The art of a truly memorable speech is not only in the speaker's beliefs [which means the themes of the speech - e.g. equality, unity, reconciliation, national pride, etc], it is also in the way it is delivered [which means the rhetorical techniques that the speaker uses...so focus more on the rhetorical techniques - e.g. rhetorical questions, statistics, enumeration, thesis statements, cumulative language, anaphora, etc].
M
...
Sir rocks.
ReplyDeleteNice
Deleteaung san suu kyi keynote address at the Beijing world conference for women is an extremely powerful and moving speech, suu kyi beliefs that she puts forward are delivered in such a way that make this speech extremely memorable. suu kyi’s speech is about uniting the diversity of people “i want to try and voice some of the common hopes which firmly unite us all in all our splendid diversity” her thesis statement is said with positive emotive words as she opens the forum. the combination of simply just the emotive words used and the thesis statements themes of equality and unity already by the beginning of the speech give the audience calming notion as the wait for her next words. the added factor of the context that this speech is given also enlarges its memorability as it is shown via video as she has gives the speech pre recording herself on video tape and smuggling the tape out of the country, this act of courage emphasises the importance of the speech because of how rigorous the task was to obtain and deliver it.
ReplyDeletesuu kyi speech in particular talks about how the oppression of woman not only her own country but around the world have possibly hindered the worlds growth and as well as their own nations growth. “ how much more could they not achieve if given the opportunity to work in there right for the good of their own country and of the world” this powerful rhetorical question, questions how much less would have the men fighting for peace in her country would have achieved without the assistance of their wives “brave as lionesses” “tender as mothers”. the use of both simile and the rhetorical question engages the audience to think and ponder upon this question, suu kyi uses the rhetorical question the engage the audience even further and to question there previous opinions with her opinion, she uses the simile’s to emphasise how crucial and important the wives are in these men’s lives and how they play massive part in the lives of possibly all men. this all makes the speech memorable as suu kyi has changed her tone from a positive one to a stern passionate one as she talks about her beliefs of unity and equality and delivers it with rhetorical techniques to engage the spur the audience
suu kyi then goes on to talk about how women rather then being shadowed away from the world of conflict and resolution in politics, should be shown towards as they can assist in the process. “ the 14 woman represent less than three percent of the total number of successful candidates” “that women talk to much. but is this really a weakness? could it be a strength?… research on the human brain reveals woman are better at verbal skills… these discoveries indicate that women have a most valuable contribution to make in situations of conflict, by leading the way to solutions based on dialogue rather than on viciousness of violence?” suu kyi uses statistics as evidence that woman are shadowed in the field of politics and that very few ever make it in the political world, he then goes on with further statistics it shows that woman could be extremely effective in the field of politics and could provide useful input to problem solving rifts. The effect of the statics is that is proves to the audience her points and reinforces them giving educated and scientific opinions for the audiences to base there opinions on. suu kyi also uses a vast array of rhetorical questions about the strengths of women and how they could provide appeasement to political struggles with there there proven verbal skills, showing that in a word full of swords the pen is mightier and that a woman could be the author, causing the audience once again to question there own opinions and think differently.
1st - james is very smart boy
DeleteLad, good understanding of the speech with a good use of quotes, techniques and explanations
DeleteNoel Pearson’s ‘An Australian history for us all’ was a massive turning point in Australia history. With Indigenous Australia throughout history not having the literacy ability to step up their beliefs, Noel Pearson memorable speeches changes this milestone. Pearson’s speech been delivered to the Chancellor’s Club Dinner, emphasized the need to exercise sophisticated langue, and not of the colloquial langue that Indigenous Australians have been branded with.
ReplyDelete“I come with some observations about how our popular understanding of the colonial past is central to the moral and political turbulence we are still grappling with as Australia’s” Pearson’s thesis statement highlights the reconciliation that Pearson is attempting to convey across, “turbulence we are still grappling with as Australians” this inclusive language also sets the tone that Pearson is including Anglo-Saxons and Ingenious Australia’s as one, despite the history clash between both cultures.
Pearson in his attempt to gain reconciliation for his people uses two contrasting views on how Australia’s view the ‘hot bottom’ debate. “Should get over it, its all in the past, we had nothing to do with it, we are not guilty, help yourselves” contrasted to “its all in the past, we had nothing to do with it, we are not guilty but we are willing to help alleviate your present condition”. Pearson cleverly uses the two views on reconciliation to emphasize the lack of moral dignity that is been exercised by the judgment of reconciliation. Pearson uses colloquial language in contrast to the sophisticated language that is used when addressing the two topics.
Pearson also uses direct quotation to strengthen his personal views on the reconciliation debate, Pearson quotes from well educated and respected men to gain the much needed political “underwrote the development of the nation” and legal “a legacy of unutterable shame” view on the debate.
Pearson quoting Robert Hughes, a respect Historian’s view on the history of the colonial past, which is intended to gain momentum in this thesis statement “along with the oral histories of Aboriginal people, have illuminated aspects of the Australian past that had previously been buried. The national narrative now recognizes and incorporates Aboriginal achievement, death and sacrifice”.
Pearson’s closing statement powered by his evidence backing that Australia’s history has been a constant guilt trip in which the ‘hot bottom’ issue is replaced with tabloids including ‘free speech’ and ‘black armbands’. In which Pearson ends with an anaphora summing up the topic with respected historians and high legal members have quotes to empower the meaning his statement.
1st for hugo, good use of quotes and there explanations
Delete“I may not remember what you have done to me, but I will never forget the way you made me feel…” (quote i found on instagram once)
ReplyDeleteTo motivate, influence and enlighten an audience through the use of speech is an attribute that is not easily obtained, it involves the speaker to connect with their audience to a point in which the audiences will not forget. This truly is the art of speaking which. Faith Bandler delivers an uplifting speech in which Her comments are naturally subjective as she is speaking from a personal experience and perspective about issues that have seriously impacted on her people. She wants to draw out the efforts of those who have struggled so hard to improve Indigenous rights but she also wants to show that there are those who “deliberately turn a blind eye to the past”. This 'sight' imagery is effective because she talks metaphorically of "ignorance" and "blindness to other peoples” way of life". Those who have purposely blocked or condemned the campaigns for justice and equity are criticised but this is balanced by Bandler's acknowledgement of those who even have different cultures.
It must be considered that there is a large audience that can be easily become uninterested or ‘bored’, in this case Bandler begins with warm hearted paragraph thanking the members in order to gain their respect. This also uplifts the general mood of the atmosphere and thus creating an interest. In order to make the speech memorable and engaging, Bandler speaks directly to her audience allowing them to feel part of a movement that has campaigned with much effort for rights that many would repent them. She addresses fellow activists such as herself, who have "lived, breathed, struggled and climbed the ramparts of the rugged past." Such emotive language encourages her listening audience to envisage the struggle that has given them the rights they currently enjoy. This also allows the audience to gain a sense of accomplishment as they are reminded of the hardships that have been endured.
Bandler tends to use geographic imagery occasionally as a way to implant a recurring motif within the minds of the audience and thus creating a memorable aspect for the speech.
Faiths clever use of exclusive language creates a powerful sense of value for the audience as she states that “there is a need to heal the wounds of the past…”, she creates this sense by saying that “there are people out there…”, suggesting that there are not many people of such personality. As a reaction, the audience believes that each of them is the rare individual that posses this attribute.
It is evident that Bandler has constantly manipulated the emotions of the audience rather than throwing facts and statistics at them. The repetition of her anguished tone is revealed as she speaks of her own experiences in the first person, this allows the audience to almost feel her pain and empathise for her.
Aung san suu Kyi famously spoke out at the Beijing world conference on women in 1995 with the aim “to try and voice some of the common hope which firmly unite us in all our splendid diversity”. She opens her speech with this thesis statement with the use of positive and emotive language to help her connect with the audience from the beginning of her speech. Aung san suu kyi was imprisoned for speaking her beliefs of “peace, security, human rights and democracy” which is why she gain such respect throughout the international community as she was willing to suffer “6 years of imprisonment” for her cause.
ReplyDeleteHer speech was delivered via video, as she was unable to be at the conference due to her house arrest, this was a powerful symbol at the time as it displayed her commitment to the cause. Aung san suu Kyi achieved her thought provocative speech by presenting the audience with a series of rhetorical questions and undisputable facts to back up her views. “These discoveries indicate that women have a most valuable contribution to make in situations of conflict, by leading the way to solutions based on dialogue rather than on viciousness or violence?” Suu Kyi ask this rhetorical question to promote her view of peace and more importantly for the need for there to be more female roles in ruling the country as “only 14 out of the 485 MPs elected in 1990 were women… thee 14 women represent less then 3 percent of the total number of successful candidates”. The facts add weight to her argument as she lives in a corrupt, violent country where it is ruled and dictated by egotistic men without some simple “female solidarity” to add clarity. Her use of inclusive imagery in “female solidarity” empowers the women in the audience as well as those that hear her words.
She makes reference to “UNDP: productivity, equity, sustainability and empowerment” and how “the shackles of prejudice and intolerance” inhibit these goals. This can be seen as a metaphor for her imprisonment due to intolerance, which helps the audience feel a certain amount of compassion for her but to also display the prejudice and intolerance and lead to horrible things. Her constant struggle to provide point on quality can be seen as she states “how much more could they not achieve if given the opportunity to work in their own right for the good of their country and of the world?” this rhetorical question provides “food for thought” as she provides bountiful evidence through the use of emotive language to the plight of her cause, making it an artfully constructed speech which made it a memorable speech that the world fell in love with.
ReplyDeleteKeating’s audience, those who were loyal to theirs and the nation’s heritage, shapes the nature of his speech, and this is seen through the patriotic tone he employs. Keating uses the anaphora “we do not know” do emphasise the universal nature of this soldier, and thus relate this specific soldier’s noble cause to all of the others who served in the war. This universal nature is reiterated through accumulation of unidentified information in “We do not know his age or his circumstance”. Keating juxtaposes the ambiguities of the war with known statistics in an attempt to illustrate the enormity of the war effort. This is evinced in “he was one of the 45000 Australians...one of the 60000 Australians who died on foreign soil”. Keating uses the synecdote “He is all of them. And he is one of us” to link those who were killed to the present, positioning audiences of the past and present to realise the importance of the soldier’s sacrifice. Repetition is also employed in “He believed it was his duty – the duty he owed his country and his King” to illustrate the loyalty the soldiers had for their country, and to emphasise the greater purpose that their lives held. The patriotic tone through examples like these attempts to change the audience’s perception of the large loss of life during the war.
Keating appeals to the modern audience through antithesis in “a reminder of what we have lost in war and what we have gained...a legend” in order to juxtapose the loss of life with the contribution these losses made to the war effort. Keating employs an inclusive tone in “there is faith enough for all of us” at the end of his speech to engage the audience at the end of his speech.
Keating’s purpose, in my opinion, is to persuade his audience that the loss of life during the war was for a noble cause, and Keating has achieved this goal through the use of rhetoric and other literary devices
The art of a truly memorable speech is not only in the speaker believes, it is also in the way it is delivered. This statement is very accurate as the way the speech is structure and how it is delivered really affects how the view in which the audience view the speech. Aung San Suu Kyi, a Burmese opposition politician and chairperson of the National League for Democracy in Burma who has delivered a keynote address at the Beijing World Conference on Women on 31th August 1995. The theme of this speech is evolve around the idea of equality and unity between men and women. However, she speech was not live. This speech was presented as an video. This represents how she isn’t allow to leave the property and therefore, is cages like animal.
ReplyDeleteShe starts off with a formal opening using positive emotive word to congratulate the women who have organized this forum in an optimistic and helpful tone. Her goal of delivered this speech is mention in the thesis statement of “I want to try and voice some of the common hopes which firmly unite us in all our splendid diversity”. As an audience, we notices from an optimistic tone and the uses of word bring us to notices that this woman is different. Throughout the speech, the uses of first person create sympathy in the audience as she was once under arrest. In the second paragraph, the use of anaphora on the word “suffer-suffered” highlight the period of suffers and pain. The uses of emotive language such as “overcome the obstacles”. This portrays the positive view she has on her suffers, but only seeing it as a obstacles, an obstacle that has to be overcome.
The use of inclusive language is also used throughout the place to highlight and increase the sense of belonging and friendship between the deliver and the audience. “to mound their own destiny and to influence the fate of our global village”. The use of geographical imagery global village as the world and also the uses of inclusive language from “our” highlights this global village is not of anyone, but rather our as community to own.
Throughout the speech, the tone in her voice represents each of her argument. Her tone changes from time to time, creating a sense of welcoming, caring and love, in the same time present a view of anger and juxtaposition. Her uses of tone combining with the uses of emotive language enable this powerful speech to reach to people.
In her closing paragraph, she has combine all aspect of inclusive language, metaphor, imagery and positive tone in order to leave the audience with a side effect that will affect them after this speech. To able equality and unity of men and women.
"We build too many walls and not enough bridges" - Isaac Newton.
ReplyDeleteThe key on making a great speech is to create a common ground with the audience, keep away from arrogance, include facts and feelings, state the aim and purpose, use a lot of metaphors and imagery, use powerful commands and concludes with a powerful statement.
In the speech 'On the occasion of an educational service for the victims of the canyoning tragedy' spoken by Sir William Deane, we see straight away Deane has already made common ground by opening up with "WE are gathered in great sadness..." by the use of inclusive language. His use of emotive language and dark tone is to emphasise his passion towards this incident as “The young Australians – who have been KILLED all shared the SPIRIT of adventure, the JOY OF LIVING, the EXUBERANCE and the DELIGHT OF YOUTH...". Deane's factual information is part of his speech when he presents "The deaths of 21 young people... Fourteen of the victims of the tragedy came from Australia" to indicate to the audience that he speaks truth and has researched his information.
Deane changes his speech from ‘We’ to ‘I’ to explain his personal views and account his experiences into context when “Yesterday, my wife and I…visited the canyon where the accident occurred.” His personal account into context, it allowed the audience to realise his passion and credibility take action about his sincerity. Deane’s useful metaphor along with the winter imagery, as he explains “It is still winter at home. But the golden wattles are coming into bloom.” which metaphorically means that forget about the past and move onto the future. Deane’s aim and purpose is to acknowledge the canyon tragedy and that all of us, as one, should have sense of welcoming and a sense of commonality. To end the speech with “May they all rest with God” is dominant especially in this speech to convey his main points into one sentence.
Once a wise man said, “ Speeches are not supposed to awe or seduce crowds, but are supposed to convey action to points, so that these points can become action again.” –Unknown. This is a critical point to achieve so that it can prove synthesis structure, clear purpose universal values and take on a diachronic appeal to the audience at any time. Some speeches will create the value of national pride, nationality and equality as in the speech “It is still winter at home” or aiming to consolidate shared belief in the speech ”Keynote china” These two writers both compose a speech, which conveys a perspective that touches the audience to this day. While also using rhetorical techniques to emphasis there espouse passionate arguments of metaphysical values to change the audience to dovetail with the writer.
ReplyDeleteThe speech “it is still winter at home “ uses seasonal imagery of winter and summer to contrast a foreign destination Switzerland to home in Australia. This helps to create a context for the tragedy that has unfolded. Deane leads us to think about the adolescents lost in the tragic event, as there “death was probably the greatest single peacetime loss of young Australian”. The inclusive language is to comfort the mourners, through the words of “young Australians”, implying they were not “nobody” but Australians. He emphasizes their “spirit of adventure… joy of living, …exuberance and the delight of youth” to show how much Dean cared about these adolescents. Descriptive language is also one of Deane powerful tools help alleviate the grief of their families and brings some hope; that someone cares about the accident. He says their loss is more than just their personal loss but also a loss for Australia. The powerful symbolism of the wattle represents their homeland and might bring comfort to the mourners as “we cast into the Saxtenbach 14 sprigs of wattle”. In the modern context of our selves we feel nationalism as our governor general cares about “All Australians” as this makes us proud to be Australian.
While contrasting to the issue of death to freedom is the world “Beijing world conference today” speech written by Aung san suu Kyi .She starts off using positive emotive language to congratulate the women organization as the tone is still hopeful after getting house arrest for six years of here life. This was because of the incalculable need of the freedom she was risk to achieve this “wonderful but daunting task”. During the house arrest she “suffered far more and who – and who continue to suffer far more than I have”. Emotive language incites compassion in the Audience for plight for what she really believed worth fighting for. The use of emotive terms created through the, words; “Suffered, suffer, difficulties, and obstacles. “Sets outline and the motivation ”to work for the freedom of other women and men in my country who has suffered worse than me”. The use of humility humbles her to appertain with the audience, and to agglutinate her poignant sorrows. Talking about freedom she also contrast men abuse of power as in “Burma there is a gender barrier that cannot overcome” .The abuse of power due to gender is then rellliterated with statistics. They are used to add credibly to injustice against women who are underrepresented in varies of government despite there high performance. ”As 14 women represents less than three percent of the total number of successful candidates.”
Not finished and edited
Famous actress; Christina Applegate once said "The words on this piece of paper mean nothing if I can't get the message across." She said this before her speech to raise awareness for breast cancer. In order for a speaker to not only captivate each and every living soul in that room, but to also have their words and their message echo in the audience member's minds. This is exactly what Noel Pearson did on the 20th of November 1996 at University of Western Sydney with his famous 'An Australian history for us all' speech.
ReplyDeleteHis thesis statement is clear and is also raising awareness of the problems Australian's deal with in day-to-day life, "I come with some observations about how our popular understanding of the colonial past is central to the moral and political turbulence we are still grappling with as Australians." He continues in a sarcastic tone as he addresses Prime Minister John Howard, "I am in danger of indulging in agonizing navel-gazing about who we are and conducting Prime Minister John Howard calls the perpetual seminar for elite opinion about our national identity." He uses a colloquialism in "navel-gazing" to mock John Howard. Noel Pearson is now able to captivate the audience's attention as he has already used a major political figure as his adversary. He continues to clarify his belief that politicians are almost the main culprits in this blinded, present day Australia. "Australia's colonial history is what the Americans would call a hot button issue...Federal Member for Oxley and her followers in our national government have pressed (that hot button)." Again Pearson uses colloquialism when speaking of a political figure, as if to say that these people are simple minded people. The Federal Member for Oxley is someone who Pearson does not even want to mention in his speech. Pauline Hanson, undoubtedly one of the most racist politicians in Australian history has throughout the decades insulted and isolated Indigenous Australians. She also established the One Nation Party to even further undermine Indigenous Australians in order for Australia to be "white."
Noel Pearson then reads a direct quote from Prime Minster Howard, this was taken from his interview on the John Laws radio program, another racist. Here, the Prime Minister does say that he sympathizes with indigenous Australians. This is exactly what the Indigenous people want, not for him to say sorry for the wrong-doings of Australia's "bigoted past," but to be sympathetic and apologize that it had happened on behalf of all white man. Pearson continues to refer to quotes by scholastic individuals to contrast the ideas that people have about reversing the racist past of their nation. He quotes American Robert Hughes on his belief that North America must revise on the past and apologize for their Barbarism against the African-Americans. This helps Pearson's deliver his speech as it is a recount by notable historian who helped his nation understand the forgotten passed of the United States. Pearson then argues that we, as Australians, have to "illuminate aspects of the Australian past that had previously been buried." Here he uses a metaphor, as well as an oxymoron to contrast the light of awareness and the darkness from being buried. Pearson's use of enumeration helps him state his points clearly. "Firstly…Secondly…the dispossession of the Aboriginal inhabitants 'underwrote the development of the nation." Pearson then discusses John Howard again, this time making the Prime Minister look contradicting has his words almost correlate with Pearson's speech. "John Howard said: 'injustices were done in Australia and no one should obscure or minimize them.'"
ReplyDeleteAfter mentioning a number of politicians and historians on their accounts, Pearson finally gives his own opinion, "I argued that it should not be necessary for the truth to be distorted in order for white Australians to be able to live with themselves." This person opinion and belief also highlight that Pearson has been arguing this belief for years, hence his use of "argued," this further pushes the audience to concur with Pearson. It is quite evident that Pearson feels the pain of his ancestral past and the racism that he and his people live with. This sympathy that the audience will give him, is not through pity, but because Pearson was able to captivate not only their attention, but also their emotions. And this has started the reconciliation process leading to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, heartwarmingly apologizing for Australia's forgotten past.
Paul Keating’s speech on the unknown solider is a powerful speech that engages the audiences by the way Keating delivers it with such a powerful tone. Within the opening paragraphs Keating’s use of anaphora “We do not Know” emphasising that we as the audiences clearly know nothing about this solider . What we do know is that he fought for his country and is now known as a hero in many eyes of Australian people. Also with Keating Repeating “We do not know” inclusive language is used which engages the audiences into the speech. With Keating using statistics it accentuates the number of soldiers lost in the war, also adding to the solemn tone of the speech. “One of 60,000 Australians who died on foreign soil” this is one of many statistics Keating uses that shows how many people lost their lives at War . Keating’s speech is heavily focused on national pride and that there were people willing to sacrifice their own life with fighting for their country. It also shows that a true Australian is a person who fights and honours their people and country.
ReplyDeleteNoel Pearson’s speech ‘An Australian history for us all’ is directed at University people and uses academic language that represent the audience are intelligent. Pearson’s thesis statement “I come only with some observations about how our popular understanding of the colonial past is the central to the moral and political turbulence we are still grabbling with as Australians”. What Pearson is trying to say is that the Australian historical past is the centre of our cultural and political challenges. Australia’s colonial history is what the Americans call a “hot button issue”. With the use of colloquial language Pearson believes that it is a very sensitive issue and that Australians just can’t act as if nothing happened in the past and something should be done about it . Australian’s have in their head that because they had nothing to do with what happened in the past they shouldn’t have to do anything about it. John Howard Prime Minster at the time of this discussion says, “ Aborigines must stop being victims and should get over it”. Pearson highlights the lack of respect Howard shows for such a sensitive topic. Pearson’s use of Colloquial language Howard doesn’t want to take any responsibility for what went on n the past. Professor Geoffrey Blainey’s description is that it is a “Black armband view of history”. This description of the colonial past urges guilt and shame upon the ordinary Australians. Pearson’s use of direct quotations towards Prime Minister john Howard the political division and the challenges of reconciliation.
Really good mate
Deletehope to work with you <3
Good work mate
DeleteBritish politician Winston Churchill once said when delivering a speech “If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. The come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time – a tremendous whack.” Very similar to Churchill, Noel Pearson did exactly this in his speech ‘An Australian history for all of us’ at the university of Western Sydney on 20th November 1996. Both of these famous politicians were trying to get there point across to the audience by engaging them and pounding the point of their speech into them over and over again. Noel Pearson was primarily doing this speech on behalf of the aboriginal population of Australia, which was addressed at the Chancellors club dinner. Pearson addressing it at this venue demonstrates the need of sophisticated language and not the type of language that the rest of the population stereotypically gives to the aboriginal community.
ReplyDelete“I come only with some observations about how out popular understanding of the colonial past is central to the moral and political turbulence we are still grappling with as Australians”. Pearson’s main thesis statement portrays the message of which he trying to put across about equity within the aboriginal population in Australia while also sarcastically referring to John Howard. Noel Pearson uses inclusive language again to try and put the point across about primarily bringing white and black together rather than having this social divide which has been carried forward since 1779. Pearson uses a direct quotation from Australians to contrast the message he is trying to put across and also in some what to give John Howard and other white Australians a sense of guilt. “Aborigines must stop being victims and ‘should get over it, its all in the past, we had nothing to do with it, we are not guilty, help yourselves’. Opposing to ‘Its all in the past, we had nothing to do with it, we are not guilty but are willing to help alleviate your present condition’
Pearson’s contrasts between these two statements clearly highlight the lack of integrity that has been used by the Australians to try and regain reconciliation. Pearson uses colloquial language to juxtapose the sophisticated language, which was being used when trying to emphasize his point.
Pearson’s use of direct quotations from not only him self but many other famous individuals allows him to give more strength to his argument for equity and aboriginal rights. These direct quotations also allows him to put across some of his personal views about the issue but also again shading some guilt and criticism over John Howard.
Noel Pearson’s witty closing statement driven by some of Australia’s historic events, has been a long guilt trip mainly towards John Howard but also to the rest of the other Australians which are against aboriginal rights. Pearson has used sarcasm towards Howard and Hughes to again put them on that guilt trip and also to try and make the rest of the population also guilty in a way.
Noel Pearson assumes a very diplomatic stance when delivering his speech “An Australian history for us all”. He seeks not to accuse or blame but to just, encourage people to not block out the negatives of the past and instead to acknowledge what happened to the Aboriginals and to have pity.” I come only with some observations about how our popular understanding of the colonial past is central to the moral and political turbulence we are still grappling with as Australians”, As seen in his thesis statement. Knowing his audience Pearson speaks in a very advanced manner using many rhetorical techniques uniques allowing his words be used efficiently, with meaning and power allowing it to be truly memorable with in the wise minds of the members of the Chancellors dinner Club on the 20th of November 1996.
ReplyDeletePearson uses an abundance of language and rhetorical techniques to show, as clear as possible the point of reconciliation and acknowledgement he is tying to communicate. He states “however true reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians is not about assigning guilt for the actions for our forbears”. Pearson surprisingly uses inclusive language showing how he is one step ahead and trying to push the notion of unity, understanding that people born in this time aren’t responsible for the harm caused by there ancestors over a hundred years ago. Pearson cleverly uses direct quotation, the information gathered from reliable sources by quoting Robert Hughes, a respected Historian, “along with the oral histories of Aboriginal people, have illuminated aspects of the Australian past that had previously been buried. The national narrative now recognizes and incorporates Aboriginal achievement, death and sacrifice”, the opinions of politian’s, John Howard “…. In understanding these realities our priority should not be to apportion blame and guilt for historic wrongs”, contrasting them, then with the use of repetition his states his own opinion “I said that there was”, “I Agued that such a”, “I argued that we need”, “I said that contrary”. This is done to expose the ludicrous statements told by other Australia’s, and stating in a very educated and unoffending way, that he is more likely the one in the right.
Pearson uses rhetorical questions to further clarify his point, “celebrate in the achievements of the past, indeed feel responsibility for and express pride in the aspects of our, and not feel responsibility for and express shame in relation to other aspects of the past?”, Pearson asks if it is okay to express pride and responsibility for the good, then why not the bad, once again using inclusive language to highlight that he isn’t trying to accuse anyone. The of collonial language and advanced sophisticated language has a unique effect on the audience and shows that Pearson has thara understanding of the dynamic of his audience “ they will say that the Aborigines must stop being victims and ‘should get over it’”. And stating at the end of his speech “ I for one would be loath to repudiate and much that has also become ours, not necessarily by imposition but by appropriation”, with the use of both types of language he connects with his audience on a personal level as well as intellectual, making it truly memorable.
“If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.” This directly quotes British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, a terrific speaker himself and was able to inspire through the speeches he gave, to empower a nation at war. He highlights the speaking techniques also used by Noel Pearson and Anwar Sadat in their speeches that fight for peace and equality amongst two races that are in the midst of hostility.
ReplyDeleteNoel Pearson being a Aboriginal Academic addressing the Chancellor’s Club at the University of Western Sydney is speaking on the topic of the ‘Black armband View of History’ which Prime Minister John Howard was against. He begins by directly quoting the very man his beliefs appose. “They say that aborigines should stop being victims and ‘Should get over it’.” This sort of Colloquial language emphasis the point that the “ racist, bigoted past” can not just be forgotten. Like Noel Person, Anwar Sadat is also fighting for the Equality between feuding countries Israel and Egypt. He however uses and religious tone to start his speech, “In the name of God, the Gracious and Merciful” instantly show the audience that he is talking before God and giving the sense of complete honesty and humility.
Pearson uses a range of academic notions and speaking techniques to relay the message he wants to give to his academic peers. He uses the direct quotation from John Howard to contradict Howard’s words. From Howard trying to shadow the idea of the Black armband idea to saying, “ Injustices were done in Australia and no one should obscure or minimise them.” Pearson also uses many over academic’s quotes before hammering home his own beliefs and views. This in comparison with the less academic approach that Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat took to try and bring together the two nations of Israel and Egypt. “Motivated by all these factors, I decided to come to you with an open mind and an open heart,……… So that we might establish permanent peace based on Justice.” Using techniques that are accessible to the more general audience such as anaphora on the opening of this sentence and the previous two, Sadat is emphasizing how he is motivated to make a change. Sadat also adopts enumeration to help make it clear on his first, second and third facts hammers home his ideas and beliefs in the same manner as Noel Pearson.
The art of a truly memorable speech is not only in the speaker's beliefs [which means the themes of the speech - e.g. equality, unity, reconciliation, national pride, etc], it is also in the way it is delivered [which means the rhetorical techniques that the speaker uses...so focus more on the rhetorical techniques - e.g. rhetorical questions, statistics, enumeration, thesis statements, cumulative language, anaphora, etc].
ReplyDeleteAung San Suu Kyi is famous for speaking out at the Beijing world conference on women in 1995. During this time there was a break through with the ‘third faze’ of the women rights movement. As Christina Applegate once said "The words on this piece of paper mean nothing if I can't get the message across.” Through a variety of literary techniques, Aung San Suu Kyi was able to deliver a memorable speech.
Aung San Suu Kyi uses a variety of literary techniques that include cliché metaphors, tone, juxtaposition and a host others. Aung San Suu Kyi says “I want to try and voice some of the common hopes which firmly unites us all in all our splendid diversity.” Her opening statement uses positive tone and emotive language to begin the forum. " Aung San Suu Kyi’s positive tone and emotive language gather the audience’s attention from the beginning of the speech and throughout.
The positive tone and emotive language has been used in the first sentences with the word “wonderful” (inspiring delight, pleasure, admiration, extremely good, marvelous). Due to Aung San Suu Kyi not being able to deliver her speech in person but via video due to her house arrest, made it crucial to connect with the audience through positive tone and emotive language. Aung San Suu Kyi presented rhetorical questions to the audience followed by facts after fact to back up her views on peace in the world. “These discoveries indicate that women have a most valuable contribution to make in situations of conflict, by leading the way to solutions based on dialogue rather than on viciousness or violence?”