Argument: Robert Mugabe has dictatorially ruined Zimbabwe and unjustly wants re-election.
Audience: Immediately it is the readers of the LA Times, but it is meant for those who are involved/interested in the international political arena.
Ethos: The author speaks of his personal experiences as a white subject of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. He seems very credible, because he was there before and after liberation in 1980, and he personally witnessed Zimbabwe's rise and fall. He doesn't seem like just another "talking head" or inexperienced pundit.
Pathos: He describes the young Zimbabwe as the Switzerland of Africa, in that it was the richest, most literate and prosperous nation on the continent, often helping its neighbors as well. He paints a bright, positive image of the young Zimbabwe, and he contrasts that with its dark, depressing current state. His description of Mugabe almost leaves you with your jaw open, (wondering how in the world is he still in power!).
Logos: His information is accurate. He uses statistic after statistic (granted, with no direct references cited) to show how dire Zimbabwe 's situation is under Mugabe.
I think it is a very effective argument. I took interest a little while ago in Zimbabwe and already knew some stuff about Mugabe, and my opinion of him was not that high. I did read actual speeches of his, though, and found that he is a very persuasive, intelligent, impressive orator. This article, written by an actual Zimbabwean, really puts things in perspective. I wish more people knew about what was happening over there.
Enthymeme: Robert Mugabe should not be re-elected because he has been the primary cause of Zimbabwe's downfall.
Robert Mugabe is the primary cause of Zimbabwe's downfall because he has slighted the nation for his own fortune and interest, he has destroyed efforts to have free elections, and he is starving what once was the breadbasket of Africa.
S- While the article is pretty thorough, I don't think it will have a widespread impact, mostly because many do not take interest in international affairs. Robert Mugabe has shown that he can rig an election in the past, and the same is likely to happen now (especially that he printed over 9 million pro-Mugabe ballots for his 5.7 million voter electorate).
T- This is a typical argument against a dictator. There is nothing outlandish or revolutionary about the content.
A- I believe the article to be accurate. The author himself saw his family lose their money and land because Mugabe wanted to give to his cronies. He himself experienced some of what Zimbabwe has had to pass through. I have read other sources and have found that most of the information is very accurate.
R- It is very relevant, indeed, since the elections are coming this Saturday. However, those who will read the LA Times will not likely be Zimbabwean voters, especially since no Zimbabwe diaspora is granted voting rights.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-godwin25mar25,0,7210173.story
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I thought that this was a very good analysis although i do not agree with the fact that most people do not care about international affairs. I think a lot of people care but a lot of people dont know what they can do and dont think they can make a difference. I also think that you were completely right about how he will rig the ballots and he will win. He has done it before. I just watched a PBS special on him and his children do not believe that he is a bad person he thinks that all those reports are lies. It is so wierd for me.
Yeah, I wasn't thinking clearly when writing the entry; I do know that people care, but they don't know what they can do to help. Thanks for your comment.
Post a Comment