A Greek Rhetorician and an American Pastor

I wrote this essay last year for my rhetoric class. It's intriguing to see the influence that Greek rhetoricians still have on modern thought and speech, though they have been dead for centuries. Thanks to classical tradition, this speech made history when it was given by black civil rights idealist, Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963. In this essay I attempted to pinpoint just a few of Aristotle's ancient yet effective rhetorical techniques employed by King in this speech. 

            “One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity…still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition”…

            This famous speech given by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on August 28^th, 1963, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial five years before his assassination, utilizes many human emotions and numerous methods of persuasion. One of the most dominant emotions evoked by King’s words is pity – pity for the plight of the black man and for social inequality in our country. Another is indignation – still others are anger, sadness, shame… emotions all analyzed by Aristotle in his The Art of Rhetoric. The Greek philosopher, nearly two thousand years before Dr. King’s time, outlined specific methods for provoking these emotions, methods put here into practice by King. His use of pathos is the decisive element in the effectiveness of this speech – it is what stirred so many American spirits and became the defining moment in the black race’s struggle for equality.

            The two main emotions to which King appeals in this speech are pity and indignation. Moreover it is not so much an appeal directed towards the oppressed as to the oppressors of America, designed to compel them to feel ashamed, drive them to action, and open their eyes to the harsh reality around them. No one, whether white or black, young or old, has heard this speech and remained unmoved by the preacher’s powerful words, crafted with these emotions in mind. They are effective because of the skill of a very persuasive orator, one who would have made Aristotle proud.

            The first and perhaps the most dominant emotion provoked is pity… “We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality…We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only".”… Americans who are blind to the situation of inequality among blacks and whites are made acutely aware of its injustice as King portrays our racist society of 1963. Those who are aware and have done nothing are provoked to guilt by these scenarios. Those who are the victims of the injustice are moved from apathy to action. For all, pity is an emotion very powerful and important in regards to King’s aim, which is to peacefully end the social injustices suffered by the Negroes.      

            Aristotle states in his guide to persuasion that the key to stirring up any emotion is to know the states of men’s minds when they are full of this emotion, to know what causes them to feel the emotion, and to know what kinds of men feel the emotion. He must also be aware of how to take advantage of this knowledge. Dr. King utilizes this knowledge of the state of men’s minds when they feel pity, what causes them to feel pity and what kinds of men feel pity. Aristotle’s definition of pity is “a feeling of pain caused by the sight of some evil thing, destructive or painful which befalls one who does not deserve it.” King demonstrates to us that we should pity the oppressed Negro – “We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied...” 

         At the opposite end of the spectrum are the people who cannot feel pity – those who think it impossible for similar evils to befall them and who think they possess all the good things of life. These are the people such as the opponents of and passive bystanders to, the Negros’ fight for freedom… the “vicious racists,… [Alabama’s] governor having his lips dripping with the words ‘interposition’ and ‘nullification’..” of the “dark and desolate valley of segregation.” 

         King also employs the technique of repetition to pound home the message of  social racism’s injustice with phrases such as “now is the time,” we must/cannot”, “let freedom ring,” and, his most famous phrase, “I have a dream.” Those who are not suffering under these conditions are moved to pity for those who are, and the oppressed are likewise moved to pity each other and themselves. Perhaps some blacks standing in Washington that day had previously shut their eyes to their position, felt apathetic, or accepted the situation as their only known mode of life. But on August 28^th of 1963 they could not help being moved to realization and action. Blacks and whites everywhere, across time and land, were captivated by the power of King’s words. “Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.”

            The second primary emotion evoked by this speech is indignation; “…we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient find s in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.” Indignation became a major drive for blacks and whites alike in the civil rights struggle of the 60's - it expressed itself in indigation towards racist whites, towards Southerners in general, towards the laws and government of the nation which had caused so much stifling of equality,  and towards America as a whole. 

         Thus Luther addresses two domininant emotions which played powerful roles in this historic struggle. These emotions, indignation and pity, are ones which Aristotle defined thousands of years ago, ones common to mankind throughout the ages, ones as powerful in modern America as in ancient Greece. Human pathos existed then as it exists now, and Aristotle's pathetic appeal is still capable of stirring men to action - to speak out, to make new laws, to address corruption and oppression, and to try their best to change the world. 

Reflections on a New Year...

Rosh Hashanah is just around the corner and this always prompts an overflow of reflection and thought upon the past months than any other time of year... at least for Jews! We are preparing to head into a new cycle of holidays, prayer, Shabbats, worship, avodas Hashem, mitzvot, etc... These thoughts seem, in their turn, to prompt three things - regret, satisfaction, and gratitude.
      Contemplation upon the past twelve months mainly brings forth regrets for me... .There are so many areas in which I could have done better, so many things I wish I could go back and change. If I had only spent that one hour doing something productive instead of something social - or if I had spent that other hour taking the time to pour into someone who needed help rather than retreating into my own priorities - then perhaps neither of those hours would be bemoaned as "time I can never get back." Time is a funny thing that way - as my Abba put it, there is never going to be another "now" like this "now." Every "now" is its own separate entity, unlike every other "now" that will ever exist. So how do we make each of those "nows" count? Make time to study Torah, and to pour into other people when they ask for it... and don't say "when I have time I will study; for perhaps you will never have time." That is to say, perhaps you will have time, but the time you will have in the future is not going to be the same time you have now. This is time you may be wasting, and later regretting next Rosh Hashanah.
      But contemplation also prompts satisfaction - and not only personal pride, but satisfaction in Hashem, that we have tried our hardest this year to please Him, and that perhaps we have even succeeded in a few areas. As we throw our stones into the river at Tashlich, maybe there are a few less in our hand - or maybe the sins we cast into its depths are not the same ones we cast last year. Have we won any small battles against Goliath this year? I have a paltry few to my credit, though when aligned against my regrets they seem too insignificant to matter. At least I tried. Even if I get discouraged with how futile my efforts at pleasing Him seem to be, even when keeping Torah seems like a waste of time... "should we sin all the more so that grace may abound? Certainly not!" We may think that if we have salvation, it shouldn't matter if we keep the Torah or not... yet... if you were walking along the seashore and suddenly saw that jewels were coming in with the waves and lapping up against your feet... would the knowledge that you couldn't gather them all stop you from attempting to pick up as many as you could???? Mitzvot are jewels.... and though they alone can not save us from the destruction we deserve, why shouldn't we try to be perfect as He is perfect and holy as He is holy?
      Lastly I feel an overflow of gratitude to Hashem this time of year when I reflect upon how gracious He has been to us, in keeping us alive, sustaining us, and privileging us to reach this season. As stated above, we don't deserve that we should be living comfortably in this community, nor that we should be living peacefully as Jews in this world, nor even that we should exist. We do not deserve to be here. But we are..and when I realize this, I also realize how grateful I am. Gratitude is a combination of the above two emotions - regret of our mistakes and shortcomings, and satisfaction in our salvation through the Torah. As I come into Rosh Hashanah and the beginning of our new year, I'm not going to forget what I've done this past year - nor what He has done for me.
     To life! To fewer regrets the coming year! Shana Tova!
   

 

Proof 2 - Right of Conquest, Part One

     This is the first part of my senior thesis' second proof concerning the right of military conquest. Enjoy and leave your comments below, critical or otherwise!


          “In international law, the Right of Conquest is defined as ‘the purported right of a conqueror to territory which he has taken by force of arms.’ This theory is based on the proposition that a state which emerges victorious in war is entitled to claim ownership of the land of which it has taken possession during a war.” (Right of Conquest, Real Property, Real Properties Information) This Right of Conquest, however, was gradually modified after World War Two when aggression was made an official crime codified in the Nuremburg Principles and passed in 1974 as United Nations resolution 3314:  “The completion of colonial conquest of much of the world… the devastation of World Wars I and II, and the alignment of both the United States and the Soviet Union with the principle of self-determination led to the abandonment of the right of conquest in formal international law. The 1928 Kellog-Bridan Pact, the post-1945 Nuremburg  Trials, the UN charter, and the UN role in decolonization saw the progressive dismantling of this principle.” (Right of Conquest, Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia)

            However, in Joshua’s day, conquest was certainly a legal right in formal international law. (Some may argue that the right of conquest is also still legitimate today in spite of the United Nations, based on the assumption that the conquering force is more capable of securing peace and stability to the territory than the lawfully entitled governance of which it has taken over.) But whether or not a modern country currently has the right to invade and conquer territory is irrelevant, for when Joshua dispossessed the Canaan approximately three thousand years ago, he was entitled to do so by the authority of God and the authority of the sword; that is, the right of conquest. No American has ever suggested, during the short two hundred years or so that this country has existed, that we should return the United States to the Native American tribes, its original owners. So why should Israel return land (which they owned for seven hundred years until the Babylonian captivity) to ancient peoples such as the Canaanites and the Jebusites? Land in which they maintained a continuous presence until they were granted its legal rights in 1948? Every nation that has possessed Israel throughout history has won it by the sword, yet strangely, it is only when the Jews defeat aggressive Arab invaders and claim land historically their own that dissenting voices arise.

            The first step in Joshua’s conquest of Canaan was the destruction of Jericho. In the Torah, Joshua sent two spies from their encampment at Shittim across the Jordan into the city to explore, where they stayed with Rahab the harlot. After they returned to Joshua’s camp the Israelites set out to march around Jericho every day for six days.  On the seventh day, Hashem commanded them to march around the city seven times and conclude by blowing their shofars and giving a loud shout. As they did this, the walls of the great city miraculously disintegrated and the Israelites took Jericho. They went on to conquer Ai, accept the surrender of the Gibeonites, kill the king of Bethel, gain control of Shechem, (completing the conquest of northern Canaan,) and decisively defeat southern Canaan as well. The land was then partitioned according to Hashem’s commands, each tribe receiving their allotted portion of land.

            Thus Israel belonged to the Jews hundreds of years before ancient empires such as Rome and Greece even existed – through military strength they conquered Canaan’s inhabitants and maintained their presence in Israel until the Babylonian exile. After they returned from Babylon they also continued to live in the land until a portion of it became legally their own once more in 1948. In spite of being surrounded on all sides by hostile Arab nations who opposed their state status when the United Nations’ resolution was passed, they have remained a strong State of Israel for sixty-four years. 

Right of Merit?

This is an open-ended post, as I would like your input on this one, followers :)
I am wondering, is there such thing as meritorious right?
To elaborate.... We know that the Jews deserve to live in Israel, but do you think that one of the reasons is because they earned it? Because, under their care, the desert blossomed and sprouted economically? Do you think that is a good reason to deserve something?
The pro-Palestinians and "anti-Zionists" (a not-so-subtle euphemism for anti-Semites,) would argue that the Jews took their land, and it doesn't matter whether it prospered or not; it's still theirs. What would you have to say to this?
If you "took" someone's house (and this is not a very good analogy, because we know the Jews did not snatch Israel out of the Palesinians' hands,) and then planted a nice garden in front, fixed up the trimming and made it look nice, does that mean that you are now the rightful owner? I am not so sure about this one. I was intending to use it as the basis for my third proof of my thesis, but I am not sure if it is even a valid argument. I would really like to know what you think.
Please comment below, or even email me! I could use the help!!

The Right of the Jews to the Land Of Israel - 2

About a month ago I posted the first part of my thesis' first proof. This first proof is that of historical right - essentially proving through history that the Jews are Israel's legitimate owners. In my latest post I outlined history's general summary of Jews in Israel - in this post I will attempt to back that up with archaeological evidence, upon which huge importance is placed in today's scientific, rationalistic world. This research was very rewarding, because it's important to know that tangible proof of our ownership exists. Enjoy :)

The Jews’ historical presence in Israel is not only found in the records of the past, but embodied in physical objects of today, such as jewelry, writings, art, furniture, buildings and so forth. As historian Andrea Berlin said, archaeologists view physical remains as cultural data. For many, items such as money or pottery serve as factual evidence that something or someone once existed where it was found. Monuments and artifacts that have stood the test of time transport us back into history in order to see characteristics of previous cultures, to ponder their ideas and thoughts - even to discover new civilizations. Physical remains exist as proof to our pragmatic eyes that lands were settled, nations were born, wars were fought and ancient communities lived and worked in modern territories. It is simple to discard the Torah and claim that the Jews never existed in the Holy Land – that their presence was conjured up by pro-Israel fanatics seeking to discredit the Arabs. But it is not so easy to dismiss shards of Hebrew pottery found in the south of Jerusalem dating back 3,000 years ago, nor artifacts found inside the Temple Mount and Old City of David from 1000 BCE.

The evidence of the Jews’ existence reaches even further back into the past than David, however. According to the Torah, Joseph lived in Egypt for 93 years serving the Pharaoh. Historical evidence supports this account also - “Imhotep (2655-2600 BCE, Egyptian ii-m-hatāp meaning "the one who comes in peace") was an Egyptian polymath, who served under the Third Dynasty king, Djoser, as chancellor to the pharaoh … He is considered to be the first architect and engineer and physician in early history… The Upper Egyptian Famine Stela, dating from the Ptolemaic period, bears an inscription containing a legend about a famine of seven years during the reign of Djoser. Imhotep is credited with having been instrumental in ending it.” (Wikipedia, Imhotep) The similarities between the historical Imhotep and the Biblical Joseph are too vast to be ignored – according to history, both were physicians, architects, and overseers; moreover, both lived to be 110 years of age, married into the priesthood of On, interpreted dreams, instituted a tax of one-fifth, and came from families of twelve. (Were Joseph and Imhotep the Same Man? The Genesis of Israel and Egypt, by Emmet Sweeney, 2001,2nd Edition)

From Joseph’s family, who later joined him in Egypt, emerged the numerous Jewish people, a nation fathered by Joseph and his eleven brothers, the Twelve Tribes of Israel. According to the Torah, the Jews remained in Egypt in the small region of Goshen for 430 years after Joseph. Extraneous evidence supports this fact as well – for instance the details of Egyptian life given in the Torah are surprisingly consistent with the historical culture of the time: “If the Israelites did not spend time in Egypt, it is unclear how the author of Genesis and Exodus would have known enough to so accurately describe Egyptian… customs… In the Joseph narrative, when the author mentions the titles of the Egyptian officials, he employs the correct title in use and exactly as it was used in the period referred to….In Genesis 41:40 Pharoah elevates Joseph to a high position, which corresponds precisely to the office of prime minister or vizier of Egypt, who was the chief administrator in the country, second in power to Pharaoh himself.” (Quartz Hill School of Theology, Israel’s Sojourn in Eyypt.)

A papyrus scroll in the Brooklyn Museum dating from the reign of Sobekhotep III (the pharaoh who reigned one generation before Moses) was acquired in the late 1800s by Charles Wilbour. It is a decree by the pharaoh for a transfer of slaves, half of which are Semitic in origin. (Did the Exodus Happen? Answering the Skeptics, by Dr. David Lewis) A city called Avaris, unearthed by the Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak in the land of Goshen underneath the city of Rameses, provides additional proof of the Israelites’ presence in Egypt; “The people who lived in Avaris were not Egyptian but Asiatic Palestinian or Syrian. The finds there included numerous pottery fragments of Palestinian origin. Several factors about the graves were particularly fascinating: - 65% of the burials were of children under 18 months of age, the norm for this period being 20-30%. Could this be due to the killing of the male Israelite children by the Egyptians, recorded in Exodus 1:22?” (Did the Exodus Happen? Answering the Skeptics, by Dr. David Lewis, John Fulton)

If the Jews’ presence in Egypt can thus be so conclusively proved through archaeology, it must follow that the subsequent Exodus and conquest of Canaan recorded in the Torah is also true. The Egyptian historian Manetho recounts how Egypt collapsed in the reign of Dudimose: ‘In [Dudimose’s] reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land (Egypt). [These were the Amalakites, or “Hyksos,” as they came to be called.] By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly… and treated all our natives with cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others.” The Amalekite invaders thus found the Egyptian nation, devastated by Divine judgment, easy prey.

A papyrus dating from the end of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom was found in the early 19th century and interpreted by A.H. Gardiner in 1909. “The papyrus describes violent upheavals in Egypt, starvation, drought, escape of slaves (with the wealth of the Egyptians), and death throughout the land. The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues from the perspective of an average Egyptian.” (The Ten Plagues – Live from Egypt by Rabbi Mordechai Becher, Ohr Samayach) Some suggestive phrases found in this papyrus are, “Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere….The river is blood… Men shrink from tasting and thirst after …All is ruin. All animals, their hearts weep. Cattle moan... The land is without light… the children of princes are cast out in the street… he who places his brother in the ground is everywhere. It is groaning throughout the land, mingled with lamentations… Gold and lapis lazuli, silver and malachite, carnelian and bronze… are fastened on the necks of female slaves….” These events correspond exactly to the ones recorded in the Torah – the plagues of blood, cattle disease, darkness, death of the firstborn, and the plunder of the Egyptians.

After their departure from Egypt, the Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. They conquered Canaan around 1250 BCE under their leader Joshua. They established their presence and remained in this land until the Babylonian exile in 598 BCE.

If the Jews’ own proof were not enough, and one still found oneself in need of external sources to be convinced, other ancient cultures testify to the presence of Jews in Israel. The Tel Dan Stele is an inscribed stone discovered in 1993 during excavations at Tel Dan in northern Israel dates back to the 9th century BCE - its author was a king of Damascus, Hazaelor, and it contains an Aramaic inscription commemorating victories over local ancient peoples including "Israel" and the "House of David." The Mesha Stele from around the same period is similar, written by King Mesha of the Moabites. “Revisionists insist there was no such entity as "Israel" until at least the 9th century BCE. Yet a well known Egyptian inscription dated to about 1210 BCE clearly identifies an Israel in the land of Canaan as a people that had to be reckoned with. The inscription, which depicts the victories of Pharaoh Merneptah in Canaan, reads in part: ‘Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more.’” (Archaeology and the Bible, pt.2, by Rabbi Dovid Lichtman, aish.com) Thus the presence of Jews in the land of Canaan, conquered by them under Joshua, is not only confirmed by their own history recorded in the Torah, but by extraneous evidence from other contemporary cultures.