Quote:
Originally Posted by unlurking
Not going to argue or disagree with your points, just wanted to point out that the poem is not rhetorical in any way. It was written by a German pastor who supported the rise of Hitler and later came to regret that choice. That perspective probably sharpened after being imprisoned in Dachau for speaking against the Nazi "progrom". Another word that seems to be losing its meaning as it's twisted for use by the current Trumpist victim culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Ugh. I did not want to have this discussion and should have stuck to my guns and just held my tongue. Please, I leave the last word to you and cancel myself. I don't like myself when I get pissy about politics.  |
Really not trying to extend the argument, but there isn't a fiber in my being that will alow me to ignore the 'rhetorical' part.
I'm sensing you have an inferential impression of rhetoric that is unmerited.
Rhetoric is the attempt to be persuasive through language. At it's base, nothing more. It seems that you are appending disreputable sub-strategies and methods, such as sophistry or sloganeering, which was not my intent in using the term.
The poem absolutely is a rhetorical summation. The pastor was explicitly and passionately attempting to put his perspective into a memorable and affecting set of words for persuasive purposes.
Even in critiquing the rhetoric, it's not so much the initial impulse to express the sentiment, or the manner in which he did so. The critique I expressed above is that many people don't think fully through the lesson of the poem itself and apply it dogmatically and unthinkingly. That's a fault of the audience, not the author.