point out how if Irwin and the British push Indians too much, then a movement against them is inevitable.
Claim 3:
The sufferings of Ghandi and his people are easy to see once Irwin opens his eyes. Ghandi is trying to open Irwin’s eyes and his heart with this letter. Ghandi himself is open with his emotions and his past of serving the British by admitting that he served them “blindly” in the past. With his use of careful diction, Ghandi’s letter comes across as genuine.
1. By using simple and to-the-point language, Gandhi is able to create a clear image of what he wants for his people; a cooperative relationship between the nations on an even playing field, free of the unjust taxation. His simple sentence structures and repeated use of the word "serve" in context imply that he is being both blunt and honest. It allows Lord Irwin to see that he is not harboring any ulterior motives, but that he simply wants what is best for the people.
ReplyDelete2. Gandhi's intent of civil disobedience, if necessary, demonstrates that while he is seeking peace for both of the nations, he is not simply asking for Lord Irwin's cooperation; he is demanding it. Gandhi's statement is both influential and transparent, essentially putting Irwin in a position that requires him to protect his people, similar to the position that Gandhi is writing to him from.
3. With the anecdote about his service to Britain, Gandhi prompts Lord Irwin to open his eyes and see the injustices that he has supported. By including that India has continued to treat the British people with love in the face of injustice, Gandhi proves that he leads an honorable people who do not deserve the treatment they are facing, and ultimately attempts to spur a sense of guilt in Lord Irwin.
Your commentary for number one was well done. You first explained what gandhi was trying to do then said what he used to do it. The examples of the exact words that he used several times helped to show the reader the tools that were used. Then to finish you explained what was achieved with the rhetoric. The second commentary is missing more of the examples that you gave in the first one. I think that you explained what Gandhi's intent was but did not provided the evidence that showed it. The last commentary also has a great explanation of the intent of the letter but it lacks examples of the words and rhetoric that was used to help prove the point. I think that you explanations were well done and easy to understand.
Delete
ReplyDelete1. Ghandi’s intentions are made very clear in his acknowledgment to Lord Erwin that he is trying to help and in no way is being aggressive or violent. He is sure to emphasize that there are definitely risks involved, but there will be no harm intended. He is doing what he believes is for the good of the people by using order to fight brutality.
2. Ghandi is giving his every attempt to proceed without violence. His ignored attempts are only motivating him more and Lord Erwin cannot stop the movement. He is well mannered in his aim to bring back a sense of freedom.
3. Gandhi hopes the suffering of his people can perhaps help the government see the negative impact this is having on the citizens. The taxes applied were relentless and these people are doing their best to result without having to cause a war or violent outbreak. His ideas of using peace will hopefully be reciprocated by the government.
The commentary you gave for number 1 was good, it explained what Gandhi said very well. It might help to strengthen your argument by being a little more specific about Gandhi’s points, however, you got the point across very well. Your statement for number 2 was also good, but slightly broad. Since Gandhi’s statement for number 2 was , arguably, his most unique and demanding, it may help to bring up how that statement differed from his typical rhetoric. Your number 3 commentary was good as well, it concisely explained Gandhi’s intentions and hopes for Lord Irwin to appeal to his wishes.
ReplyDelete