Rhetorical Analysis Of Ho Chi Minh's Ho Chi Minh

In a speech Rev. Martian Luther King Jr. gave to the Riverside Church in New York City, King conveyed his beliefs on the horrific atrocities currently present in the Vietnam War. King began by stating that no longer Vietnam was a oversea issues, "Vietnam [had to be brought] into the field of my moral vision". Likewise, King stated the issues at home such as the overwhelming majority of the nation's poor were fighting in the Vietnam War. In King's mindset, a nation that held it self on the acclaim that all men are created equal, was in fact not equal. King uses a variety of persuasive elements including, but not limited to: concrete examples and analysis, a robust tone, and powerful rhetoric. While King was only one voice out of many of those who were on both sides of the war, King still managed to change others views about politics through the usage of his persuasive elements. In all, King posses a natural eloquence that allows him to spread his message far and wide with the hopes that America will never forget the testatrices that took place at home and oversea during the Vietnam War.

In September 1945 Ho Chin Minh declared his country independence (Vietnam).Ho determination to make his country free brought him to the realization that, in other to achieve that, the Vietnamese would have to fight another war against the French colonialist. After several years of fighting the French were won out and sued for peace with the Vietnamese with a suitably ceremony on October 9 1945.This brought the intervention of the American, who wanted Vietnamese to be permanently divided which was temporally divided at the time (pp 150-151). As the Americans campaigned against communism, it has being portrayed to many that it is the right of the Americans to intervene in Vietnamese as world power. But the decision made by Johnson’s presidency was bias. The increase of American military troops in south Vietnam provoked and intensified the response from the north which eventually broke out to a war were so many lives were lost. The war ended with a great

“Beyond Vietnam-A Time to Break Silence” is an article written by Martin Luther King Jr himself. King is effectively able to convey his point about his topic by using rhetorical devices such as logos, ethos, pathos.

When, on August 25, Bao Dai, the puppet emperor of the Japanese, abdicated, Ho proclaimed independence for the new “Republic of Vietnam” and looked to America for support and to recognize his government. He was inspired by America’s history – their revolutionary war – and because of the promises they had delivered after being made in World War II. An example of this was the way that Ho used phrases from the US Declaration of Independence in his speech on 2 September 1945, during the Vietnam Declaration of Independence in Hanoi, as a gesture, to seek the support of the Americans.

The leader of this communist introduction and development in Vietnam was Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh, born Nguyen Tat Thanh, grew up with a passion for freeing his country of the French. Ho Chi Minh worked hard on his French when his tutor told him, “If you want to defeat the French, you must understand them. To understand the French you must study the French language.” Ho Chi Minh’s patriotism developed mainly from his Chinese-language instructor, Hoang Thong, who was anti- French himself. Thong believed that losing one’s family was worse than losing one’s country. Ho Chi Minh’s first involvement against political action came on May 9, 1908 when he joined a peasant uprising as a translator. Attempting to translate in the front of the crowd, he was beaten and forced to hide at his friend’s house at night to prevent being arrested. In the following years, Ho Chi Minh yearned to go overseas; he said to journalist Anna Louise Strong, “The people of Vietnam, including my own father, often wondered who would help them to remove them the yoke of French control…I saw that I must go abroad to see for myself. After I had found out how they lived, I

2...Ho Chi Minh was a vietnamese communist who main goal was to to gain independence: French colonization the United Sovereign and communist Vietnam wanted otherwise. he had led the North Vietnamese in an

Ho was determined to achieve independence for the region. The French wanted to regain power and took badly to Ho's proclaiming the former Indochina as 'The Democratic Republic of Vietnam' in September, as the British had persuaded the allies to return power to the French in October (Palmer, 1984). At this time bi-polarity was not yet fully entrenched and Ho appealed to the U.S. in his September speech to the masses, drawing on The American Declaration of Independence (ibid.). America influenced the celebrations and professed its friendship to the new state.

Vietnamese people wanted freedom and communist Ho Chi Minh wanted freedom for Vietnam therefore people supported him. But they all know that Vietnam belong to the French. Ho fought with French his army was in the north and he tried to get US to help him but US didn’t because he was communist and were afraid that communism would spread throughout South

Martin Luther King a man who was a civil rights activist that was tired of America’s antics during the Vietnam War, so he decided to speak against their involvement. The U.S’s involvement to ending communism has led to negative impacts on the lives of the Vietnamese people. Martin Luther King Jr. has many reasons to why he wants the United States to resolve its problem with Vietnam through peaceful acts such as ending all bombing and removing all troops from Vietnam.

Since the late 1800s, Vietnam has struggled with maintaining independence. Vietnam was under the French control but the Vietnamese wanted to break free of the harsh rules put in place by the French, so Ho Chi Minh created the Indochinese Communist Party in 1940. After the Japanese conquered Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh created the Vietminh in order to gain independence from all foreign rule. Although the Vietnamese defeated the Japanese in 1945, the French had no thoughts of pulling out of Vietnam. By the end of 1945 the French had already reentered into Vietnam and conquered the southern cities.

Ho Chi Minh had 3 different solutions to bringing Vietnam out from French rule which he called brocade bags. Ho drew the term “from a well-known Chinese tale widely read in Vietnam in which not one but three such bags figured as repositories of ingenious solutions to daunting problems confronting their owner.” (page 23) His three brocade bags were: the ideas of Lenin, patriotism, and a populist program. With them, Ho drew a mass base of support from the general population. One of the struggles Ho face with was that he did not have enough proletariats to help make a good spearhead towards change.

In Dr. Martin Luther King’s speech “Beyond Vietnam—A Time to Break Silence” (1967), Dr. King asserts that the war in Vietnam is totally immoral and has far reaching negative implications not only for Vietnam, but for The United States and the rest of the World as well. Dr. King’s purpose is to make the church leaders he is speaking to aware that the time has come for them to speak out loudly in opposition of the war in Vietnam. He offers many practical reasons for the opposition, as well as spiritual and moral reasons. He then outlines the history of the war in Vietnam, showing that he is not simply preaching about religious ideals. He also makes an

His narrative begins well before American forces set foot in Vietnam, delving into French colonialism 's contribution to the 1945 Vietnamese revolution, and revealing how the Cold War concerns of the 1950s led the United States to back the French. The heart of the book covers the "American war," ranging from the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem and the impact of the Tet Offensive to Nixon 's expansion of the war into Cambodia and Laos, and the final peace agreement of 1973. Finally, Lawrence examines the aftermath of the war, from the momentous liberalization-"Doi Moi"-in Vietnam to the enduring legacy of this infamous war in American books, films, and political debate.

Ho Chi Minh used the analogy of “the elephant and the tiger” frequently during his presidency. Minh applied this theory to the war between the Vietnamese and French, claiming that the French were the elephants and the Vietminh troops were tigers, reinforcing the guerrilla warfare tactics that the Vietminh used to great success. Minh stated that time and resources were not of issue, the war was a fight for nationalism and self-determination, regardless of the duration of the war or the amount of troops and resources lost, the Vietnamese would come out as victors. Ho Chi Minh said at a speech in Paris in 1946 “you can kill 10 of our men for every one we kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and we will win” and “we have a secret weapon, don’t smile when I tell you this, our secret weapon is nationalism” which emphasizes the desire and desperation the North Vietnam were willing to go to in order to self-determine. The battle at Dien Bien Phu in 1954 was the culmination of the First Indochina War and as a result of North Vietnam’s victory, French forces left and a sense of nationalism was prevalent. The Vietnamese were at war with the French due to the Communist forces in the North of Vietnam desiring the expulsion of French forces and colonisation to promote nationalism and self-determination. In March 1954, General Giap, the principal commander of the Vietminh army at the time, ordered a siege against

“If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read ‘Vietnam’.” Today I invoke the late Martin Luther King Jr’s words with full knowledge of the gravity they carry. My fellow Americans, the Vietnam war is undeniably the greatest moral catastrophe to have ever plagued our beloved nation; it has done nothing but divide us domestically and humiliate us internationally. As a result, for the sake of America’s conscience and dignity, the National Mobilisation Committee implores the Democratic Party to immediately de-escalate or even withdraw America’s military presence in South Vietnam. Yet I understand that the onus is upon me to prove that the National Mobilisation Committee’s path of peace is superior to President Johnson’s path of war. Consequently, I will rebut President Johnson’s attempts to defend the war. Furthermore, it has come to my attention that my pacifism has shaken my fellow protestors’ faith in my ability to bring about positive change. As a result, I will also use this speech to argue in favour of nonviolent protest, as it is the only way for those in power to hear our voices.