Essay Paper
Canadian Identity: A Rhetorical Analysis Essay
In this essay, the articles ‘Listen to the north’ by John Ralston Saul and ‘Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom?’ by J.R. Miller will be analyzed, specifically looking at each authors argument and his appeal to ethos, logos and pathos. In the first article, ‘Listen to the North’, author John Ralston Saul argues that current Canadian policy when it comes to our north, and the people that reside there, is out of date and based on southern ideals that hold little bearing on the realities that face northern populations. He suggests instead that the policies and regulations should be shaped by people who know the territory and it’s needs, namely people who live there. In the second article, ‘Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom?, Author Jim Miller discuses conventions in recording native history, focusing on an area he refers to as native-newcomer history. He discusses topics such as who should be recording said history, and for whom it should be intended, as evidence in the title. Both of these articles provide arguments that appeal to ethos, logos and pathos, but it is my opinion that John Ralston Saul makes a more convincing argument to his audience in ‘Listen to the north’ than Jim Miller makes in ‘Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom?’. The First appeal that John Ralston Saul makes is to ethos, and while credentials such as being the president of PEN International, various awards and being a well respected professional in his field all give credit to his name, he also shows that he has first hand knowledge in the specific topic he is covering. He does this through the use of a personal anecdote about his experience in the north, as well as mentioning the several times he has travelled to the north in his later career. Considering Saul’s audience, namely readers interested in reform of policies and practices in the north, I believe that this makes a stronger argument than Jim Miller does in his
In this essay, the articles ‘Listen to the north’ by John Ralston Saul and ‘Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom?’ by J.R. Miller will be analyzed, specifically looking at each authors argument and his appeal to ethos, logos and pathos. In the first article, ‘Listen to the North’, author John Ralston Saul argues that current Canadian policy when it comes to our north, and the people that reside there, is out of date and based on southern ideals that hold little bearing on the realities that face northern populations. He suggests instead that the policies and regulations should be shaped by people who know the territory and it’s needs, namely people who live there. In the second article, ‘Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom?, Author Jim Miller discuses conventions in recording native history, focusing on an area he refers to as native-newcomer history. He discusses topics such as who should be recording said history, and for whom it should be intended, as evidence in the title. Both of these articles provide arguments that appeal to ethos, logos and pathos, but it is my opinion that John Ralston Saul makes a more convincing argument to his audience in ‘Listen to the north’ than Jim Miller makes in ‘Which ‘Native’ History? By Whom? For Whom?’. The First appeal that John Ralston Saul makes is to ethos, and while credentials such as being the president of PEN International, various awards and being a well respected professional in his field all give credit to his name, he also shows that he has first hand knowledge in the specific topic he is covering. He does this through the use of a personal anecdote about his experience in the north, as well as mentioning the several times he has travelled to the north in his later career. Considering Saul’s audience, namely readers interested in reform of policies and practices in the north, I believe that this makes a stronger argument than Jim Miller does in his
Cited: Miller, Jim. "Which 'Native ' History? By Whom? For Whom." Canadian Issues. Fall 2008 33-35. Saul, John Ralston. "Listen to the North." Literary Review of Canada. 17.8 (2009): 3-5.