Problematic Rhetoric

I am a bit wired up after the weekend’s events, and all the rhetoric used in the aftermath of it. Therefore, when I started reading the article for today I might have had a really negative mindset, which again leads to this sort-of negative post. I have two problems with Knittel´s Sundance Behind Bars: the author´s rhetoric and that I do not really see how this differs from the Greek rhetoric.

When talking about a criminal case, a prisoner, history, politics and rhetoric, the author´s rhetoric often becomes more apparent to the reader, unless the author is completely neutral. Knittel is not neutral when talking about the events that lead to Peltier´s imprisonment and publishing of the book.  The way she ends the essay can be interpreted in different ways. “It is difficult, however, to imagine a happy ending to Peltier´s story and therefore difficult to create a happy ending for this essay” (Knittel, 126). The ending can show that both his life  and the way the U.S. has treated him and other Indians is a sad story, but it can also reflect that she feels that him being innocent in prison is sad and unfair. Nevertheless it is not neutral and reflects that Knittel believes in Peltier´s rhetoric. That the story itself does not end with a happy ending is not really necessary in an analysis of Peltier´s rhetoric. The focus should be his work, not what Knittel thinks, and she uses her own rhetorical power to try to persuade the reader. At the same time I kind of understand that there is a lot of unfairness and discussion about the trials, and as a human it is hard to not be affected by it when writing about his work.

I do not understand what makes Peltier´s text an example of American Indian rhetorics, and why it is in the book. It might be because Knittel spends a lot of time discussing the events and history that relates to Indians, and that Peltier himself is Indian, (or I might just be misunderstanding everything). But is it enough that he is an Indian and uses symbols from his culture as rhetoric? The only thing that might differ from the Greek rhetoric is the use of Sundance and oral traditions, but even that is not convincingly different. What Knittel describes as oral tradition reminds me more of elocution/style, where the example of repetition emphasizes what’s being said. “But… no… there I go, being vindictive and vengeful myself, wishing harm on others as they have wished it on me.” (123). The oral way of correcting himself appeals to both logos and ethos: showing evidence that he corrects the negativity quickly and easily, and therefore would not be able to kill someone, when he cannot even write vindictive and vengeful things. It also supports his character, showing that he has been treated unfairly but he is a better person with a good moral that can be trusted. It might fit into the style of oral tradition when it comes to American Indian rhetorics, but in my opinion it fits just as much into the way Greek rhetoric is being used today. The oral style is not uncommon in writing and can even be found in academic articles.What is Knittel actually trying to convince us of? That it is Indian rhetoric or that he as a person and Indians as people have and are treated unfairly?