BF aeaeae
So begins a new chapter in our year- neoclassicism.
I never imagined Ben Franklin was so sarcastic. His writing is very advanced. I wonder how much of his audience understood what he was writing? One would not think that your average farmer could appreciate Franklin's irony, yet his audience was so widespread.
Patrick Henry, on the other hand, was much more down to earth. Perhaps this is because Henry was a farmer in Virginia, not so influenced by Northeastern Puritan ellitist ideals. Ben was clever, but Henry was inflammatory. I love when he says, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" So dramatic...
Franklin v. Henry- who do you think was more effective?
-Theresa
I never imagined Ben Franklin was so sarcastic. His writing is very advanced. I wonder how much of his audience understood what he was writing? One would not think that your average farmer could appreciate Franklin's irony, yet his audience was so widespread.
Patrick Henry, on the other hand, was much more down to earth. Perhaps this is because Henry was a farmer in Virginia, not so influenced by Northeastern Puritan ellitist ideals. Ben was clever, but Henry was inflammatory. I love when he says, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" So dramatic...
Franklin v. Henry- who do you think was more effective?
-Theresa
5 Comments:
Elizabeth:
First I'll quote (III) from Franklin's "Rules by Which a Greate Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One."
"III. These remote Provinces have perhaps been acquired, purchas'd, or conquer'd, at the sole Expence of the Settlers or their Ancestors, without the Aid of the Mother Country. If this should happen to increase her Strength by their growing Numbers ready to join in her Wars, her Commerce by their growing Demand for her Manufactures, or her Naval Power by greater Employment for her Ships and Seamen, they may probably suppose some Merit in this, and that it entitles them to some Favour; you are therefore to forget it all, or resent it as if they had done you Injury. If they happen to be zealous Whigs, Friends of Liberty, nurtur'd in Revolution Principles, remember all that to their Prejudice, and contrive to punish it: For such Principles, after a Revolution is thoroughly established, are of no more Use, they are even odious and abominable."
I would interpret that to say (obviously, with the Franklin sarcasm) that the colonists of the New World had to do all of the work to make the New World a success. Once the New World was able to provide men for wars, a solid market for England's finished products, and more work for ships and sailors, the colonies would expect to be thanked or appreciated.
In return, England should either ignore the fact the colonies contributed a lot of energy/labor/etc, OR England should be contemptuous of the aid given and act as though it is an insult. I think the last line means that the people of the colonies should be punished for wanting liberty/freedom (which would in turn incite greater hatred of England?). (I just realized that the very last line of III confuses me a bit as well.)
Something I personally found interesting was Franklin’s analogies, especially in bullets I & II, which created parallel situations that made it easier for the “common man” to understand the meaning of Franklin’s main points.
II. “Take special Care the Provinces are never incorporated with the Mother Country, that they do not enjoy the same common Rights, […] and that they are governed by severer Laws, all of your enacting, without allowing them any Share in the Choice of the Legislators. […] Act like a wise Gingerbread Baker, who, to facilitate a Division, cuts his Dough half through in those Places, where when bak’d, he would have it broken to pieces.”
The analogy of II seemed to essentially say, “Give the colonies harsh laws and fewer rights than people that live in England; consequently, the colonists will dislike you, making their decision to separate from England an easier one.”
Though it took me a minute to grasp the gingerbread analogy, once I put together the visual image, the concept overall made a lot more sense to me. Did anyone else find the imagery/analogies in II and III to be helpful or entertaining?
--Good night
BEN FRANKLIN ROCKS DUDE!!!
but seriously
he does
i can't really compare him to patrick henry cause... i haven't read his stuff yet =/
but i did read ben franklin and found it really entertaining (maybe i'm just a dork but... whatever)
maybe i just appreciate ben franklin's sarcasm and wit cause that's how i usually am.
after mr. lazarow's talk today, i realized how the ben franklin piece could effectively persuade any of the four groups that need to be targeted:
-nationalists
easy one, they're already against the king, they just need reasons why and this piece provides it.
-allies
the new world has already become prosperous so the colonies can bribe other countries to help out. (evidence in point 3)
also, the new world has land that used to be other countries' land, i.e. france. seeing this revolution as an opportunity to get back land they had lost to the british, they figured they'd help out.
-neutrals
ben franklin really creates the image of britain being evil by pretty much telling all the instances in which the crown has taxed goods going into the colonies, been unfair in the judicial system, etc. By doing so, it's easy to see how this can persuade neutrals to join their (the colonies') side
-enemies
franklin really flexes his wit here by hooking his enemies with the title: "Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One"
everyone on the british side would step back and immediately question the crown's actions. they'd basically ask "why would our dearly beloved king want to shrink our empire, the empire of the greatest country in the civilized world, the empire whose navy controls the atlantic?"
so while not directly supporting the colonies, the british commonfolk would be opposed to the crown's actions.
btw, i agree with liz. very clever title ;)
Perhaps I should have asked whether Franklin or Henry was more affective.
I appreciate Franklin's wit and contributions to the Revolution. Albert, I agree that "Rules by Which a Greate Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One" targets all four groups effectively. Henry speech, however, would make me want to jump up from my seat and shoot all the bloody Brits.
Henry has a certain appeal to the common, uneducated people that are actually going to do the fighting. While Franklin was instrumental as a statesman, I think that it is the passion and conviction of those like Henry that incited the fervor necessary for the Revolution. Franklin insured that it would run to its completion successfully.
I think that the last line of III means that Revolutionary principles threaten the mother country. Therefore, despite the numerous contributions of the colony (commmerce, labor, etc.), the colonists should be punished out of fear for following Revolutionary principles.
Danielle- I liked the metaphors, too, especially the one about the gingerbread baker (not my gumdrop buttons!). These metaphors help Franklin connect with common folk in the colonies.
I do not mean to discredit Franklin. In many ways, his works are much more clever and appealing than the impulsive speeches of Patrick Henry. I just find Henry's zeal and sincerity more compelling.
oh yeah, forgot to mention his effectiveness
as theresa alludes to, patrick henry and ben franklin target very different audiences.
henry targets the common folk (basically those who aren't fully educated, [colleges and such])
ben franklin targets the educated elite, hence the high grade of the language he used.
as for the effectiveness, both were equally effective, just in different demographics.
i guess you could tie patrick henry to the old way of thinking (using your emotions w/ little to no rational thought) and ben franklin to the new way (using rational thought).
that is, patrick henry appeals directly to a person's emotions while franklin makes you sit back, scratch your head, and then appreciate the wit he uses.
this is really important when considering the demographics they target.
since the common folk are still "undeducated" (i use that term loosely), they rely heavily on their emotions and impulses.
the upper class elite, being educated, supposedly have surpassed giving in to their emotions and are highly critical thinkers. being such, in order for them to be convinced, they need to be convinced through rational thought.
... my argument just kinda died in the last few sentences... oh well
in essence, they are basically doing the same thing, just one is more thought provoking than the other.
I agree with Tina in that, Patrick Henry speaks in such a way that just makes people captivated. Assuming of course that Mr. Henry talked with some fire in his voice and not monotoned like a robot.
I was about to say that he appeals to the common folk and Ben Franklin appeals strictly to intellectuals, but I then realized as long as people actually sat down and thought about what he said, even if they didn't get it at first they would eventually understand it; and that's where Franklin's genius becomes painfully obvious.
I think there were probably people who scoffed at Henry but I doubt there were any who criticized Franklin or if they did, Franklin would have a witty retort, where I imagine Henry would reply with insults or lowbrow "comebacks" so-to-speak.
Enough of that digression for now, what I was trying to say before is, I think that Henry picks language that would immediatley gather support and allies, while Franklin would slowly win people over with reason and wit in a conversation.
Please if anyone disagrees or agrees share your thoughts!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home