Antithesis in Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry, a Virginian revolutionist and politician, presented his most renowned oration, Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death, to delegates of the 1775 Virginia Convention. During this time, the American colonies were controlled by Great Britain. After several decades of political tension between the colonies and Britain, disputes regarding military revolution arose between colonists loyal to Britain and those wishing to rebel. Although almost half of the colonists were eager to break away from Britain, a powerful minority was unwilling to assume active roles in the struggle. Patrick Henry condemns this passive behavior, arguing that those who are aware of detrimental injustices have the responsibility to take action against them. He begins his speech by recognizing the position of the colonies in international affairs and comparing Britain’s control to slavery. Henry denounces the practice of hopeful waiting; he believes that ignoring the “painful truth” will “transform [the colonists] into beasts.” His use of antithesis shows the foolishness and weakness of those who are able to take action but choose not to. He challenges the audience not to become “one of those who, having eyes, sees not, and, having ears, hears not.” This rhetorical device shows the futility of passive support; Henry argues that those who engage in passive support of the revolution are wasting revolutionary potential. The use of this rhetorical device in Henry’s oration is a representation of his central argument against apathy. Henry believes the war has already begun; he believes that the question is whether or not to support the colonies in military rebellion. The speech ends with the claim that the colonies will be victorious if they take an active stand against oppression. Henry’s speech was successful in creating military action; it is known for convincing the Virginia government to send troops into the American Revolutionary War.

  1. 1.How does John Muir’s view of the environment differ from that of Aldo Leopold?
  2. A number of the environmental pieces refer to an instinctual connection/attraction to nature. Using at least two examples, discuss the ways in which our authors suggest that we connect to nature on an instinctual level.
  3. In “Man’s Place in the Universe,” John Muir articulates a vision for how human beings should view their place in nature. What does he believe? Use example from the text.
  4. Using at least three sources, make an argument for what should be done to the national parks.
  5. Using at least three sources, make an argument that either society or individuals are the most important factors in changing our attitude about the environment.
  6. Either defend or critique Rachel Carson’s call for the elimination of DDT.
  7. Chief Seattle asked, “what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lovely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs around a pond at night?” and Emerson argues that the solitude of nature is essential for the soul. Using these and at least one more source, discuss the argument that nature is necessary for a healthy soul.
  8. Explain Aldo Leopold’s idea of the Land Ethic.
  9. How does Henry David Thoreau use his examination of nature to explain human behavior?
  10. A number of the pieces refer to the concept of time and its relationship to environmentalism. Analyze this argument, using at least three pieces.
  11. Use at least three pieces to demonstrate how satire can be effectively used to advance the argument for the environment.
  12. Using at least three authors, one of whom should be Emerson, discuss how the power of nature serves to put human life and troubles in perspective.
  13. Edward Abbey’s defense of the natural world differs greatly from the other authors we’ve studied. Identify some key arguments that set him apart from the rest.
  14. Either defend or critique Rachel Carson’s call for the elimination of DDT.
  15. Which of the philosophers and authors that we studied were best embodied by the life of Alexander Super Tramp. Use at least two.
  16. One of the major critiques of environmentalists is that we have redefined progress in a damaging way. Using at least three authors, discuss this critique of “progress.”

The theory I mentioned today in class, that Chris McCandless was actually suffering from schizophrenia, was suggested by Alaska writer Craig Medred. He writes:

As a reporter in Alaska for more than two decades, I was among the first to wallow in the McCandless story, and I confess to early on thinking he was but another of those poor, misguided fools who die in the north with some regularity. I no longer believe that.

Almost every psychiatrist, psychologist or mental-health professional I’ve talked to about “Into the Wild” over the years has noted — at least among those who’ve read the book — that schizophrenia or bipolar disorder was one of the first things that popped into their thoughts.

Filmmaker Ron Lamothe believes that Krakauer’s book is deeply flawed. He writes:

Rather, I feel compelled to discuss a fiction that in my mind does meet the threshold of mattering—the cause of Chris’s death—and to detail how the truth about it was ignored, and then the fiction re-invented, for the sake of reputation, and ultimately, dramatic effect. By doing so it is not my intention to slight Chris McCandless in the least, and I regret that any of these findings might be used insensitively or without proper context by the “anti-McCandless” camp.

Another critic of the McCanless story comes from Matthew Power, who wrote in Men’s Journal:

McCandless clearly believed in self-mythologizing, in the power of storytelling and self-invention. Had he lived, perhaps he would have gained enough perspective to tell the story himself, rather than leaving it for others to tell. As it is, he has entered the realm of myth, and myths are shaped by those who can make use of them.

A final critic is Sherry Simpson, who wrote:

McCandless’s biggest mistake may have been his failure to listen to the right stories. He ignored advice about the scarcity of game, the practicalities of bear protection, the importance of maps, the truths of the land. He was too intent on creating the story of himself.And yet, that story has such power, such meaning for so many people, that they feel drawn — called personally — to travel across the globe and hike the trail all that way to the bus to look for Christopher McCandless or Alexander Supertramp, or themselves.

Outside Magazine has a photo display of some of the photos McCandless took on his journey.

Below are a few general issues that you should consider as you write your revisions of your Kelley analysis essays:

  1. Analysis means how and why. How and why.
  2. Need to avoid literal analysis/summary of any sections of the piece. Focus on analyzing her use of language and strategies, not telling what she said.
  3. Don’t divide the piece in such a way that you create tiny, insignificant paragraphs.
  4. Commas go inside quotations marks.
  5. Topic sentences should be focused on arguments above subjects.
  6. Use the term pathos when appropriate. Isn’t it in this piece?
  7. Thesis statement should definitely say something more sophisticated than “Kelley uses rhetorical devices…”
  8. Stop telling me that a particular line or phrase “catches the reader’s attention.” More sophisticated analysis!
  9. Tone is the author/speaker’s attitude towards a subject.
  10. Embed quotations correctly.
  11. Make sure you have an adequate number of points of analysis. Rather than belaboring a single point, address many points.
If you are interested in reading an essay the College Board gave a high score, check it out here. It doesn’t follow all the rules we’ve discussed and certainly has some issues, but it’s an interesting piece to look at.

Your prompt for AP Language this week is located here. Please make sure to do question 2.

The analysis essay handout might be a pretty useful tool to make sure that you are doing the assignment correctly.