Most leaders of totalitarian countries believe in the ideology of corruption but refute the idea that their actions could be classified as structural genocide or that their corruption adversely affects the people. This trend has been occurring in Myanmar, where Daw Aung San Suu Kyi negatively impacted the lives of thousands of Rohingya Muslims just for her own personal gains. The Rohingya Muslim population accounts for 270,000 people, whose human rights have been abused because they are considered minorities in Myanmar. What is suspicious is Daw Suu is considered a humanitarian outside of her country, but she is promoting the persecution of the Rohingya Muslims. Although Daw Suu is a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Nicholas Kristoff appeals to pathos, uses anecdotes, and uses irony to argue that Daw Suu should be stripped of this honor …show more content…
Kristoff informs the world of his anger because he believes people are close minded and do not understand the effects of structural genocide. He uses a bitter tone to condemn Daw Suu for betraying her own country. Kristoff directly speaks to Daw Suu saying, “’For shame, Daw Suu. We honored you and fought for your freedom — and now you use that freedom to condone the butchery of your own people?’” This sentence expresses a strong sense of pathos because Kristof is directly talking to Daw Suu so that he can expresses his disappointment in her actions to her own people. Typically, authors do not use second person point of view to directly address a specific person. Also he refers to the killings of the Rohingya as butchery rather than using the word “killing” to indicate that Daw Suu views these atrocities to be unimportant. Then he shifts to a more accusatory tone toward the government and people outside of Myanmar because he believes that they are pretending that nothing is occurring within that