George Takei: Why I love a country that once betrayed me
The TedTalk I watched was called Why I love a country that once betrayed me and was about George Takei and his time at an internment camp and how it shaped not only his, but other Japanese Americans' views on why they were being sent to the camps. Throughout the video, he keeps mentioning how he and other Japanese Americans felt a sense of patriotism because from their perspective, the American government stayed true to what they stand for as a nation. He also talks about the bravery and the courage many Japanese Americans had in the face of adversity.
All through the video, Takei uses pathos to convey the different emotions that many Japanese Americans were feeling at the time, ranging from sadness and hurt to pride. After Pearl Harbor was bombed, many Japanese Americans were ready to fight for their country and yet they were "denied service, and categorized as enemy non-alien". He said that this was "a slap in the face" for many of these young men and women. That phrase alone evokes the feelings of shock and hurt, which is probably how they felt when all they wanted to do was fight for their country.
Another example is when he talks about the men of the 442nd who "decided to do the impossible", which was to climb the backside of the mountain that the Germans were "embedded in". The backside was a rock cliff and the Germans believed an attack from that side would be impossible. He said, "They climbed all night long on that sheer cliff. In the darkness, some lost their handhold or their footing and they fell to their deaths in the ravine below. They all fell silently. Not a single one cried out, so as not to give their position away. The men climbed for eight hours straight, and those who made it to the top stayed there until the first break of light, and as soon as light broke, they attacked. The Germans were surprised , and they took the hill and broke the Gothic Line. A six-month stalemate was broken by the 442nd in 32 minutes". The way he tells this event evokes the feeling of admiration for the soldiers' bravery and determination to do the impossible; how even when they were falling to their deaths, they remained quiet so that the others could make it to the top without being caught. This you can tell that this specific story had a lot of bias in it not only because of the way he relayed the story but also because he explicitly says that they were his heroes.
For this particular TedTalk, I'd say that pathos was effective in this argument because I don't think ethos nor logos would have created the same effect on the audience as pathos did. What made me chose this TedTalk was how strange I thought the title was; how could you love a country that betrayed you? It puzzled me even more so when he talked about young Japanese Americans volunteering to leave their families in the internment camps in order to fight in the war not because it would get them and their families out, but because they "cherished the very ideal of what our government stands for, should stand for, and that was being abrogated by what was being done".
All through the video, Takei uses pathos to convey the different emotions that many Japanese Americans were feeling at the time, ranging from sadness and hurt to pride. After Pearl Harbor was bombed, many Japanese Americans were ready to fight for their country and yet they were "denied service, and categorized as enemy non-alien". He said that this was "a slap in the face" for many of these young men and women. That phrase alone evokes the feelings of shock and hurt, which is probably how they felt when all they wanted to do was fight for their country.
Another example is when he talks about the men of the 442nd who "decided to do the impossible", which was to climb the backside of the mountain that the Germans were "embedded in". The backside was a rock cliff and the Germans believed an attack from that side would be impossible. He said, "They climbed all night long on that sheer cliff. In the darkness, some lost their handhold or their footing and they fell to their deaths in the ravine below. They all fell silently. Not a single one cried out, so as not to give their position away. The men climbed for eight hours straight, and those who made it to the top stayed there until the first break of light, and as soon as light broke, they attacked. The Germans were surprised , and they took the hill and broke the Gothic Line. A six-month stalemate was broken by the 442nd in 32 minutes". The way he tells this event evokes the feeling of admiration for the soldiers' bravery and determination to do the impossible; how even when they were falling to their deaths, they remained quiet so that the others could make it to the top without being caught. This you can tell that this specific story had a lot of bias in it not only because of the way he relayed the story but also because he explicitly says that they were his heroes.
For this particular TedTalk, I'd say that pathos was effective in this argument because I don't think ethos nor logos would have created the same effect on the audience as pathos did. What made me chose this TedTalk was how strange I thought the title was; how could you love a country that betrayed you? It puzzled me even more so when he talked about young Japanese Americans volunteering to leave their families in the internment camps in order to fight in the war not because it would get them and their families out, but because they "cherished the very ideal of what our government stands for, should stand for, and that was being abrogated by what was being done".
I like this very much, i remember watching this before and this was a interesting ted talk. Nice analysis but i really liked how you said that pathos was used to get the point cross to the audience. I really never thought that was cool to treat the Japanese American that way during the war but the way his used pathos made it about 10 times more emotionally. When he was talking about his father or when he had to watch his mother cry when moving. So i agree that ethos and logos wouldn't be as effective as pathos.
ReplyDeleteNice analysis here- I appreciate that you used specific examples from the talk to support your assertions.
ReplyDelete