GSAP Rhetorical Analysis Outline

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s Speech at the National Convention of the People’s Party of the Republic held in Ankara in October, 1927

 Purpose: To convince the members of the party that his previous actions after World War I, and during the Turkish War of Independence were necessary in order to establish Turkey as a free state. Audience: The members of the People’s Party of the Republic of Turkey, potentially Turkish citizens. Context: Speaking as the leader of the People’s Party of the Republic of Turkey. After the Ottoman Empire lost in World War I, Ataturk established Turkey as an independent state in order to preserve its honor and dignity. He did this by defying orders from higher-ups and leading the Turkish War of Independence.

 “Section 1” Beginning-Educating the People
 Purpose: Provide background information and context. Explain why he felt Turkey should be an independent state. Prove why other people’s solutions were wrong/ineffective.
Claim: The only way to preserve/maintain some of the fallen empire was by establishing Turkey as an independent sovereign state.
Evidence: The Ottoman Empire had fallen and it was never going to be the great power it once was. Foreign powers believed it was already done. Other people’s ideas to let foreign nations help weren’t worthy of being accepted.
Warrants: Asking for help means someone is weak. Someone who is dignified and proud never ask for outside help. Outside powers were going to completely take over the area. (Which is very likely, but still not a cold hard truth.)
Appeals: Creates his image. Pathos-feelings of anger towards the enemy, “Independence or Death” Logic-establishing Turkey as an independent state is the most logical thing to do
Technique: Straightforward tone-this is what happened, no sugar coating. Inclusion of counter-arguments to boost credibility. Provides names of those organizations offering those opinions. (Trakya-Pasaeli Union, Union for the Defense of the National Rights, League for the Secession of Trabzon and District, etc.) Either-or logical fallacy.
 Effectiveness: His opening paragraphs are pretty effective. He clearly sets the stage for his claim, something needed to be done quickly and he took action. His either-or logical fallacy is has a lot of problems, from a technical standpoint, but he remained the leader of Turkey for quite some time so enough people agreed with him.

 “Section 2” Educating the People to Going to Sivas”
 Purpose: Explain step by step how he went got people on his side. Provide a clear timeline for his audience.
 Appeals: Continues to develop his ethos, “proactive” “action person” “I” Creates a sense of unity with occasional “we.” Emotion stirring diction, “dismemberment of our country.”
 Technique: He frequently changes his diction/word choice by switching between the pronouns “I” and “me” and “we” and “us.” He wants to give himself credit, but also make everyone feel included. Harsh dogmatic statement, entente powers would dismember the nation. Little evidence to back up that claim.
Effectiveness: The confidence and lack of wariness in his words makes him seem extremely credible. That, plus his clear and thought out explanation of his actions makes this section pretty effective to most listeners. However, to anyone who disagreed with his opinion that the Entente Powers were going to dismember the nation would not be convinced by his dogmatic statement. He provided little concrete evidence to back up that opinion, he just assumes that people already agree with him. 

“Section 3” Going to Sivas to the End”
 Purpose: Continue the historical context, what else he did to put his plan into effect. Creation of basic constitution.
Appeals: Further builds on ethos, trying to justify and make up for his disobedient actions. Showing he’s loyal to his people and his cause. Logical reasoning for his decisions.
 Technique: Maintained straightforward tone, sharing little details about the encounters, (he was picked as the leader, he didn't make himself it.) Almost completely stuck with the pronoun “I.” A lot of justification through logical reasoning that his actions would helps. I did this to help us. Rhetorical questions-1. to boost ethos 2. to tie up his argument logically.
 Effectiveness: The last section has some really effective moments and some not so effective moments. This in part is because what I've read is excepts, not the entire speech.The beginning is somewhat effective. The section titled “Going to Sivas” seems a little unnecessary because from what I can gather it’s a city he simply passed through on the way to the more important Erzurum. The Erzurum section is better, he shows he didn't self-appoint himself. He was happy holding a lesser position, but the people thought he should the leader. That does wonders for his self-image, he doesn't absolutely need to be the head honcho. The inclusion of the Erzurum constitution is effective, it clearly lays out the principles that Ataturk and his comrades wanted for Turkey. However, the first couple of paragraphs at the very end are confusing and oddly placed. It may be because this is just an excerpt, but Ataturk seems to insult his representatives. The very last paragraph is the most effective. Each sentence builds of the previous one, resulting in a tidal wave of emotional logic. Ataturk explains he couldn't be a follower, he had to stand up for what he believed in.

 Overall: This speech contains a consistent straightforward tone and logical reasoning put in a template structure. The entire speech, with the exception of the last paragraph imitate this tone of “this is what happened and what it means.” It makes the speech easy to read and follow and seem extremely logical. However, some of Ataturk’s claims aren't followed by strong enough evidence. His diction is emotion-stirring and moving, but there aren't many hard facts. From a superficial standpoint the speech is effective, and history shows that Ataturk was effective at persuading people to agree with him. However, from an “Everything’s An Argument” lens, there are a lot of flaws with his claims and evidence or lack there of.

Excerpt from "Trey's Relatives" by Trey Spadone

Excerpt from Midnight’s Children by Salman Rushdie 

“Oskar died,” Ilse told him, sipping fresh lime water on my mother’s takht.

“Like a comedian. He went to talk to the army and tell them not to be pawns. The fool really thought the troops would fling down their guns and walk away. We watched from a window and prayed they wouldn’t just trample all over him.

“All right,” Naseem conceded, “so you’ve got a good chance landing a good job. Agra University, it’s a famous place, don’t think I don’t know. University doctor!...sounds good.”

“I’m in love,” Aadam Aziz said to Ilse Lubin. And later, “...So I’ve only seen her through a hole in a sheet, one part at a time; and I swear her bottom blushes.”

“Watercress sandwiches,” my grandmother said to me, whilst eating my mother’s famous mashed potatoes.

“It was so silly. We hadn’t been dating for very long and so we were both still nervous. For some strange reason I thought those would be adequate for an evening picnic. We sat down in the park and I nervously took the sandwiches out.

“That’s excellent,” my uncle affirmed, “sounds like this school is working out well for you. International relations, that’s a credible career, don’t think I don’t know. US ambassador!...sounds good.”

“I love it,” my cousin said with a grin. He paused, “There are some logistical issues that need to be worked out, rent and other such things; but it’s going to be great.”

“After the picnic we were surprisingly not full at all,” she laughed.

Strong and Sly Speeches

World War II is remembered because of the bombing in Britain, the bloody battle of Stalingrad, and the infamous D Day. However, it’s also remembered because of the speeches it gave birth to. Winston Churchill’s promise to Britain, Joseph Goebbels’ total war cry to Germany, and Emperor Hirohito’s condolences to Japan all had a tremendous effect on the audiences who heard them. However, as persuasive as they all were at the time, all three speeches boast claims that are ridiculously untrue. Churchill, Goebbels, and Hirohito attempt to justify their actions by leading their people to believe that their respective nations are the victims, and that without action on their part, Eastern or Western civilization will cease to exist.

Each of the three leaders presents their nation as being innocent victims. Churchill expresses that Britain’s purpose is “to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime.” He uses the word “monstrous” to emphasize the fact that the other nation is most definitely the bad guy and England needs to defend itself. In order, to put Bolshevism and Jewish people in the worst light possible Goebbels says that “they want to bring chaos to the Reich and Europe. We could see, if the danger were not overcome, the specter of hunger, misery, and forced labor by millions of Germans.” He portrays them as imperial hungry mongrels who want to take over Germany. He does this to be able to say that Germany’s attacks back will simply be out of self-defense. Emperor Hirohito says “the enemy has begun to employ a new and a most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable.” He wants his citizens to know that Japan’s surrender was not dishonorable. It was necessary to keep the nation from being annihilated.

Besides playing the victim card, all three leaders justify their actions by harping on the “fact” that if their nation doesn't do something whole civilizations will fall apart. Hirohito justifies the attacks on the West by saying it was out of Japan’s “sincere desire to insure Japan’s self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia.” Hirohito wants to convince his people that if Japan hadn't fought the Western powers then East Asia would have been at risk of being destroyed. Churchill does the same thing by saying “no survival for the British Empire, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward toward its goal.” He aims to convince his people that the human race depends on Britain’s success. Goebbels is probably the biggest culprit of this either-or scare tactic. He explains that Germany is the only country that sees Bolshevism for the danger it is. Then he flat out states that “only the German Reich and its allies are in the position to resists this danger.” He wants to infuse this “defender of the world” mentality into other Germans so that they will comply with his “total war” plan. The sense of urgency and duty that stems from these claims is the reason why these speeches were so effective. The Germans and the English were spurred into action, while the Japanese were comforted and consoled.

Dinner With The Greats

What do you want to talk about? Influential people? That’s perfect, let’s talk about Henry David Thoreau and Niccolò Machiavelli. Both men are unfortunately not with us, but their writing still is. I like going out for dinner so let’s pretend that time machines exist and that I can have dinner with them. Just close your eyes…

Oh, good morning! Sorry you couldn't join us last night, it was an incredible experience. Do you have a minute? Great, I’ll tell you about the conversation.

First off, let me say that I think Thoreau was probably popular in high school. He’s a people person. He believes in power to the people. The government should make people’s lives better, not be an anchor dragging them down. On the flip side is Machiavelli. Machiavelli believes that leaders are entitled to do whatever is necessary to maintain power. It’s perfectly fine for rulers to be cruel and ruthless because that’s what helps them be successful. In his mind, exhibiting those traits is just part of the job.

I wanted to pick their brains so I asked questions about rebellion. I told the two gentlemen about Egypt’s revolution, and asked for their opinions on it. Thoreau was thoroughly thrilled. He said, “a minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority, but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight.” Then he proceeded to express his pleasure in the Egyptian people’s drive and determination to change their situation. People can’t be afraid to take a stand, even if their opinion isn't the popular one. However, Machiavelli was not so happy. He told me he thought the Egyptian leader was weak. He quoted his writing when he said, “let the prince pretend to be whatever he needs to be--as long as he effectively maintains his position of power.” He concluded that the Egyptian leader had not been following that logic, which is why he was overthrown.

Later on I posed an ancient question; does the end justify the means? Just as before, I received two very distinct responses. He said, “power is the end or goal, and whatever means are necessary to acquire and preserve that power are entirely justified.” A well-maintained nation comes at a cost, but that cost allows the nation to be prosperous. Thoreau was pretty upset about Machiavelli’s opinion. He brought up the topic of slavery in America. The purpose of bringing in slaves was to increase productivity in American homes. However, while that’s all fine and pretty, that doesn't justify the enslavement of thousands of human beings. It was still unjust and wrong, no matter how prosperous it made America.

That dinner changed me. After I went home I sat for a long time reflecting on what Thoreau and Machiavelli had told me. On one hand, successful leaders are vital in maintaining a strong nation, but the happiness and well-being of the people has to be taken into account as well. What would really be successful is some sort of combination of the two. That made me truly consider the last thing Thoreau said, “is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government?”

We Are CGS

This is the Center for Global Studies or CGS.

The Center for Global Studies is an inter-district, international studies magnet school that focuses on Arabic, Chinese and Japanese language, history, and culture. It’s located inside Brien McMahon High School, one of Norwalk’s two public high schools. We have students from all over Fairfield County, from suburbs like Fairfield and Darien, to cities like Bridgeport and Stamford.

CGS is a school within a school, which means our students are part of CGS as well as Brien McMahon. Students take their language, world literature, and in freshman year their history in the center and then take their math, science, gym, health, and electives in McMahon. They have the same opportunities as non-CGS kids, which means they can participate in any McMahon club or sport.

CGS’s primary goal is to prepare its student’s for a global society. As we go deeper into the 21^st century America is trying to create and maintain strong relationships with foreign nations. Issues such as water and food shortages, climate change, and political instability can only be fixed if we put aside our differences and come together as one world. We at CGS believe that the best way to start is by learning other country’s languages. Our students either study Arabic, Chinese, or Japanese, and a number of students study more than one.

A frequently asked question is: why does CGS offer those 3 particular languages?

Why do we offer Arabic? Arabic is the primary language of the Middle East with roughly 300 million speakers. The Middle East is home to a lot of natural resources and in the last few years that has been an increase in business opportunities. Knowing Arabic also opens up doors for government jobs.

So why do we offer Chinese? Mandarin Chinese is the most spoken language in the world. In fact, 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. China also has a huge economy, second only to America. China is one of America’s top trading partners and so there is a tremendous demand for Americans who speak Chinese.

So why do we offer Japanese? Japan has the third largest economy and so just like Arabic and Chinese, knowing Japanese will provide young people with numerous business opportunities.

CGS further promotes cultural understanding through field trips, in school events, cooking, hosting and study tours. Three or four times a year CGS brings in performers from China, Japan, the Middle East, and other countries as well. We’ve seen Chinese acrobats, Japanese drummers, an Egyptian musician, Russian dancers, Indian dancers, and much more. We also cook in our language classes. CGS has its own fully functional kitchen. Our language teachers teach our students how to cook traditional food from shawarma, to dumplings, to Japanese udon.   

Since we’re an international studies school we have sister schools in China, Japan, Egypt, Morocco, and Qatar. Throughout the year students from those schools visit America and stay with CGS kids host them for 10-12 days. The homestays go to the hosts’ classes, extra-curriculars, and experience what life is for an American teenager. At the end of each stay, CGS hosts a pot-luck where there is singing, dancing, and lots of good food. Every year CGS also has two-week study tours to China, Japan, and a country in the Middle East. On these study tours students tour around the country as well as be homestays at one of our sister schools. These trips increase our student’s language ability and cultural awareness.

Most importantly, CGS is home to some terrific students. Our students are risk-takers; many current students were the only ones from their middle school and came in knowing no one. CGS students think for themselves, have an interest in learning about other country’s cultures, and are willing to work hard. CGS students are passionate, talented, strong-minded individuals who have a desire to make this world a better place.  

Pieces in the Game of Life

Having a voice is what makes us human. The ability to speak our minds and express our feelings through words is something that no other creature can. (Or at least as far as we know.) With our voices we are able connect with people, change minds, build bridges, and stand up for ourselves. Our voices also allow us to advocate for ourselves. If we believe something is wrong or unjust we can speak up and try to invoke change. However, the ability to decide what happens to us is a privilege that many Americans take for granted.  Nearly all humans can physically express their opinions, but not all people possess the right to free speech. In countries like Russia and Syria “freedom of speech” is not a natural born right. If people say the wrong things they can be jailed or even killed. They don’t have a say in a lot of things that happen to them, and can’t even complain about their country’s wrongdoings.

Like most people, when I think of oppression of speech I think of food. Specifically apples. I love apples. I pretty much eat one every day. An apple doesn't have freedom of speech. It has no say in where it grows up, when it leaves the tree, and whether it gets a career in pie, applesauce, or simply stays in its original state. An apple’s life is entirely determined by other things. It doesn't have the privilege of being able to advocate for itself.

Everyone remembers a time when they were afraid to do something. Maybe it was riding a bike without training wheels, going on a roller coaster, or sleeping over at someone else’s house. Regardless, we've all been afraid. However, we've been able to say the words, “no, I’m not ready,” and then been allowed to try the bike the next day or ride the roller coaster the following year. An apple can’t do that. Maybe it’s not ready to leave the tree and all its friends, but can it advocate for itself? No! If someone else wants to pick that apple, it is saying goodbye to the tree right then and there. The apple is taken from its home without warning and can’t prevent the situation from happening.

The oppression of speech doesn't end there. The apple is also unable to decide what it becomes. Its career goal might be to end up part of a piece of apple strudel, but it’s unable to try and make that happen. It’s completely at the mercy of its surroundings.

When people’s voices are silenced it’s like they’re apples. Without voices they are just flotsam in the sea. They're like chess pieces, their lives lie in the hands of others. They have no identity, no individuality, and no say in what happens to them. People aren't apples, they’re people. They have feelings, thoughts, and opinions, all of which should not be condemned.   

The Freedom to Be

Novelist Laurie Halse Anderson wrote in her book, Speak, “when people don't express themselves, they die one piece at a time.” She, like millions of others, believes that all humans, regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, social class, etc.  deserve a voice. They deserve to be allowed to express their opinions and ideas. One, of the many things that America prides itself on is being a nation that allows “free speech.” Its citizens are permitted to express their thoughts without being jailed or killed, a harsh reality that occurs in other nations.

Since the start of time, minority groups have been fighting for equal rights. They all have one thing in common. They've all been fighting for the right to have their own voices.  The revolutionary Women’s Suffrage Movement started because women wanted the right to vote. Blacks have been fighting for equality since the dawn of time. At first they were just fighting for the right to be considered human as oppose to property. The brutal Civil Rights movement, almost sixty years later, was what truly gave blacks the same rights as whites. Currently gays and lesbians are making progress at getting rights in America, but they’re completely oppressed in countries like Russia. Some group somewhere is always fighting for a voice.

If you’re reading this you probably have a voice. Or maybe you don’t. I don’t like to pretend I know my audience, even though I’m almost positive my “audience” only consists of Ms. Parham and the students who are in my AP Language and Composition class.

Imagine not having a voice. Our voices make us individuals. Without voices we are just clusters of molecules floating around. Without voices we are just chess pieces, we can only go certain places, we are at the mercy of the player whoever he or she may be. The dictionary defines “voice” as the sound produced in a person's larynx and uttered through the mouth, as speech or song or the expression of something through words. Expression is the key term there. Having a voice is synonymous with freedom of expression. Freedom to express one’s ideas, thoughts, feelings, and most of all, the freedom to simply be.

Presidents, Problems, and Power

Since 2011, Egypt has been through two revolutions and a plethora of other problems.  Hosni Mubarak and Mohamed Morsi were both extremely corrupt presidents and subsequently “protested” out of office. Mubarak had been president for thirty years while Morsi lasted roughly a year. Morsi was a major member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a frequently oppressed Islamist group that wants Egypt to become an Islamist nation. General Fattah al-Sisi became president in June of 2014 and is still in office today.

However, Egypt is still dealing with major problems. Its biggest issue at the moment is the energy crisis. Blackouts occur frequently and can last anywhere from a few hours to twenty hours. Egypt’s power network is extremely fragile, and for a long time has been using more power than it actually had. Without constant electricity, Egypt is unable to address its water crisis. While the electricity is a major issue, so is Egypt’s lack of clean water. The good thing is, it seems like the people are more forgiving of President Sisi. They are still anxious for him to solve these problems, but mass protests aren't occurring. In fact, the electricity problem is a typical topic of discussion and many jokes are made about it as well. Some people say, “We were having such a nice time, and the power came back and the light ruined the moment.” Sisi has the people’s support; he just needs to get things rolling.

Right now the US really needs to try and remain allies with Egypt. We've been allies since 1922, but recently we've not been getting along. Egyptians have not been pleased with America’s actions in regards to the revolution. Egyptians feel the US was too quick to abandon Mubarak, as well as support the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt also feels that the US has been too evasive in terms of its actions. It refused to recognize Morsi’s “removal” as a coup, cut some of its military aid, and has recently criticized the new legislature that Egypt has produced. The Egyptian public feels alienated and that’s why Egypt is looking at developing a rapprochement with Russia.

The Western media has seemed to favor the protesters and activists of Egypt. I think it tries to stay neutral, and it definitely talks about both sides, but for the past three years it’s helped the protesters and hurt the presidents. The media highlights and emphasizes the negative things about both Mubarak and Morsi, and they probably deserve it, but it’s still bias. In terms of the issues today, the media has been more neutral because it’s waiting for a side to take. At the moment, the majority of Egyptians are giving President Sisi the benefit of the doubt and just waiting for him to fix the pressing issues.

If Sisi can get Egypt out of its economic crisis he’ll be a hero. If he can’t…

Should Egypt develop military ties with Russia?

If President Sisi doesn't succeed, do you think there will be another revolution?

The Place I Call Home

Fairfield, Connecticut

31.3 square miles

Or 81.4 square kilometers, if you’re not American

Or just into the metric system

41 degrees, 10 minutes, 33 seconds North

73 degrees, 16 minutes, 19 seconds West

It has been around since the beginning

It has seen Americans fighting for freedom from the British

It has been destroyed

It has been in flames

Its houses were burned to the ground

But it lived on

It’s home to beautiful beaches, preppy country clubs, and wonderful ice cream shops

It’s where youth sports are big

People care about high school athletes

Who won this game or that match is painfully important

It’s a place where music matters

A place where you see often young men and women in tuxedos and black dresses

You can feel the intensity, and taste the passion as they sing and play their hearts out

It’s a place that’s in a bit of a bubble

It’s not so diverse

Racially

Religiously

Socially

It’s a place where people can by stuck up and snobby

Along with a major superiority complex

White and wealthy is the demographic

It’s a place you can leave

It’s a place that doesn’t keep you forever

It wants you to branch out and pursue your passions

It hopes you’ll return, but understands if you don’t

It’s a home to some

It’s just another town to others

It’s not too special, but

It’s where I’m from