Perez RAP final

Brenda Pérez

Dr. Steph Brown

English 306; Advanced Composition: Protest Rhetoric, Performance, and Identity

07 March 2016

Self-Immolation of Thich Quang Duc as Protest

(Browne)

On June 11, 1963, Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire in a public demonstration in protest of catholic President Ngo Dinh Diem’s discriminatory policies against Buddhists in South Vietnam. The Diem regime was vested in the interests of other Catholics and had enforced rules to systematically discriminate against and limit the advancement of Buddhists in the country. Also, about a month earlier in Hué, a Vietnamese city with a high concentration of Buddhists, there was a ban placed on the display of religious flags on the May 8th holiday of Buddha's Birthday. On that day, Diem’s brother, the Archbishop of Hué, flew flags of the Vatican, which made the situation even more turbulent, causing protests that ended in eight or nine dead by hands of the police, which included the deaths of children. These were some of the reasons that led Thich Quang duc to protest his government by means of self-immolation. Michael Biggs defines self-immolation as an act of life sacrifice that is for the good of a greater cause; it can be an act of protest in at least one of two ways–it can either be performed in public, or there must be a letter addressed to a figure of authority. Thich Quan Duc did both. Part of his letter to the president read, “Before closing my eyes to Buddha, I have the honor to present my words to President Diem, asking him to be kind and tolerant towards his people and enforce a policy of religious equality” (Biggs).

Thich Quang Duc’s self-immolation was a severe act of protest. He displayed use of ethos in a couple of ways. By examining the photograph of Thich Quang Duc’s flame-engulfed body, one can see that even though his body and flesh are burning, he remains apparently unmoved, both in his physicality and in his emotions. One does not have to know much about the extent of Thich Quang Duc’s religious training to see that he has a grasp on Buddhist principles. His display of stillness serves as a demonstration of practices gained through his religion and training as a monk. People can infer he is a monk because he wears a cloak, and also because he is in a deeply meditative state. He is able to remain calm and collected as he dies, what appears to be, an excruciating death. The act of ending his life also defies the authority of his government. It takes away the president’s control over him. It is a rejection of any potential threats the government might direct toward him, which means that by lighting himself on fire, it is not only his life that ends, but also any ties he had with the government. It is a powerful rhetorical move because he defies the influence of the president through a display of skills obtained through the very religious practices that the president was trying to eliminate.

The use of ethos does not end there. One must also take into consideration that Thich Quang Duc’s death was an act of martyrdom. He chooses death if it has a chance of securing the religious freedom of the Buddhists in Vietnam. On one hand, he shows mastery of the Buddhist practice of meditation, but on the other hand, he shows knowledge of Christianity. Thich Quang Duc protests against President Diem’s unfair treatment of non-Catholics in a way that would evoke the sentiment of hypocrisy because Christians believe that Jesus died for the salvation of mankind. Although Thich Quang Duc does not claim any divine ties, the act of martyrdom alone beckons the actions of Christ. Also, the letter addressed to President Diem is nonviolent and free of threats. His letter asks only for the president’s kindness and tolerance towards Buddhists, as well as religious equality (Biggs). Interestingly enough, kindness and tolerance are virtues of Christianity. President Diem is presented with a difficult situation if his main objective is to elevate the status of Catholics, given that Thich Quang Duc not only wrote to him peacefully, but also chose to die in order to save his people, much like Jesus did.

Self-immolation is an act that also appeals to emotions. Grief and mourning are emotions that run deep and really get to the core of the human experience, especially because they remind people of death. Choosing to die in a fire could inspire outrage and grief, as well as feelings of intense seriousness and disgust, which are understandable when someone chooses to die in such a painful and heinous way. Disgust and sadness, combined with distress, can be a potent mix of emotions. Michael Biggs quotes David Halberstam, a journalist who witnessed the action:

Flames were coming from a human being; his body was slowly withering and shriveling up, his head blackening and charring. In the air was the smell of burning flesh . . . Behind me I could hear the sobbing of the Vietnamese who were now gathering. I was too shocked to cry, too confused to take notes or ask questions, too bewildered to even think. (Biggs)

For the people who witness Thich Quang Duc’s death, the appeal to emotions is even greater. They can smell his burning body and also see it shrivel. Their disgust is experienced through most of the senses. Feelings are also intensified because fire has a symbolic meaning of passion. Another important emotion that validates the self-immolation is faith, both in Buddhism itself, and in that Thich Quang Duc’s message was genuine. Thich Quang Duc would not be alive to see the outcomes of his protest, so it would not make any sense for people to doubt his intentions.

           The use of kairos was probably one of the most important characteristics of Thich Quang Duc’s demonstration because without it, his death would have been in vain. There was a buildup of events that led up to that moment, and Thich Quang Duc took advantage of it to make sure his protest was heard. It was important for people to see such a death take place and for journalists to be there to capture the event in many types of media. In this sense, context is everything. With the amount of exposure that the self-immolation generated, it would not have been in the best interest of President Diem to ignore Thich Quang Duc’s message. Thich Quang Duc makes a compelling demonstration of protest, and it is strengthened by the fact that it was able to reach so many people.

           Thich Quang Duc’s death not only touched the hearts of his people and many others from around the world, but also effectively protested the Diem regime’s unfair restrictions on the Buddhist faith through the validation of his religious practices. The way in which he carried the protest out also ensured that his sacrifice was seen and documented for others to witness the results of his people’s oppression. Thich Quang Duc’s death was gruesome and horrifying, and provided an outlet for many to express their sentiments about the government’s abuse of power and mistreatment of its citizens. He gave up his life in such a way that demanded the authorities to do what was right, even if it caused the eradication of power in the hands of the elitist minority. Thich Quang Duc’s self-immolation was the ultimate form of protest.

Works Cited

Biggs, Michael, and Diego Gambetta. “Dying Without Killing: Self-Immolations, 1963-2002”

Making Sense of Suicide Missions. Oxford UP, 2005. Web.

Browne, Malcolm. The self-immolation of Thich Quang Duc photographed by Malcolm

Browne. Digital image. Wikipedia. 01 Dec. 2013. Web. 23 Feb. 2016