The Arrogance Of Power Analysis
The Vietnam war is arguably the most controversial war the United States has been engaged in. Some Americans felt that the United States should not be sending troops over to another country to fight a war that was not their own. One United States Senator felt the same way. Senator Fulbright disagreed greatly with the war in Vietnam, and worked to persuade others about the negative aspects of the United States being in Vietnam. Senator Fulbright wrote and excerpt titled "The Arrogance of Power" that outlines many of these point. This essay discusses how Senator Fulbright successfully uses the persuasive arguments of pathos and ethos as well as an occasional satirical tone to sway readers to believe that just because a country may be more
…show more content…
Senator Fulbright successfully uses ethos within his article to persuade his audience to oppose the United States occupation of Vietnam. He does this not by writing that the United States has morale obligations, but by simply contrasting our actions in Vietnam to our western morals. In the fourth paragraph Senator Fulbright writes " The answer, I think, is that "fatal impact" of the rich and strong on the poor and weak. Dependent on it though the Vietnamese are, our very strength is a reproach to their weakness, our wealth a mockery of their poverty, our success a reminder of their failures". America has always had a moral stance that we as citizens should stand up for the "little guy", be humble and be polite. However, Senator Fulbright says our physical presence in Vietnam alone in contradicting our western moral standards moral standards. His use of antonyms like strong and weak, and wealth and poverty to describe what we are doing in Vietnam shows that we are doing the opposite of what we should morally be doing. American opinions varied about the war in Vietnam, but most would agree that it was a controversial war. Senator Fulbright felt whole heartedly that the United States should not be imposing its power on a smaller and weaker nation, and in order to persuade other Americans the feel the same he wrote "The Arrogance of Power". In the article Senator Fulbright occasionally switched to a satirical tone to portray his points, and used both pathos and ethos to argue his
Senator Fulbright successfully uses ethos within his article to persuade his audience to oppose the United States occupation of Vietnam. He does this not by writing that the United States has morale obligations, but by simply contrasting our actions in Vietnam to our western morals. In the fourth paragraph Senator Fulbright writes " The answer, I think, is that "fatal impact" of the rich and strong on the poor and weak. Dependent on it though the Vietnamese are, our very strength is a reproach to their weakness, our wealth a mockery of their poverty, our success a reminder of their failures". America has always had a moral stance that we as citizens should stand up for the "little guy", be humble and be polite. However, Senator Fulbright says our physical presence in Vietnam alone in contradicting our western moral standards moral standards. His use of antonyms like strong and weak, and wealth and poverty to describe what we are doing in Vietnam shows that we are doing the opposite of what we should morally be doing. American opinions varied about the war in Vietnam, but most would agree that it was a controversial war. Senator Fulbright felt whole heartedly that the United States should not be imposing its power on a smaller and weaker nation, and in order to persuade other Americans the feel the same he wrote "The Arrogance of Power". In the article Senator Fulbright occasionally switched to a satirical tone to portray his points, and used both pathos and ethos to argue his