An Analysis of "THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE"

The Declaration of Independence By Thomas Jefferson


An Analysis:

The essay entitled “The Declaration of Independence” written by Thomas Jefferson states that thirteen states of the United States declare their independence from the king of Great Britain. This declaration is based on the Laws of Nature so Jefferson appeals to the supreme court of divine to judge the case. He also argues, “all men are created equal, that all are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.” So his method of reasoning is deductive one. Besides this, he has also used powerful device like balance and parallelism to make it perfect from the side of mind as well as heart.
Jefferson begins the essay by stating the above-mentioned argument. The deductive nature of it becomes apparent from that very argument. It is something like “All men are created equal. We are men. Therefore we have to be treated equally.” He also argues that government is formed to secure unalienable rights and equality among people. And if it fails to do so then people can overthrow it. But the king of Great Britain is failed to do so. Therefore, they can destroy the government; this is how Jefferson argues deductively. In other words, Jefferson reaches to the conclusion from the argument.
In the essay ahead, Jefferson lists out twenty-seven causes that include the abuses and usurpations imposed by the king of Great Britain. Jefferson has included wrong acts done by the government. He argues that even if the people requested to reform the government about its policies but it remained indifferent. Some of the causes that he mentions are:
· The king has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
· He has forbidden his Governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance.
· He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
· He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
In this way, he gives a long list of wrong deeds done by the king of Great Britain. All the causes that he cities serve as evidence of the argumentation and they are also so serious that they contribute to move the audience. This is how Jefferson appeals the mind as well as heart to make the argument more effective and powerful.
In the early part of the essay, Jefferson raises the possible objection and refutes it. He argues that it is not good to dissolve long established government. He immediately refutes it by arguing that, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them (people) under despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
Jefferson also appeals to authority that can be seen as right appealing. While talking about laws, he appeals to Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. Besides this, he begins the essay by referring to God and ends with the same. Similarly, periodic sentences where balanced and parallel constructions are also the notable rhetoric from the part of the techniques used by Thomas Jefferson. His deductive reasoning also sounds very relevant if we examine it from the viewpoint of its context.

They Loom Over American Consciousness: Grant and Lee

Grant and Lee: A Study in Contrasts By Bruce Catton



An Analysis:

Bruce Catton evaluates two important historical figures, Olysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee in “Grant and Lee: A Study in Contrasts.” To evaluate these two most important generals of the Civil War, Catton contrasts their origins, their manner, and what they came to represent. He spends most of the part of the essay in talking about differences and in a few paragraphs, he discusses about their commonalities. Before comparing and contrasting, he brings information about their backgrounds.
Background information
Grant and Lee brought the Civil War to its end. They did so at a time when the armies and the government were in the process of lengthening the war. So, he calls them “strong men” which is also a part of his evaluation. This is the background information that he presents in the first three paragraphs.
Oppositions between them
Catton devotes himself talking about Lee whom he contrasts with Grant later. He begins talking about Lee from the point of his origin. According to him, Lee had aristocratic family background from Virginia. Family, culture and tradition were in his background, who belonged to a knighthood family. He grew up in a society where people thought that equality is inevitable but only in words not in action. So his society was a hypocritical one. Being an aristocratic society, it always resisted change, and he belonged to that society. Therefore he also did not like to see any change. Lee believed in hierarchical society where aristocrats feel themselves responsible toward the particular community. It is because they remain on the top. Lee was in support of this kind of society where its norms and values are everything for each individual. They think so because the society’s norms and values give their identity so they become ready to sacrifice to save those things. This was the nature of southern part of American society where Lee belonged.
Now, he proceeds to talk about Grant. He says, “Grant the son of a tanner on the Western frontier, was every thing Lee was not.” This very statement tells a lot about the technique of the writer and nature of Grant. He contrasts Grant to Lee from many respects. According to him, Grant was brought up in a tanner family not in aristocratic one. He came up with struggle and his family belonged to “self-reliant who cared hardly anything for the past but had a sharp eye for the future.” Lee belonged to the South but Grant to the Western Frontier. His society believed in democracy where elected people rule not the few like in aristocratic one. In democratic nation, prosperity of individual is linked with the nation’s prosperity, Grant belonged to this sort of society.
Catton summarizes the contrasts that lay between Lee and Grant in paragraph 12. He writes, “So Grant and Lee were in completely contrast, representating two diametrically opposed elements in American life. Grant was the modern man emerging, beyond him, ready to come on the stage, was the great age of steel and machinery, of crowded cities and a restless burgeoning vitality. Lee might have ridden down from the old age of chivalry, lances in hand, silken banner fluttering over his head. Each man was the perfect champion of his cause, drawing both his strengths and his weaknesses from the people he led.”


Similarities between them (comparison)
Then, in the further part of the essay, Catton compares (so about similarities) between them. According to him, both of them were marvelous fighters. Their fighting qualities were also very much a like. Both of them had the ability to think faster and move faster than the enemy. And they encountered at Appomattox that was one of them great moments of American history. They signed on the paper in 9th April whereas the war was ended officially in 26th May. Both of them are remembered for these reasons in American history.
Organization of this essay

Catton spends first three paragraphs talking about background information of Lee and Grant “case in relation to the Civil War.” Then he devotes three paragraphs to Grant. Then he talks about both of them in the further paragraph. In rest of the paragraphs be devotes talking both of them together.

Holocaust Horror in Primo Levi's "The Last Christmas Of The War"

The Last Christmas of the War By Primo Levi


Critical Analysis:


In this autobiographical memoir, the writer as a skilled chemist describes the situation of the Jewish, and other people, who were damaged during the World War-II especially by the German Hitter's (Nazi's) attack and their cruelty of killing keeping the people in the concentration camp in Auschewitz (Monowitz). It was 1944, the writer was inside the double barred camp guarded by some people whom they prohibited to talk each other. The writer said that they could hear the bombs, and read the newspapers, which were almost damaged. Tasks were given to them settling with the filthy and damaged things. There used to be a "guided tour" of Hitler Youth in the camps, the children-soldiers were forced to call the prisoners filthy, thieves, subversive, bandits, and so on, by their head. The writer as a chemist remembered his task in the laboratory with his experiment and compared the situation of that time. He was requested by Frau Mayer for repairing her bicycle using the word "please" which gave him life that he had not had such words for three more years which he felt as if three thousand years. He repaired it because her whisper of "Christmas will soon be here" could give him hope for getting some food. Mayor provided a pack of chocolates, powdered milk, and so on which he got with very difficulty because there were people who were not given any food for a long time. He became very happy, shared it to Albert. They put it in their pockets as the hoped that they could hardly get chance to eat. The writer's jacket flew in the air that contained the food. Then he asked for another jacket going half naked to the barracks supply master revealing it as a "crime" because they thought being robbed was crime. They provided him a jacket and told him to sew the registration number on it, otherwise he would get twenty-five whacks with a stick. He was surprised why such a good friend, Alberto accompanied with him. They both shared the food, which was secured by Alberto, enjoying and celebrating the last Christmas of the war and imprisonment. A third friend was also accompanying them with the food at their expense blessing them. The writer is sure that the friend may be blessing him. When he gets food package in Christmas he remembers of a time that he used to be with his sister. He finds himself alone though he celebrates happily with his friend in the camp.
The writer compares and contrasts being a Jew, a communist against Hitler's army. He also finds that being against was to live quite a different life. He could only read broken pieces of paper, and collecting brick pieces scattered everywhere. It was very different situation because he was a chemist. As he narrates various details of his memory in the concentration camp, he is quite opposite to Hitler’s brutality although he was also a German.

Treatment of Blacks in Maya Angelo's "Finishing School"

Finishing School BY Maya Angelou


Principal Characters

* Mrs. Viola Cullinan: the owner
*Miss Glory: a cook who works in Cullinan’s kitchen whose original name was
Hallelujah
*Margaret: (Angelou) brought into Cullinan’s kitchen to learn proper conduct who
later happens to lose the original name which gets substituted by Mary.


Critical Analysis:


In this memoir, Angelou remembers the event when she was sent to Mrs. Cullinan’s Kitchen to learn proper conduct. Obviously, then the mode of presentation is narration. At the heart of this memoir lies the moment when the writer Maya Angelou deliberately breaks some dishes. But before she narrates that specific afternoon in an Alabama Kitchen. She builds up to it by providing readers with necessary background information.
The writer begins her memoir with the memory of a recent conversation that leads her back to the past memory that is the central focal point of the essay. The background information, that she provides, includes: at ten years old age she happened to be a servant in Viola Cullinan’s home which she calls “a white woman’s kitchen became my finishing school.” She, then, began to learn the names of every kitchen item that was really a difficult task for her. She came to know many things about Mrs. Cullinan from Glory, a cook in her kitchen, including barrenness of conceiving. Later Mrs. Cullinan replaced her name by ‘Mary’. Because of this, she took revenge by breaking Cullinan’s the loveliest dishes. Just after the event Cullinan called he by original name ‘Margaret’. This is the memory that she records in the memoir that is related to the issue of identity in African American literature.
The writer uses narrative technique to expose the above mentioned memory. While narrating the very event, she uses the techniques like descriptive details, irony, humor, dialogue, with sarcastic and bitter tone that, along with others, contribute to make the memoir effective and interesting.
Angelou builds up the whole narrative in a conflict mode - conflict between her world (world of black people) and employer’s one (world of white people). She uses irony while doing so. The irony lies in her use of the kitchen as “a school”. It suggests that for every black child, white people’s house becomes a school. At another time, she says that it took her one week to learn the difference between salad plate, bread plate, and a dessert plate. On the one hand, her world is a poor one where without labor no day runs with food, on the other hand, Cullinan’s world is a world of richness and prosperity where there are enormous kitchen items that trouble one for recognizing their names and purposes. While doing so, she gives a very long list of glass items that include: ice-cream glasses, wine glasses, green glasses, coffee glasses, etc.
Another ironical remark that she uses is in the narration of Mrs. Cullinan’s ability. Mrs. Cullinan is incapable of giving birth so her husband uses a black woman to fulfill that purpose. When Mrs. Cullinan plans to call her Mary then she ironizes by saying that the woman has no organ so she cannot pronounce her name correctly. In this very statement, humor also lies hidden.
Angelou’s use of dialogues, by quoting them directly, makes the narrative very lively and effective. The most effective stance is, when she breaks the dishes Cullinan abuses her by using her original name: “Her name’s Margaret godamn it her name’s Margaret.” This is the turning point of the memoir too where she feels happy for being called by original name.
The use of tone is very significant in this memoir. Angelou (Margaret) is very angry towards Cullinan so she says, “I wouldn’t pee on her if her heart was on fire.” At another moment, she wants to write a poem on “white, fat, old and childless woman,” then ultimately the poem turned to a tragic ballad. Another memorable event through tone is- when Margaret tells with Glory about the saddest moment of being called by ‘Mary’ then Glory says, ‘Sticks and stones may break your bones but words…” It implies that those servants also bear any punishment given by their masters because they have no way of liberation. All these memories are expressed through bitter tone. The use of tone also helps to heighten the effectiveness of the memoir.
To sum up, Angelou’s “Finishing School” is presented through bitter, sarcastic, and sometimes humorous tone. The use of turning point (breaking of the dishes) and irony help us to visualize the events. Background information and development of the memoir are in the mode of conflict. Because of all these features, “Finishing School” turns out to be a perfect example of a memoir. The use of dialogue and narration are notable features on the part of other techniques.