Andrew Koleski
4/14/2016
ENG 306
Salt March Artifact
First Letter: http://www.mkgandhi.org/letters/hitler_ltr.htm, Second Letter: http://www.mkgandhi.org/letters/hitler_ltr1.htm
For
my protest, I have decided to study and then report on The Salt March. For my artifact,
I have decided to use two letters written by Gandhi. What is most noticeable
about these particular letters, and also what is somewhat shocking about them,
is who the letters are addressed to. In both of the letters, Gandhi, the leader
of The Salt March, is attempting to communicate with Adolf Hitler.
The
first leader was written in July of the year 1939. The purpose of it was to convince
Hitler, the leader of Germany and the Nazi Party, to not start a war with other
European nations. In the Salt March, Gandhi and his followers had accepted and
carried the identity of non-violent protestors, and the letter, while short,
seems to fit into that identity while also using the rhetorical strategies of
ethos, pathos, and logos. Addressing his identity as a leader of non-violent
protest, Gandhi begins his letter with a plea by using pathos: “Dear friend, friends
have been urging me to write to you for the sake of humanity.” (Gandhi, 1939) Already, Gandhi
has brought emotion into the artifact by bringing up the importance of war. War
can be a devastating effect on a nation, but Gandhi escalates emotion by tying
the decision by Hitler to engage in physical violence not just to one country,
but the human race as a whole. In the letter, Gandhi also gives way to reason,
using logos as he writes; “It is quite clear that you are today the one person
in the world who can prevent a war which may reduce humanity to the savage
state.” (Gandhi, 1939)
In this section, Gandhi is also somewhat using
ethos, by admitting that Hitler, who Gandhi might consider wrong and cruel, still
holds authority and has a say in whether a war will occur or not. In this,
Gandhi is also defining Hitler’s identity, one who is also a leader, though not
one who is non-violent. Finally, Gandhi continues using ethos when he mentions
his “expertise” in matters of war; “Will you listen to the appeal of one who
has deliberately [sic] shunned the method of war not without considerable
success?” (Gandhi, 1939) With this question, Gandhi is referencing the Salt March, and
reminding Hitler how Gandhi’s identity, and those of his followers, is tied to
the idea of civil disobedience, and that Gandhi, while also having the identity
of a protestor, is not in any way tied to the identity of someone who supports
war, or violence of any sort in his protest. Also, Gandhi notes that it is
possible to have success in a protest, even without using a war of force to get
what a leader wants.
The second
artifact being used by me is a second letter written by Gandhi. Like the first
one, this letter is also being addressed to Adolf Hitler. Unlike the first
letter, however, this correspondence takes place a year later, in December 1940.
By this time in history, Hitler and the Nazi’s had already invaded other
European nations, including Poland, Great Britain, and France. Also, as readers
will not when they compare the two; this one is much longer than the first.
However, there are similarities between the two.
First
off, much like the first letter, Gandhi relies heavily on pathos to get his
message to Hitler across, while also letting Hitler know what Gandhi and his
followers’ identity is; “My business in life has been for the past 33 years to
enlist the friendship of the whole of humanity by befriending mankind, irrespective
of race, colour or creed…” (Gandhi, 1940) In this statement, Gandhi is attempting to identify
himself as a leader who cares about other human beings as a whole, regardless
of what differences they may have. He is also appealing to Hitler’s emotion, by
incorporating words such as “friendship and “befriending”. However, Gandhi does
not stop with his own identity, and instead continues to include more people into
it; “…a good portion of humanity who have a view living under the influence of
that doctrine of universal friendship view your action.” (Gandhi, 1940) With this Gandhi confirms,
at least to himself, that the specific identity he is writing from, in this specific
letter, is a group of people who respect humans, believe in “universal friendship”,
and view the acts of Hitler as wrong.
Much
like the first letter, Gandhi does not only stop at revealing the identity of his
own person, but also paints the identity of Hitler. In the first leader, Gandhi
and used some respect, and seemed to give Hitler the identity of leader. However,
in this letter, Gandhi paints a different picture. When mentioning the
atrocities he has heard about in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Denmark, Gandhi
then lashes out. “…I am aware that your view of life regards such spoliations
as virtuous acts. But we have been taught from childhood to regard them as acts
degrading humanity.” (Gandhi, 1940) Gandhi has switched Hitler’s identity from that of a
leader, and instead now reconsiders it. Gandhi now seems to place the identity
of cruelty and injustice on Hitler. However, unlike the first leader where
Hitler’s identity was alluded to and Gandhi’s was separate, in this letter
Gandhi seems to be comparing the two. Hitler is a person who has no regard for
Human dignity, and Gandhi and his followers are just people who have been
raised right. Finally, Gandhi does incorporate a little bit of ethos into the
letter like the first one. Gandhi lets Hitler know about his expertise a little
bit more in this letter, and goes into greater detail. “We have been trying for
the past half a century to throw off the British rule. The movement of
independence has been never so strong as now…We have attained a very fair
measure of success through non-violent effort.” (Gandhi, 1940) Much like the first letter, Gandhi
is letting Hitler know that non-violent protest is not only an acceptable form
of confrontation, but can also in certain cases be considered a very successful
one.
In conclusion, the two letters from Gandhi to Adolf Hitler played a big part in Gandhi stating an identity for himself and his followers: The identity of non-violent protestors in the first letter, and the identity of respectable human beings in the second letter. Gandhi also decided on an identity for Hitler in both letters. In the first letter, the identity is this: A leader. In the second one, however, Hitler's identity has changed for the worst. Finally, Gandhi supported these identities by using ethos, pathos, and logos.
Works Cited
Gandhi, Mahatma.
“Letter to Adolf Hitler”. July 23, 1939. Mahatma
Gandhi.org. April 5, 2016
Gandhi, Mahatma. "Letter to Adolf Hitler" . December 24, 1940. Mahatma
Gandhi.org. April 5, 2016
The identities expressed in this artifact analysis are a bit ambiguous. You address people that live under colonial rule being compared to people under Nazi rule. While I agree with the sentiment, it seems to lump a very large group into one identity. Though they share an identity, the group is too large; the majority of whom that have lived under colonial rule are not mentioned. It is a good mention, but not too much of a centralized theme.
ReplyDeleteThis artifact took place after the Salt March. Are there facets of Gandhi's letters that were influenced by what he did in the Salt March? Methods that seemed to work in both? I think if you use that, your seemingly out of place artifact will be tied to your protest, and really show a ton of new implications about your protest.
Good analysis, just needs something good to tie to the protests with something more than identity. Rhetoric and Implications of your original protest definitely supplement what you argued in this analysis. You compared the identity of the oppressors with the identities of the oppressed in your artifact as well as your R/H Context. That is a great stylistic choice that tied your analysis to your context papers. Good work!
It's difficult to see how the letters to Hitler are relevant to the specific protest or the protest identity. It might be helpful to talk about how they serve as evidence of pacifism, if that is the intention you had in mind for the artifacts.
ReplyDeleteAlso, for sake of the analysis itself, you could talk about how powerful the rhetoric Gandhi used is, despite the fact that it is nonviolent. For example, when he talked about the "rape of Poland" those are some pretty powerful words. I think it would be important that your identity, despite its lack of violence, has a lot of potential for creating power and influence over their opposition.
I agree with Julian that it's tough to try and talk about this artifact if the letters were written way after the protest. It might still be relevant if you are to use the letters to cement the identity of Gandhi's followers, but it's quite a stretch. If you are finding it difficult to find a more relevant set of artifacts, it might be okay to leave this part in, but I think the paper would be stronger over all if you examined something closer related to the protest.
ReplyDelete