Churchill's Response: LOGOS LOGOS

Hello friends, first a beautiful Happy Valentine's wish to you all, may chocolates, flowers, and blinding red pervade your every sense! A little pathos to begin because Churchill didn't use any at all. Why not? According to the craft of rhetoric, pathos should be used last; because while it is effective, its the least important aspect in bringing someone to your views. Churchill followed this logic by berating us with logos. He listed the facts of what he actually said, the facts of injustices done abroad, and many other facts.

In fact, he begins with "I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been." This is important to us as rhetoricians. Why? In attempting to persuade someone, the use of logos, ethos, and pathos are all integral and useful. Yet, logos, or facts, are things you cannot argue with. The audience can bicker over ethos and they may not feel the emotional aspect, but facts are concrete and immovable. Here, Churchill outlines many facts.

However, in this response to the criticism, we find a lot more of ethos than in his original speech. First, he establishes a GREAT deal of credibility as a Vietnam war veteran: "as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see." Also, he references many powerful people: "As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy" and "Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State." He also establishes ethos because he seems well educated with his facts, he has written a published work, and he appears to be on top of his game.

I fear that many people have been outraged and quick to spread rumors and fabrications; now, he unequivocably shoots them down with this response to their criticism, filled to the brim with ethos and logos.

As far as forensic, deliberative, or epidiectic, I definitely don't see any epidiectic. He isn't praising any one; however, he is outlining facts to "shame" our government. In a way, forensic and deliberative are tied together because he outlines facts from the path in an effort to bring our nation to the realization that we aren't innocent, and yet show us a path for the future: "If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name."

Essentially, I feel this is a powerful work of rhetoric because it follows strict doctrine, outlines point by point.