Blog Post Two

The purpose of a Letter (Open and Closed letter)

In class we have been assigned to write a letter to a person or organization of our choice or a letter addressed to the public, regarding an issue that we find pertains to us and that we want to discuss and possibly bring awareness to. By looking at three other important letters written and published in the past, we were able to get a better idea of how to approach our letters.

In class we looked at three open letters. All of the letters take place in the second World War. Two of them were letters from Gandhi to Hitler in response to the violence and mass destruction he inflicted on the world. The third letter was a letter written by a soldier to the people in authority as well as the public, criticizing not so much the war he found himself in or even the soldiers, but more so to question the reasons for which young men were willing to lay down their lives.

Before looking into these letters and close reading, we we were made to consider ethos (credibility), pathos (emotions), and logos (logic) when reading each letter and then we were made to identify the writers usage of each. We were also made to consider what was effective and ineffective in the writers approach to their letters and whether or not it worked to persuade their intended audience.

The first letter Gandhi wrote to Hitler was vastly different to the second one he wrote . The first one was a much shorter letter that addressed Hitler as a Friend and was very much passive aggressive and apologetic in his approach. This in part is what I believe made his letter ineffective to me. Because although his intentions were good, getting Hitler to cease the war and save humanity, it lost some of it’s effect with his placating of Hitler. This could have been a strategy on Gandhi’s part. Inflate his ego in order to critique him. A strategy i’m sure was meant to soften the blow of his demands. Regardless we were still able to identify the three modes of persuasion though they were not very fleshed out at all.

The second letter was a lot more elaborate and went into details on how Hitler could approach his problems in a non-violent way. He still addressed the letter to Friend but this time was a little more assertive in his approach. He questioned and judged Hitler and his horrendous acts as well as targeted Britain whom Gandhi compared to the Nazis in regards to their control over India. This second letter made clear its demands as well as re purposed it to fit their needs with Britain. This letter still held some of its apologetic language but it held much more detail and purpose. It also exercised the three forms of persuasion . Calling to ethos by stating his status with people all around the world , enough to have people asking him to write a letter to Hitler. He tied in pathos by often appealing to the good of humanity as well as pleading with him to stop his violent acts upon the world, pointing out that even if he won it would not make him right. It would only mean that he had the better resources and man power at the time. And lastly he appealed to logos when he gave details of his own peaceful rebellion in India and the success of its efforts. He also often called for Hitler to reconsider the legacy or lack thereof that he was leaving for his people. He stated that he was leaving them with nothing to be proud of.

The third letter from the soldier was a lot shorter and also lacked some call to action. He mainly described the fact that as a soldier in the army he was faced with many trials and hardships towards some goal that was above their knowledge. He made accusations about information being held from them and that maybe their involvement in the war was not in pursuit of something they could be proud of . This letter called out those at home to consider what their men were facing and to stop making decisions that affected them without they themselves understanding the realities of war. This letter although short in length was at least effective in opening up the conversation of the war and whether or not they should be involved as well as taking into consideration what their soldiers were going through.

Through the analysis of these letters we were able to get a better perspective as to how to approach our group letter. It made me realize that a letter directed to a person or organization has its advantages as well as its limits. It is effective because it allows you to be able to focus on an issue that you want addressed by a specific person or organization. But what I also began to realize was that an open letter to a person or organization would be more useful in addressing multiple issues and targeting a broader audience. Our group letter is meant to bring change on campus and at first we were thinking of directing it to ASI since they are in charge of campus activities as well as student body involvement. But the more I thought about it, the more I began to think that the issues on campus were not just issues caused by poor administration, lack of marketing strategies , or ineffective event planning, but more so to do with the mindset that the students of our campus currently holds in regards to our campus life. An open letter would better aid us in not only achieving some kind of change in the events on campus but also to have students themselves change the way the view their college experience at CSUSB. By creating an open letter we can hopefully not only bring actual changes to our schools environment but also just to start up a conversation of what our commuter school should be like moving forward and what kind of experiences we want to provide future Coyotes.