As we learned in class, each person has a personal preference as to how to conduct a protest. However, no matter the method, the modes remain the same – appealing to pathos, ethos, and logos.
Fannie Lou Hamer primarily used ethos to fuel her speech to the Credentials Committee of the Democratic National Convention. She began by giving her address, a move that established her existence as an everyday person regardless of the color of her skin. By telling her story with concrete details and exact dialogue, Hamer proved her trustworthiness as a witness to and victim of racial discrimination. Her argument for equality works because she came individually to the meeting instead of in a crowd. The politicians could not shrug her off like they could the large groups of black protesters - denying one person her freedom is much more difficult than denying an entire race. While Hamer's entire speech worked to establish her ethos, she simultaneously appealed to pathos with the details of her ordeal. She trusted in the human nature to empathize with victims of violence and thus emotionally charged her audience while using simple diction.
Stokely Carmichael took a different approach in his speech at the University of California at Berkeley. While he developed his ethos by indicating the work he had done with the SNCC, he also developed it by his sense of humor, however dry. Using humor in a speech can relax the audience and remind listeners that the speaker is intelligent and socially aware. However, his humor evolved as his speech developed to become more cynical and, in a way, this humor alone is a form of protest. When Carmichael called President Johnson a buffoon, for instance, he appealed to pathos by invigorating the crowd with dislike for the current administration. In fact, most of the applause throughout Carmichael's speech is a result of his impassioned statements. Although Carmichael never attempts to get his audience to sympathize for him, he does incite them to action by creating feelings within them. This point, however, ties in to Carmichael's appeal to logos, such as in the section of his speech where he argues that all civil rights laws were made for white people. He develops this segment using logic (black people know they have equal rights and white people need the law to understand that) and then ends it with humor that appeals to pathos. He somewhat taunts the audience with his statement, "If you believe in integration then we're going to start adopting us some white people to live in our neighborhood."
The civil rights protestors who sat in at the diners had yet a different approach to their protest. Their protest had no words (other than the marches when signs were used) so their rhetorical appeal had to come from almost purely ethos. By using nonviolent methods, the protesters were able to portray their intelligence and rationalism to the world. However, once they were oppressed and abused by the white activists, audiences around the country began to feel for the students. In effect, the white activists inadvertently created an appeal to pathos for the opposing side.
Personally, I do not feel as if there is any one rhetorical appeal that dominates all of the examples. Logos, pathos, and ethos all relate to one another in such a way that one can argue that all three are present in a single sentence. However, I believe that if one wanted to persuade me on any general subject, he or she should use logos and pathos arguments, pathos first to make me want to get more information and then logos to spur me to action. Appeals to pathos only remain in the consciousness for so long – the public is notorious for obsessing over certain hot topics when the emotions are ripe and then forgetting it ever occurred just as quickly. Yet if someone becomes informed on an issue instead of jumping on the emotional bandwagon, he or she is more likely to remain active for long periods of time. While ethos is still important to me, I am more strongly affected by pathos and logos.
