Unit 1:
The Language of Social Change—
Speeches and Persuasive Language
IB Language and Literature SL
Year One
Ms. Barclay
!
"!
Unit I: The Language of Social Change
ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS:
• How can one individual be a catalyst for change
through the use of his or her language?
• What rhetorical and structural devices do writers use
to inform, inspire, and/or persuade their target
audience?
Objective:
The purpose of this unit is to enable you to analyze how audience and purpose
affect content and structure through the medium of speeches.
Summative Assessments:
1. After studying the speeches in this packet, you will write your own speech on a
topic relating to social change. You will demonstrate your understanding of
persuasive techniques by utilizing such techniques in your own speech.
2. You will deliver your speech (with charisma!) in front of the class.
Formative Assessments (i.e. Homework):
You will receive homework regularly throughout this unit. Primarily, you will be
responsible for annotating and analyzing the speeches in this packet. For each speech,
you will need to consider it through the TAPS lens:
TEXT TYPE: Clearly they’re all speeches, but what kind of speech? What is
the context? Why would the orator have chosen this medium?
AUDIENCE: Who is the speech intended for? How do you know this from
the language, style and structure used? Does the speech ‘speak’ to you even if
it’s not intended for you? Why or why not?
PURPOSE: What is the author’s intention in writing this speech? How can
you tell? What end goal does s/he have in mind? Is s/he successful?
STYLE: What stylistic devices does the author use? What persuasive
techniques are in effect? How does the style connect to the audience and
purpose?
STRUCTURE: Does the structure facilitate understanding and retention?
How does the structure connect to the audience and purpose? How does the
structure contribute to the message?
In addition, you will responsible for the questions at the end of the packet that relate
to each group of speeches.
!
#!
Persuasive Techniques
1.Emotional Appeal: Writers may appeal to fear, anger or joy to sway their readers.
They may also add climax or excitement.
2. Appeal to Authority (association): A writer may mention an important event or
person in an essay to lend importance or credibility to his/her argument. “According
to…”
3. Emphasis: There are three types of emphasis that writers use to draw the
reader’s attention to a specific point or idea: Repetition; Cumulation and
Alliteration
•
•
•
Repetition: When used sparingly for effect, it can reinforce the writer's
message and/or entertain the reader. Writers may repeat a word, a phrase or
an entire sentence for emphasis. (Ex. “We will all suffer for years to come
unless we stop this government, stop them in the workplace, stop them in
the polls, and stop them on election day.”)
Cumulation: Using many similar words in a short space is cumulation and
can give weight to the idea being expressed. (Ex. “This task requires guts,
determination, grit and willpower.”)
Alliteration: This refers to the repetition of the first sound in consecutive
words, an effect which draws attention to the words in question. (Ex. “To rip
people off so blatantly shows Mr. Craven to be cruel, calculating and
crooked.”)
4. Facts: using statistics or data to support an argument.
5. Rhetorical Question: Sometimes a writer or speaker will ask a question to which
no answer is required. The answer is obvious so the reader has no choice but to agree
with the writer's point.
6. Analogy or Figurative Language: This tool is not limited to poets. Essay writers
often use figures of speech or comparisons (simile, metaphor, and personification) for
desired emphasis.
7. Word Choice (Diction): Is a person "slim" or "skinny"? Is an oil spill an
"incident" or an "accident"? Is a government expenditure an "investment" or a
"waste"? Writers reinforce their arguments by choosing words.
8. Hyperbole: Completely overstating and exaggerating your point for effect. (Like
when your mom says, "I must have asked you a million times to clean your room!")
9. Irony: Irony is present if the writer’s words contain more than one meaning. This
may be in the form of sarcasm, gentle irony, or a pun (play on words). It can be used
to add humor or to emphasize an implied meaning under the surface.
10. Testimonial: using words of an expert, a famous person, or a regular “Joe” to
persuade others.
!
$!
11. Bandwagon: persuade people to do something by letting them know others are all
doing it as well.
12. Name Calling: describing poor aspects of a competitor's argument/product so
that your argument/product seems better.
13. Card Stacking: telling the facts for one side only.
14. Colloquial Language: Colloquial (slang) language can be used in different
ways. It can set the writer up as knowledgeable, on the inside of a social group. A
writer may also use slang in a sarcastic manner, to attack an opponent or mock an
argument. It may also be used to appeal to a reader’s own sense of cultural identity,
or reinforce a writer’s overall tone.
15. Inclusive Language: Inclusive language aims to directly address the reader,
either personally or as a member of a shared group. This involves using such words
as us, we, you, our.
16. Evidence: Writers use evidence to make their argument stronger and bolster
their credibility. There are three main types of evidence: Anecdotal; Expert
Opinion and Statistical:
•
•
•
!
Anecdotal evidence: An anecdote is a tale involving real life events, a true
story. Such stories can be used by writers as evidence to back their claims.
To support a contention, and to make themselves appear more credible,
writers often use personal anecdotes.
Expert opinion: To make a writer’s position seem more credible, they may
quote the opinions of experts that correspond with their own. As in a court
case, experts are often called on to make one side seem stronger and more
believable.
Statistical evidence: Like any form of evidence, statistics can be used to
make an argument seem more conclusive, a writer’s opinion more valid.
Often statistics are used that are out of context, or from unreliable sources.
As the saying goes, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
%!
I. Building Nations
!
&!
Nelson Mandela’s Inaugural Address
Nelson Mandela was trained as a lawyer, and joined the African National Congress in 1944 to aid in
its struggle against apartheid. During over 25 years in prison he became the world's most famous
political prisoner. After a long campaign of resistance within South Africa and political and economic
pressure from without, President F. W. de Klerk ended the government ban on the ANC and freed
Mandela in 1990, whereupon he assumed leadership of the organization. He worked tirelessly over the
next few years to negotiate an end to apartheid and minority rule, gaining widespread respect and
support in the process. National elections were held in April 1994, and on May 10th of that year
Nelson Mandela was inaugurated as the first Black president of South Africa.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
‘Your Majesties, Your Highnesses, Distinguished Guests, Comrades and friends:
Today, all of us do, by our presence here, and by our celebrations in other parts of our country
and the world, confer glory and hope to newborn liberty.
Out of the experience of an extraordinary human disaster that lasted too long, must be born a
society of which all humanity will be proud.
Our daily deeds as ordinary South Africans must produce an actual South African reality that
will reinforce humanity's belief in justice, strengthen its confidence in the nobility of the
human soul and sustain all our hopes for a glorious life for all.
All this we owe both to ourselves and to the peoples of the world who are so well represented
here today.
To my compatriots, I have no hesitation in saying that each one of us is as intimately attached
to the soil of this beautiful country as are the famous jacaranda trees of Pretoria and the
mimosa trees of the bushveld.
Each time one of us touches the soil of this land, we feel a sense of personal renewal. The
national mood changes as the seasons change.
We are moved by a sense of joy and exhilaration when the grass turns green and the flowers
bloom.
That spiritual and physical oneness we all share with this common homeland explains the
depth of the pain we all carried in our hearts as we saw our country tear itself apart in a
terrible conflict, and as we saw it spurned, outlawed and isolated by the peoples of the world,
precisely because it has become the universal base of the pernicious ideology and practice of
racism and racial oppression.
We, the people of South Africa, feel fulfilled that humanity has taken us back into its bosom,
that we, who were outlaws not so long ago, have today been given the rare privilege to be
host to the nations of the world on our own soil.
We thank all our distinguished international guests for having come to take possession with
the people of our country of what is, after all, a common victory for justice, for peace, for
human dignity.
We trust that you will continue to stand by us as we tackle the challenges of building peace,
prosperity, non-sexism, non-racialism and democracy.
We deeply appreciate the role that the masses of our people and their political mass
democratic, religious, women, youth, business, traditional and other leaders have played to
bring about this conclusion. Not least among them is my Second Deputy President, the
!
'!
Honourable F.W. de Klerk.
We would also like to pay tribute to our security forces, in all their ranks, for the
distinguished role they have played in securing our first democratic elections and the
transition to democracy, from blood-thirsty forces which still refuse to see the light.
The time for the healing of the wounds has come.
The moment to bridge the chasms that divide us has come.
The time to build is upon us.
We have, at last, achieved our political emancipation. We pledge ourselves to liberate all our
people from the continuing bondage of poverty, deprivation, suffering, gender and other
discrimination.
We succeeded to take our last steps to freedom in conditions of relative peace. We commit
ourselves to the construction of a complete, just and lasting peace.
We have triumphed in the effort to implant hope in the breasts of the millions of our people.
We enter into a covenant that we shall build the society in which all South Africans, both
black and white, will be able to walk tall, without any fear in their hearts, assured of their
inalienable right to human dignity--a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world.
As a token of its commitment to the renewal of our country, the new Interim Government of
National Unity will, as a matter of urgency, address the issue of amnesty for various
categories of our people who are currently serving terms of imprisonment.
We dedicate this day to all the heroes and heroines in this country and the rest of the world
who sacrificed in many ways and surrendered their lives so that we could be free.
Their dreams have become reality. Freedom is their reward.
We are both humbled and elevated by the honour and privilege that you, the people of South
Africa, have bestowed on us, as the first President of a united, democratic, non-racial and
non-sexist South Africa, to lead our country out of the valley of darkness.
We understand it still that there is no easy road to freedom.
We know it well that none of us acting alone can achieve success.
We must therefore act together as a united people, for national reconciliation, for nation
building, for the birth of a new world.
Let there be justice for all.
Let there be peace for all.
Let there be work, bread, water and salt for all.
Let each know that for each the body, the mind and the soul have been freed to fulfil
themselves.
Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the
oppression of one by another and suffer the indignity of being the skunk of the world.
Let freedom reign.
!
)!
The sun shall never set on so glorious a human achievement!
God bless Africa!’
!
*!
Jawaharlal Nehru’s Tryst with Destiny
With the clock striking the midnight hour on 14-15th August, 1947, India was 'to awake to freedom'.
The Constituent Assembly to whom power was to be transferred began its sitting at 11 pm with Smt
Sucheta Kripalani singing Vande Mataram. It was a historic and memorable occasion in the life of the
Constituent Assembly.
After an address by the President, Jawaharlal Nehru made his now famous Tryst with Destiny speech.
He called upon the members to take a solemn pledge to serve India and her people.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
‘Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem
our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially.
At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and
freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old
to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance.
It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India
and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity.
At the dawn of history India started on her unending quest, and trackless centuries are filled
with her striving and the grandeur of her success and her failures. Through good and ill
fortune alike she has never lost sight of that quest or forgotten the ideals which gave her
strength. We end today a period of ill fortune and India discovers herself again.
The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to the greater
triumphs and achievements that await us. Are we brave enough and wise enough to grasp this
opportunity and accept the challenge of the future?
Freedom and power bring responsibility. The responsibility rests upon this assembly, a
sovereign body representing the sovereign people of India. Before the birth of freedom we
have endured all the pains of labour and our hearts are heavy with the memory of this sorrow.
Some of those pains continue even now. Nevertheless, the past is over and it is the future that
beckons to us now.
That future is not one of ease or resting but of incessant striving so that we may fulfil the
pledges we have so often taken and the one we shall take today. The service of India means
the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and
disease and inequality of opportunity.
The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every
eye. That may be beyond us, but as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will
not be over.
And so we have to labour and to work, and work hard, to give reality to our dreams. Those
dreams are for India, but they are also for the world, for all the nations and peoples are too
closely knit together today for anyone of them to imagine that it can live apart.
Peace has been said to be indivisible; so is freedom, so is prosperity now, and so also is
disaster in this one world that can no longer be split into isolated fragments.
To the people of India, whose representatives we are, we make an appeal to join us with faith
and confidence in this great adventure. This is no time for petty and destructive criticism, no
time for ill will or blaming others. We have to build the noble mansion of free India where all
her children may dwell.
The appointed day has come - the day appointed by destiny - and India stands forth again,
after long slumber and struggle, awake, vital, free and independent. The past clings on to us
!
+!
still in some measure and we have to do much before we redeem the pledges we have so often
taken. Yet the turning point is past, and history begins anew for us, the history which we shall
live and act and others will write about.
It is a fateful moment for us in India, for all Asia and for the world. A new star rises, the star
of freedom in the east, a new hope comes into being, a vision long cherished materialises.
May the star never set and that hope never be betrayed!
We rejoice in that freedom, even though clouds surround us, and many of our people are
sorrow-stricken and difficult problems encompass us. But freedom brings responsibilities and
burdens and we have to face them in the spirit of a free and disciplined people.
On this day our first thoughts go to the architect of this freedom, the father of our nation,
who, embodying the old spirit of India, held aloft the torch of freedom and lighted up the
darkness that surrounded us.
We have often been unworthy followers of his and have strayed from his message, but not
only we but succeeding generations will remember this message and bear the imprint in their
hearts of this great son of India, magnificent in his faith and strength and courage and
humility. We shall never allow that torch of freedom to be blown out, however high the wind
or stormy the tempest.
Our next thoughts must be of the unknown volunteers and soldiers of freedom who, without
praise or reward, have served India even unto death.
We think also of our brothers and sisters who have been cut off from us by political
boundaries and who unhappily cannot share at present in the freedom that has come. They are
of us and will remain of us whatever may happen, and we shall be sharers in their good and ill
fortune alike.
The future beckons to us. Whither do we go and what shall be our endeavour? To bring
freedom and opportunity to the common man, to the peasants and workers of India; to fight
and end poverty and ignorance and disease; to build up a prosperous, democratic and
progressive nation, and to create social, economic and political institutions which will ensure
justice and fullness of life to every man and woman.
We have hard work ahead. There is no resting for any one of us till we redeem our pledge in
full, till we make all the people of India what destiny intended them to be.
We are citizens of a great country, on the verge of bold advance, and we have to live up to
that high standard. All of us, to whatever religion we may belong, are equally the children of
India with equal rights, privileges and obligations. We cannot encourage communalism or
narrow-mindedness, for no nation can be great whose people are narrow in thought or in
action.
To the nations and peoples of the world we send greetings and pledge ourselves to cooperate
with them in furthering peace, freedom and democracy.
And to India, our much-loved motherland, the ancient, the eternal and the ever-new, we pay
our reverent homage and we bind ourselves afresh to her service. Jai Hind [Victory to India].’
!
",!
II. The Complexity of War
!
""!
General Patton motivates the 3rd Army on the Eve of
the Invasion of Europe
GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON, JR., who proudly bore the sobriquet Old Blood and Guts, led a
tank brigade on the Western Front in World War I and, a generation later, led the D.S. 3rd Army's
armored division across France and Germany in World War II. His tanks relieved the surrounded D.S.
forces at Bastogne in the crucial December 1944 Battle of the Bulge.
In his diary of May 17 of that year, Patton-in England helping Eisenhower prepare for the invasionnoted, "Made a talk .... As in all my talks, 1 stressed fighting and killing." Martin Blumenson, editor of
the 1974 two-volume collection of The Patton Papers, wrote that it was about this time "he began to
give his famous speech to the troops. Since he spoke extemporaneously, there were several versions.
But if the words were always somewhat different, the message was always the same: the necessity to
fight, the necessity to kill the enemy viciously, the necessity for everyone, no matter what his job, to do
his duty. The officers were usually uncomfortable with the profanity he used. The enlisted men loved
it."
For the third edition of this anthology, I sought out Blumenson in late 2003 for an authentic copy of
"the" Patton motivational speech. He informed me that no definitive text exists. Reports of the speeches
the general was making in that month before D-Day have been collected and patched together over a
half century.
The most famous version-expurgated and much shortened-was the one that dramatically opened the
1970 movie Patton, starring George C. Scatt. It began with the line certainly characteristic of Patton:
"Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You won it by
making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." That is not in any of the contemporaneous
accounts I know about, but surely sounds like Patton. That's the problem with presenting any
amalgamated text of what was a series of ad-lib speeches: What was added for effect, or taken out to
avoid repetition or skirt obscenity? However, even a patched-together version can reflect much of what
he said in many of the words he probably used. Here is my assembly of the several accounts, no more
"authentic" than the belated account of the "give me liberty" speech in the eighteenth century by
Patrick Henry, but a faithful summary of his message.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
‘Be seated.
Men, this stuff that some sources sling around about America wanting to stay out of this war,
not wanting to fight, is a crock of bullshit. Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real
Americans love the sting and clash of battle. Americans love a winner. Americans will not
tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win. That's why Americans
have never lost nor will ever lose a war.
You are not all going to die. Only 2 percent of you right here today would be killed in a major
battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all of us. And every man is scared
in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a god dam liar. Some men are cowards but they fight
the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who
are just as scared as they are. Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and
probably more so. They are not supermen.
The real hero is the man who fights even though he's scared. Some men get over their fright
in a minute under fire, others take an hour, for some it takes days, but a real man will never
let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country and to his manhood.
All through your army careers, you men have bitched about what you call "chickenshit
drilling." That, like everything else in this army, has a definite purpose. That purpose is
!
"#!
alertness. Alertness must be bred into every soldier. A man must be alert at all times if he
expects to stay alive. If you're not alert, sometime, a German son-of-a-bitch is going to sneak
up behind you and beat you to death with a sockful of shit! There are four hundred neatly
marked graves somewhere in Sicily, all because one man went to sleep on the job. But they
are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep.
An army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual hero stuff is a lot
of horseshit. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post
don't know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about fucking! We have
the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world. Why, by
God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we're going up against.
My men don't surrender, and I don't want to hear of any soldier under my command being
captured unless he has been hit. Even if you are hit, you can still fight back. The kind of man
that I want in my command is just like the lieutenant in Libya, who, with a Luger against his
chest, jerked off his helmet, swept the gun aside with one hand, and busted the hell out of the
Kraut with his helmet. Then he jumped on the gun and went out and killed another German
before they knew what the hell was coming off. And, all of that time, this man had a bullet
through a lung. There was a real man!
Every single man in this army has a job to do and he must do it. Every man is a vital link in
the great chain. What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of
those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly
bastard could say, "Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands." But, what if every
man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now? What would our country, our
loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like? No, goddamnit, Americans don't think like
that. Every man does his job, serves the whole. Ordnance men are needed to supply the guns
and machinery of war to keep us rolling. Quartermasters are needed to bring up food and
clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on KP
has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the "GI Shits." Each
man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him.
One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of
a furious firefight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a
time like that. He answered, "Fixing the wire, Sir." I asked, "Isn't that a little unhealthy right
about now?" He answered, "Yes, Sir, but the goddamned wire has to be fixed." I asked,
"Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?" And he answered, "No, Sir, but you sure
as hell do!"
Now, there was a real man. A real soldier. There was a man who devoted all he had to his
duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how
great the odds. And you should have seen those trucks on the rode to Tunisia. Those drivers
were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never
stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the
time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty
consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do.
They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it. They were part of a team. Without team
effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled
together and the chain became unbreakable.
Remember, men, you men don't know I'm here. No mention of that fact is to be made in any
letters. The world is not supposed to know what the hell happened to me. I'm not supposed to
be commanding this army. I'm not even supposed to be here in England. Let the first bastards
to find out be the goddamn Germans. We want to get the hell over there. The quicker we
!
"$!
clean up this mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple-pissing Japs and
clean out their nest, too. Before the goddamn marines get all of the credit.
Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with
is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go
home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am
personally going to shoot that paper-hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler. Just like I'd shoot a
snake!
When a man is lying in a shell hole, if he just stays there all day, a German will get to him
eventually. The hell with that idea. The hell with taking it. My men don't dig foxholes. I
don't want them to. Foxholes only slow up an offensive. Keep moving. And don't give the
enemy time to dig one either. We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by
showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have; or ever will have.
War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip
them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts. When shells are hitting all around you and you
wipe the dirt off your face and realize that instead of dirt it's the blood and guts of what once
was your best friend beside you, you'll know what to do!
I don't want to get any messages saying, "I am holding my position."
We are not holding a goddamned thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing
constantly and we are not interested in holding on to anything, except the enemy's balls. We
are going to twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all of the time. Our basic plan
of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go
over, under, or through the enemy.
From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I
don't give a good goddamn about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an
ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder we push, the more Germans we will
kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed. Pushing means fewer
casualties. I want you all to remember that.
There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are
home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now, when you are sitting by
the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great
World War n, you won't have to shift him to the other knee, cough, and say, "Well, your
granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana." No, sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say,
"Son, your granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a son-of-a-goddamned-bitch
named Georgie Patton!"
That is all.’
!
!
!
!
!
!
"%!
Winston Churchill Encourages Britain
To Hold Fast in the Face of an Uncertain War
He was the lion who roared when the British Empire needed him most. He held many positions
during his long career and was an accomplished civil servant. Winston Churchill entered the Royal
Military College of Sandhurst, and graduated with honors in December of 18941. He later saw action
in Cuba, India, Egypt, Sudan, the front lines of World War I, and even took part in one of the last
British cavalry charges in history2. When he turned twenty-five, Churchill was elected to Parliament,
and began his career as a statesman in the House of Commons. He went on to serve as First Lord of
the Admiralty, Minister of Munitions, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Prime Minster. In his private
life, Winston Churchill was an avid reader and scholar, painter, author, journalist, and war
correspondent. Historians widely attribute Churchill with being “the greatest statesman of the 20th
century.” Churchill was an effective leader and statesman because of his tremendous ability to inspire
people; his unique strategic insight; his relentless passion; and his imperturbable personality.
Churchill's inspirational speeches when Britain had little else to fight with roused the nation and
convinced his colleagues to fight on even after Hitler's armies had conquered France and dominated
most of Western Europe. 1
During May and June of 1940, the Germans overran France, Belgium, Holland and Luxemburg
and, on 17 June, France sued for peace. The German Air Force was regrouped during June and early
July, to open the first stage of the invasion of Britain by destroying the Royal Air Force. The Battle of
Britain began on 10 July. The following speech known as the “War of the Unknown Warriors” was
given on July 14, 1940 as an inspired means to rally the British people in such a dark hour.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
During the last fortnight the British Navy, in addition to blockading what is left of the
German Fleet and chasing the Italian Fleet, has had imposed upon it the sad duty of putting
effectually out of action for the duration of the war the capital ships of the French Navy.
These, under the Armistice terms, signed in the railway coach at Compiegne, would have
been placed within the power of Nazi Germany. The transference of these ships to Hitler
would have endangered the security of both Great Britain and the United States. We therefore
had no choice but to act as we did, and to act forthwith. Our painful task is now complete.
Although the unfinished battleship, the Jean Bart, still rests in a Moroccan harbor and there
are a number of French warships at Toulon and in various French ports all over the world,
these are not in a condition or of a character to derange our preponderance of naval power. As
long, therefore, as they make no attempt to return to ports controlled by Germany or Italy, we
shall not molest them in any way. That melancholy phase in our relations with France has, so
far as we are concerned, come to an end.
Let us think rather of the future. Today is the fourteenth of July, the national festival of
France. A year ago in Paris I watched the stately parade down the Champs Elysees of the
French Army and the French empire. Who can foresee what the course of other years will
bring? Faith is given to us to help and comfort us when we stand in awe before the unfurling
scroll of human destiny. And I proclaim my faith that some of us will live to see a fourteenth
of July when a liberated France will once again rejoice in her greatness and in her glory, and
once again stand forward as the champion of the freedom and the rights of man. When the
day dawns, as dawn it will, the soul of France will turn with comprehension and with
kindness to those Frenchmen and Frenchwomen, wherever they may be, who in the darkest
hour did not despair of the Republic.
In the meantime, we shall not waste our breath nor cumber our thought with reproaches.
When you have a friend and comrade at whose side you have faced tremendous struggles, and
your friend is smitten down by a stunning blow, it may be necessary to make sure that the
weapon that has fallen from his hands shall not be added to the resources of your common
enemy. But you need not bear malice because of your friend's cries of delirium and gestures
of agony. You must not add to his pain; you must work for his recovery. The association of
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
!
Biography. The Churchill Centre and Museum. Web. Aug. 21, 2010
"&!
interest between Britain and France remains. The cause remains. Duty inescapable remains.
So long as our pathway to victory is not impeded, we are ready to discharge such offices of
good will toward the French Government as may be possible, and to foster the trade and help
the administration of those parts of the great French Empire which are now cut off from
captive France, but which maintain their freedom. Subject to the iron demands of the war
which we are now waging against Hitler and all his works, we shall try so to conduct
ourselves that every true French heart will beat and glow at the way we carry on the struggle;
and that not only France, but all the oppressed countries in Europe may feel that each British
victory is a step towards the liberation of the Continent from the foulest thralldom into which
it has ever been cast.
All goes to show that the war will be long and hard. No one can tell where it will spread. One
thing is certain: the peoples of Europe will not be ruled for long by the Nazi Gestapo, nor will
the world yield itself to Hitler's gospel of hatred, appetite and domination.
And now it has come to us to stand alone in the breach, and face the worst that the tyrant's
might and enmity can do. Bearing ourselves humbly before God, but conscious that we serve
an unfolding purpose, we are ready to defend our native land against the invasion by which it
is threatened. We are fighting by ourselves alone; but we are not fighting for ourselves alone.
Here in this strong City of Refuge which enshrines the title-deeds of human progress and is of
deep consequence to Christian civilization; here, girt about by the seas and oceans where the
Navy reigns; shielded from above by the prowess and devotion of our airmen-we await
undismayed the impending assault. Perhaps it will come tonight. Perhaps it will come next
week. Perhaps it will never come. We must show ourselves equally capable of meeting a
sudden violent shock or-what is perhaps a harder test-a prolonged vigil. But be the ordeal
sharp or long, or both, we shall seek no terms, we shall tolerate no parley; we may show
mercy-we shall ask for none.
I can easily understand how sympathetic onlookers across the Atlantic, or anxious friends in
the yet-unravished countries of Europe, who cannot measure our resources or our resolve,
may have feared for our survival when they saw so many States and kingdoms torn to pieces
in a few weeks or even days by the monstrous force of the Nazi war machine. But Hitler has
not yet been withstood by a great nation with a will power the equal of his own. Many of
these countries have been poisoned by intrigue before they were struck down by violence.
They have been rotted from within before they were smitten from without. How else can you
explain what has happened to France?-to the French Army, to the French people, to the
leaders of the French people?
But here, in our Island, we are in good health and in good heart. We have seen how Hitler
prepared in scientific detail the plans for destroying the neighbor countries
of Germany. He had his plans for Poland and his plans for Norway. He had his plans for
Denmark. He had his plans all worked out for the doom of the peaceful, trustful Dutch; and,
of course, for the Belgians. We have seen how the French were undermined and overthrown.
We may therefore be sure that there is a plan-perhaps built up over years-for destroying Great
Britain, which after all has the honor to be his main and foremost enemy. All I can say is that
any plan for invading Britain which Hitler made two months ago must have had to be entirely
recast in order to meet our new position. Two months ago-nay, one month ago-our first and
main effort was to keep our best Army in France. All our regular troops, all our output of
munitions, and a very large part of our Air Force, had to be sent to France and maintained in
action there. But now we have it all at home. Never before in the last war-or in this-have we
had in this Island an Army comparable in quality, equipment or numbers to that which stands
here on guard tonight. We have a million and a half men in the British Army under arms
tonight, and every week of June and July has seen their organization, their defenses and their
striking power advance by leaps and bounds. No praise is too high for the officers and menaye, and civilians-who have made this immense transformation in so short a time. Behind
these soldiers of the regular Army, as a means of destruction for parachutists, air-borne
invaders, and any traitors that may be found in our midst (but I do not believe there are manywoe betide them, they will get short shrift)-behind the regular Army we have more than a
!
"'!
million of the Local Defense Volunteers, or, as they are much better called, the "Home
Guard." These officers and men, a large proportion of whom have been through the last war,
have the strongest desire to attack and come to close quarters with the enemy wherever he
may appear. Should the invader come to Britain, there will be no placid lying down of the
people in submission before him, as we have seen, alas, in other countries. We shall defend
every village, every town, and every city. The vast mass of London itself, fought street by
street, could easily devour an entire hostile army; and we would rather see London laid in
ruins and ashes than that it should be tamely and abjectly enslaved. I am bound to state these
facts, because it is necessary to inform our people of our intentions, and thus to reassure
them.
This has been a great week for the Royal Air Force, and for the Fighter Command. They have
shot down more than five to one of the German aircraft which have tried to molest our
convoys in the Channel, or have ventured to cross the British coast line. These are, of course,
only the preliminary encounters to the great air battles which lie ahead. But I know of no
reason why we should be discontented with the results so far achieved; although, of course,
we hope to improve upon them as the fighting becomes more widespread and comes more
inland. Around all lies the power of the Royal Navy. With over a thousand armed ships under
the White Ensign, patrolling the seas, the Navy, which is capable of transferring its force very
readily to the protection of any part of the British Empire which may be threatened, is capable
also of keeping open communication with the New World, from whom, as the struggle
deepens, increasing aid will come. Is it not remarkable that after ten months of unlimited Uboat and air attack upon our commerce, our food reserves are higher than they have ever
been, and we have a substantially larger tonnage under our own flag, apart from great
numbers of foreign ships in our control, than we had at the beginning of the war? Why do I
dwell on all this? Not, surely, to induce any slackening of effort or vigilance. On the contrary.
These must be redoubled, and we must prepare not only for the summer, but for the winter;
not only for 1941, but for 1942; when the war will, I trust, take a different form from the
defensive, in which it has hitherto been bound. I dwell on these elements in our strength, on
these resources which we have mobilized and control-I dwell on them because it is right to
show that the good cause can command the means of survival; and that while we toil through
the dark valley we can see the sunlight on the uplands beyond.
I stand at the head of a Government representing all Parties in the State-all creeds, all classes,
every recognizable section of opinion. We are ranged beneath the Crown of our ancient
monarchy. We are supported by a free Parliament and a free Press; but there is one bond
which unites us all and sustains us in the public regard-namely (as is increasingly becoming
known), that we are prepared to proceed to all extremities, to endure them and to enforce
them; that is our bond of union in His Majesty's Government tonight. Thus only, in times like
these, can nations preserve their freedom; and thus only can they uphold the cause entrusted
to their care.
But all depends now upon the whole life-strength of the British race in every part of the world
and of all our associated peoples and of all our well-wishers in every land, doing their utmost
night and day, giving all, daring all, enduring all-to the utmost-to the end. This is no war of
chieftains or of princes, of dynasties or national ambition; it is a war of peoples and of causes.
There are vast numbers, not only in this Island but in every land, who will render faithful
service in this war, but whose names will never be known, whose deeds will never be
recorded. This is a War of the Unknown Warriors; but let all strive without failing in faith or
in duty, and the dark curse of Hitler will be lifted from our age.
!
")!
Senator Eugene McCarthy Crystallizes Dissent
by Denouncing the War in Vietnam
BY 1967, a substantial minority had turned against the D.S. involvement in the war between North
and South Vietnam. The dissenters awaited a responsible political voice to transform the dissent into a
movement. It came from a Minnesota Democrat, Eugene McCarthy, whose challenge in the following
year's Democratic primaries caused President Lyndon Johnson to step down.
McCarthy had been the nominator of Adlai Stevenson in 1960, after his two defeats. "Do not reject
this man," he begged the convention, which did. The Minnesota poet-senator evoked the memory of
Stevenson as well as of John Kennedy in a speech on December 2, 1967, to the Conference of
Concerned Democrats, organized to oppose the war. Stevenson was the metaphoric horn (the biblical
trumpet not uncertain) and Kennedy the drum that caused the people to march. McCarthy was brushed
aside by Robert Kennedy after Johnson's retirement, and was defeated at the convention by Hubert
Humphrey after Kennedy's assassination; he retired from the Senate in 1970. He is remembered for
identifying the "joyless spirit" of part of America in 1967-68 and enabling it to turn a sitting president
out of power.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
‘In 1952, in this city of Chicago, the Democratic party nominated as its candidate for the
presidency Adlai Stevenson.
His promise to his party and to the people of the country then was that he would talk sense to
them .... Under the presidency of John F. Kennedy his ideas were revived in new language
and in a new spirit.
To the clear sound of the horn was added the beat of a steady and certain drum.
John Kennedy set free the spirit of America. The honest optimism was released. Quiet
courage and civility became the mark of American government, and new programs of
promise and of dedication were presented: the Peace Corps, the Alliance for Progress, the
promise of equal rights for all Americans-and not just the promise but the beginning of the
achievement of that promise.
All the world looked to the United States with new hope, for here was youth and confidence
and an openness to the future. Here was a country not being held by the dead hand of the past,
nor frightened by the violent hand of the future which was grasping at the world.
This was the spirit of 1963.
What is the spirit of 1967? What is the mood of America and of the world toward America
today?
It is a joyless spirit-a mood of frustration, of anxiety, of uncertainty. In place of the
enthusiasm of the Peace Corps among the young people of America, we have protests and
demonstrations.
In place of the enthusiasm of the Alliance for Progress, we have distrust and disappointment.
Instead of the language of promise and of hope, we have in politics today a new vocabulary in
which the critical word is "war": war on poverty, war on ignorance, war on crime, war on
pollution. None of these problems can be solved by war but only by persistent, dedicated, and
thoughtful attention.
!
"*!
But we do have one war which is properly called a war-the war in Vietnam, which is central
to all of the problems of America.
A war of questionable legality and questionable constitutionality.
A war which is diplomatically indefensible; the first war in this century in which the United
States, which at its founding made an appeal to the decent opinion of mankind in the
Declaration of Independence, finds itself without the support of the decent opinion of
mankind.
A war which cannot be defended in the context of the judgment of history. It is being
presented in the context of an historical judgment of an era which is past. Munich appears to
be the starting point of history for the secretary of state and for those who attempt to support
his policies. What is necessary is a realization that the United States is a part of the movement
of history itself; that it cannot stand apart, attempting to control the world by imposing
covenants and treaties and by violent military intervention; that our role is not to police the
planet but to use military strength with restraint and within limits, while at the same time we
make available to the world the great power of our economy, of our knowledge, and of our
good will.
A war which is not defensible even in military terms, which runs contrary to the advice of our
greatest generals-Eisenhower, Ridgway, Bradley, and MacArthur-all of whom admonished us
against becoming involved in a land war in Asia. Events have proved them right, as estimate
after estimate as to the time of success and the military commitment necessary to success has
had to be revised-always upward: more troops, more extensive bombing, a widening and
intensification of the war. Extension and intensification have been the rule, and projection
after projection of success have been proved wrong.
With the escalation of our military commitment has come a parallel of overleaping of
objectives: from protecting South Vietnam, to nation building in South Vietnam, to protecting
all of Southeast Asia, and ultimately to suggesting that the safety and security of the United
States itself is at stake.
Finally, it is a war which is morally wrong. The most recent statement of objectives cannot be
accepted as an honest judgment as to why we are in Vietnam. It has become increasingly
difficult to justify the methods we are using and the instruments of war which we are using as
we have moved from limited targets and somewhat restricted weapons to greater variety and
more destructive instruments of war, and also have extended the area of operations almost to
the heart of North Vietnam.
Even assuming that both objectives and methods can be defended, the war cannot stand the
test of proportion and of prudent judgment. It is no longer possible to prove that the good that
may come with what is called victory, or projected as victory, is proportionate to the loss of
life and property and to other disorders that follow from this war. ...
Beyond all of these considerations, two further judgments must be passed: a judgment of
individual conscience, and another in the broader context of the movement of history itself.
The problem of individual conscience is, I think, set most clearly before us in the words of
Charles peguy in writing about the Dreyfus case: "a single injustice, a single crime, a single
illegality, if it is officially recorded, ... will bring about the loss of one's honor, the dishonor
of a whole people."
And the broader historical judgment as suggested by Arnold Toynbee in his comments on
Rome's war with Carthage: "Nemesis is a potent goddess .... War posthumously avenges the
dead on the survivors, and the vanquished on the victors. The nemesis of war is intrinsic. It
!
"+!
did not need the invention of the atomic weapon to make this apparent. It was illustrated more
than two thousand years before our time, by Hannibal's legacy to Rome." Hannibal gained a
"posthumous victory over Rome. Although he failed to defeat the great nation militarily
because of the magnitude of her military manpower and solidity of the structure of the Roman
Commonwealth, he did succeed in inflicting grievous wounds on the Commonwealth's body
social and economic. They were so grievous that they festered into the revolution that was
precipitated by Tiberius Gracchus and that did not cease till it was arrested by Augustus a
hundred years later. ... This revolution," Toynbee said, "was the nemesis of Rome's
superficially triumphant career of military conquest" and ended, of course, the Republic and
substituted for it the spirit of the dictators and of the Caesars.
Those of us who are gathered here tonight are not advocating peace at any price. We are
willing to pay a high price for peace-for an honorable, rational, and political solution to this
war, a solution which will enhance our world position, which will permit us to give the
necessary attention to our other commitments abroad, both military and nonmilitary, and
leave us with both human and physical resources and with moral energy to deal effectively
with the pressing domestic problems of the United States itself.
I see little evidence that the administration has set any limits on the price which it will pay
for a military victory which becomes less and less sure and more hollow and empty in
promise.
The scriptural promise of the good life is one in which the old men see visions and the young
men dream dreams. In the context of this war and all of its implications, the young men of
America do not dream dreams, but many live in the nightmare of moral anxiety, of concern
and great apprehension; and the old men, instead of visions which they can offer to the
young, are projecting, in the language of the secretary of state, a specter of one billion
Chinese threatening the peace and safety of the world-a frightening and intimidating future.
The message from the administration today is a message of apprehension' a message of fear,
yes-even a message of fear of fear.
This is not the real spirit of America. I do not believe that it is. This is a time to test the mood
and spirit:
To offer in place of doubt-trust.
In place of expediency-right judgment.
In place of ghettos, let us have neighborhoods and communities. In place of incredibility
integrity.
In place of murmuring, let us have clear speech; let us again hear America singing.
In place of disunity, let us have dedication of purpose. In place of near despair, let us have
hope.
This is the promise of greatness which was seated for us by Adlai Stevenson and which was
brought to form and positive action in the words and actions of John Kennedy.
Let us pick up again these lost strands and weave them again into the fabric of America.
Let us sort out the music from the sounds and again respond to the trumpet and the steady
drum.’
!
!
#,!
!
!
III. The Fight for Women’s Rights!
!
!
#"!
Evangelist Sojourner Truth Speaks for
Women's Rights
BORN A SLAVE NAMED ISABELLA, this American abolitionist received her freedom when New
York State emancipated slaves in 1827. She moved to New York City, heard what she believed to be
heavenly voices, and took the name Sojourner Truth in 1843, when she quit being a maidservant to
become an evangelist. Her opening line was a stunner:
"Children, I talk to God and God talks to me!"
Sojourner Truth traveled throughout the North (a "sojourner" stays only temporarily in one place) to
spread a message that combined religious and abolitionist ideas. After a despondent speech by
Frederick Douglass in 1850, she asked her frequent platform mate a question that still reverberates in
theological circles: "Frederick, is God dead?" Although illiterate, this mother of five powerfully
conveyed her equal-rights message in dialect, with plain words and commonsense reasoning, drawing
on her own experiences to persuade listeners of her sincerity. During the Civil War, President Lincoln
appointed her counselor to the freedmen of the capital.
Blacks and women were in competition for suffrage, and few black women attended early women's
rights meetings. Sojourner Truth was an exception; at the 1851 Ohio Women's Rights Convention, in
Akron, she spoke of feminism with the same fervor that marked her preaching on abolitionism and
religion. Through a conversational form of direct address ("Well, children") and the use of repetition
(the question" And ain't I a woman?" is raised four times), Sojourner Truth moved listeners in the early
days of the fight for women's rights. She said she wanted her language reported in standard English,
"not as if I was saying ticketyump-ump-nicky-nacky," and in some quotation books her "ain'ts" are
changed to "aren'ts," but I think such editorial prettification loses the flavor and force of the
eloquence.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
‘Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think
that 'twixt the Negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the
white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?
That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over
ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over
mud puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm.
I have plowed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a
woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man-when I could get it-and bear the
lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen them most all sold
off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And
ain't I a woman?
Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [Intellect, someone
whispers.] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or Negro's rights? If my
cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have
my little half - measure full?
Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause
Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come
from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with him.
If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone,
these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now
they is asking to do it, the men better let them.
Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say.’
!
##!
Susan B. Anthony Argues for Women's Rights
WHEN SUS AN BROWNELL ANTHONY championed the cause of women's suffrage in the nineteenth
century, ridicule and taunting were common reactions to her fiery words. The daughter of a Quaker
abolitionist, she fought from an early age to gain equal pay and education for women. With Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, she organized the National Woman Suffrage Association and helped establish the first
laws in New York State to recognize a woman's rights to own property and have control of her
children.
In 1872, Susan B. Anthony's efforts to obtain the right to vote gained notoriety when she led a
group of women to the polls in the presidential election. This march set the pattern for the use of civil
disobedience and subsequent court action to attract attention and adherents. Her indictment and
conviction for what she called the "alleged crime" of voting (with a $100 fine that she refused to pay)
helped publicize her cause.
In the speech that follows, she defends her actions by asserting her equal rights as a citizen. Her
pioneering stance is expressed by rhetorical questioning ("Are women persons?") and reference to
Noah Webster and his fellow lexicographers on the defining of "citizen." Most forceful is her use of a
repeated word in parallel structure to bolster the constitutional argument: "It was we, the people; not
we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people .... "
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
Friends and fellow citizens, I stand before you tonight under indictment for the alleged crime
of having voted at the last presidential election, without having a lawful right to vote. It shall
be my work this evening to prove to you that in thus voting, I not only committed no crime
but, instead, simply exercised my citizen's rights, guaranteed to me and all United States
citizens by the National Constitution, beyond the power of any state to deny.
The preamble of the federal Constitution says:
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we,
the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of
liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the
whole people-women as well as men. And it is a downright mockery to talk to women of their
enjoyment of the blessings of liberty while they are denied the use of the only means of
securing them provided by this democratic-republican government-the ballot.
For any state to make sex a qualification that must ever result in the disfranchisement of one
entire half of the people is to pass a bill of attainder, or an ex post facto law, and is therefore a
violation of the supreme law of the land. By it the blessings of liberty are forever withheld
from women and their female posterity. To them this government has no just powers derived
from the consent of the governed. To them this government is not a democracy. It is not a
republic. It is an odious aristocracy; a hateful oligarchy of sex; the most hateful aristocracy
ever established on the face of the globe; an oligarchy of wealth, where the rich govern the
poor. An oligarchy of learning, where the educated govern the ignorant, or even an oligarchy
of race, where the Saxon rules the African, might be endured; but this oligarchy of sex, which
makes father, brothers, husband, sons, the oligarchs over the mother and sisters, the wife and
daughters, of every household-which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects, carries
dissension, discord, and rebellion into every home of the nation.
Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in the United States,
entitled to vote and hold office.
The only question left to be settled now is: Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of
our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are
!
#$!
citizens; and no state has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge
their privileges or immunities. Hence, every discrimination against women in the
constitutions and laws of the several states is today null and void, precisely as is everyone
against Negroes.
!
!
#%!
Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan Argues
That Male Domination of Women Offends Her
Islamic Religion
"I HAVE ENDURED a great deal in my forty years on this planet," Benazir Bhutto told an Atlanta
audience in 1993. "The members of my party have been victimized, tortured, kidnapped, sometimes
raped, and even killed. My brave husband ... was imprisoned for over two painful years, held hostage
against my political career for no other crime than being married to me. Every possible method of
coercion was applied to me to abandon my struggle, my party, my people, and to give in to forces of
tyranny pressuring me to quit politics."
Adjusting her Muslim head scarf-a gesture from this handsome woman that punctuates and adds
dramatic emphasis to oratorical pauses she recalled a line of the poet Tennyson quoted to her by her
father, the former Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, writing from his cell before he was hanged by
the dictator who had seized power: "Ah, what shall I be at fifty ... If I find the world so bitter at twentyfive."
Within a few months, her Pakistani countrymen and women entrusted her with the prime
ministership for the second time; in 1996, a military-backed leader, charging corruption, ousted her
again.
Born to the aristocracy, educated by Catholic nuns at a convent school, and later at Harvard and
Oxford, favorite child of Pakistan's leader, Ms. Bhutto learned the dark side of life in solitary
confinement after her father's downfall. She spoke out to defend his reputation when such talk was
costly, which had an effect on her speaking style: well-modulated but forthright, well-mannered with a
touch of defiance.
When Sarajevo was under siege, she joined Tansu Ciller, prime minister of Turkey, in a visit to
embattled Muslims in the Bosnian capital, helping to focus world attention on their suffering. The
picture of two Muslim women, both leaders of their nations, asserting solidarity with their coreligionists under fire, also reminded Westerners that not all Islam was male-dominated. In Beijing on
September 4, 1995, she spoke to a world conference of women and drove that point home with an eloquence derived from a tempestuous life in politics.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
‘As the first woman ever elected to head an Islamic nation, I feel a special responsibility
about issues that relate to women.
In addressing the new exigencies of the new century, we must translate dynamic religion into
a living reality. We must live by the true spirit of Islam, not only by its rituals. And for those
of you who may be ignorant of Islam, cast aside your preconceptions about the role of women
in our religion.
Contrary to what many of you may have come to believe, Islam embraces a rich variety of
political, social, and cultural traditions. The fundamental ethos of Islam is tolerance, dialogue,
and democracy.
Just as in Christianity and Judaism, we must always be on guard for those who will exploit
and manipulate the Holy Book for their own narrow political ends, who will distort the
essence of pluralism and tolerance for their own extremist agendas.
To those who claim to speak for Islam but who would deny to women our place in society, I
say:
The ethos of Islam is equality, equality between the sexes. There is no religion on earth that,
in its writing and teachings, is more respectful of the role of women in society than Islam.
!
#&!
My presence here, as the elected woman prime minister of a great Muslim country, is
testament to the commitment of Islam to the role of women in society.
It is this tradition of Islam that has empowered me, has strengthened me, has emboldened me.
It was this heritage that sustained me during the most difficult points in my life, for Islam
forbids injustice; injustice against people, against nations, against women.
It denounces inequality as the gravest form of injustice. It enjoins its followers to combat
oppression and tyranny.
It enshrines piety as the sole criteria for judging humankind.
It shuns race, color, and gender as a basis of distinction amongst fellow men.
When the human spirit was immersed in the darkness of the Middle Ages, Islam proclaimed
equality between men and women. When women were viewed as inferior members of the
human family, Islam gave them respect and dignity.
When women were treated as chattels, the Prophet of Islam (Peace Be Upon Him) accepted
them as equal partners.
Islam codified the rights of women. The Koran elevated their status to that of men. It
guaranteed their civic, economic, and political rights. It recognized their participative role in
nation building.
Sadly, the Islamic tenets regarding women were soon discarded. In Islamic society, as in
other parts of the world, their rights were denied. Women were maltreated, discriminated
against, and subjected to violence and oppression, their dignity injured and their role denied.
Women became the victims of a culture of exclusion and male dominance. Today more
women than men suffer from poverty, deprivation, and discrimination. Half a billion women
are illiterate. Seventy percent of the children who are denied elementary education are girls.
The plight of women in the developing countries is unspeakable. Hunger, disease, and
unremitting toil is their fate. Weak economic growth and inadequate social support systems
affect them most seriously and directly.
They are the primary victims of structural adjustment processes, which necessitate reduced
state funding for health, education, medical care, and nutrition. Curtailed resource flows to
these vital areas impact most severely on the vulnerable groups, particularly women and
children.
This, Madam Chairperson, is not acceptable. It offends my religion. It offends my sense of
justice and equity. Above all, it offends common sense.
That is why Pakistan, the women of Pakistan, and I personally have been fully engaged in
recent international efforts to uphold women's rights. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights enjoins the elimination of discrimination against women.
The Nairobi Forward Looking Strategies provide a solid framework for advancing women's
rights around the world. But the goal of equality, development, and peace still eludes us.
Sporadic efforts in this direction have failed. We are satisfied that the Beijing Platform of
Action encompasses a comprehensive approach toward the empowerment of women. This is
the right approach and should be fully supported.
!
#'!
Women cannot be expected to struggle alone against the forces of discrimination and
exploitation. I recall the words of Dante, who reminded us that "The hottest place in Hell is
reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis."
Today in this world, in the fight for the liberation of women, there can be no neutrality.
My spirit carries many a scar of a long and lonely battle against dictatorship and tyranny. I
witnessed, at a young age, the overthrow of democracy, the assassination of an elected prime
minister, and a systematic assault against the very foundations of a free society.
But our faith in democracy was not broken. The great Pakistani poet and philosopher Dr.
Allama Iqbal says, "Tyranny cannot endure forever." It did not. The will of our people
prevailed against the forces of dictatorship.
But, my dear sisters, we have learned that democracy alone is not enough. Freedom of choice
alone does not guarantee justice. Equal rights are not defined only by political values. Social
justice is a triad of freedom, an equation of liberty:
Justice is political liberty.
Justice is economic independence. Justice is social
equality.
Delegates, sisters, the child who is starving has no human rights. The girl who is illiterate has
no future.
The woman who cannot plan her life, plan her family, plan a career, is fundamentally not free
....
I am determined to change the plight of women in my country. More than sixty million of
our women are largely sidelined.
It is a personal tragedy for them. It is a national catastrophe for my nation. I am determined to
harness their potential to the gigantic task of nation building ....
I dream of a Pakistan in which women contribute to their full potential. I am conscious of the
struggle that lies ahead. But, with your help, we shall persevere. Allah willing, we shall
succeed.
!
!
#)!
IV. The American Dream
!
#*!
Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Ennobles the
Civil Rights Movement at the Lincoln Memorial
DR. KING WAS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BLACK LEADER since Frederick Douglass and, like
Douglass, owed much of his preeminence to the ability to write with power (as in his 1963 "Letter from
a Birmingham Jail") and to speak with passion. A disciple of Mohandas Gandhi's dedication to achieve
great change through nonviolent means, the well-educated King -awarded a Ph.D. from Boston
University in 1955-came to national attention later that year by leading the Montgomery, Alabama,
bus boycott. He was subjected to harassment by racists and wiretapping by the Justice Department,
fearful of Communist associations. Dr. King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964; having led
the "Poor People's Campaign" and been active in the antiwar movement during the Vietnam War, he
was assassinated in 1968.
He had the ability to tailor his speaking style to the audience he faced.
On August 23, 1963, as a principal speaker at a peaceful march on Washington, D.C., Dr. King
spoke from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. The televised address did more to advance the cause of
civil rights than did any other speech or demonstration. He began with a financial metaphor, the bad
check drawn by a defaulting system of justice that was uncashable by the Negro. A series of sentences
beginning with "now" spoke to the sense of urgency that justice no longer be delayed. A
Shakespearean allusion-"this sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent," based on "now
is the winter of our discontent," from Richard Ill -indicated a broad education at work. After raising
his voice in a passage about the potential "whirlwind of revolt," he countered with a passage urging
restraint on his followers.
The internal question "When will you be satisfied?" was answered by a series beginning "We can
never be satisfied as long as" and culminating with a biblical "we will not be satisfied until justice
rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." This is all before he comes to the
passage most often rebroadcast: "I have a dream today .... "
On occasion, a speaker can take the audience to the mountaintop and point to his vision of America.
The speech was worthy of its setting.
________________________________!
‘I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest
demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation. Five score years ago, a great
American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This
momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had
been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long
night of captivity.
But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free. One
hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation
and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island
of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later the
Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his
own land. So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our
republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.
This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens
of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the
Negro people a bad check; a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we
refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are
insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash
!
#+!
this check-a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of
justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of
now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of
gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise
from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is
the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our
nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate
the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent
will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixtythree is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off
steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as
usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquillity in America until the Negro is granted his
citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our
nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which
leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be
guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from
the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of
dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical
violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with
soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not
lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their
presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and
their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
And as we talk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead.
We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will
you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the
unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies,
heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the
hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a
smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi
cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we
are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and
righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations.
Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas
where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered
by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue
to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia,
go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our modern cities, knowing that
somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment
I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal."
!
$,!
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons
of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state sweltering with the
heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not
be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently
dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a
situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white
boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be
made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight,
and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South.
With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With
this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful
symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together,
to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we
will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning "My
country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of
the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the
prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New
York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the
curvaceous peaks of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from
Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let
freedom ring.
When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from
every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children,
black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join
hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God
Almighty, we are free at last!"’
!
$"!
Barack Obama Delivers the Keynote Speech
at the 2004 Democratic National Convention
The keynote speech that Barack Obama delivered on Tuesday, July 27, 2004, galvanized the
delegates who packed Boston's FleetCenter and electrified a nationwide television audience. The 2,297
words uttered over 17 minutes changed Obama's profile overnight and made him a household name.
Before the speech, the idea of Obama running for president in 2008 would have been laughable; he
was a lowly state senator from Chicago's Hyde Park, and while he stood a good chance at winning his
U.S. Senate race, he would enter that powerful body ranked 99th out of 100 in seniority. After the
speech, observers from across the political world hailed the address as an instant classic, and Obama
was drawing comparisons (deservedly or not) to Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy.
None of this happened by chance. Obama's selection as keynote speaker was carefully plotted by all
sides for maximum effect, and the speech itself was no outpouring of inspiration scribbled on the back
of an envelope. Obama labored over it for weeks, harvesting lines that he had already tested on Illinois
crowds. He is said to have been furious when one of his best remarks was cut by Kerry's speechwriters.
And even after all the preparation, the editing and vetting by aides to Obama and Kerry, and the three
run-throughs at the convention, the speech almost didn't take flight-on the dais, Obama was slow to hit
his stride. But once he got going, the speech-and his career-took off: "Without that Boston speech,
there's a question whether Barack would be running [for president] today," says his fellow senator
from Illinois, Dick Durbin. "His public image changed because of that speech." Valerie Jarrett, a
veteran Chicago politico and one of Obama's longtime friends, puts it more succinctly: "It changed his
life." 2
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
‘On behalf of the great state of Illinois, crossroads of a nation, Land of Lincoln, let me
express my deepest gratitude for the privilege of addressing this convention.
Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let’s face it, my presence on this stage is pretty
unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He
grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father -- my grandfather -- was
a cook, a domestic servant to the British.
But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance my
father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America, that shone as a beacon of
freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before.
While studying here, my father met my mother. She was born in a town on the other side of
the world, in Kansas. Her father worked on oil rigs and farms through most of the Depression.
The day after Pearl Harbor my grandfather signed up for duty; joined Patton’s army, marched
across Europe. Back home, my grandmother raised a baby and went to work on a bomber
assembly line. After the war, they studied on the G.I. Bill, bought a house through F.H.A.,
and later moved west all the way to Hawaii in search of opportunity.
And they, too, had big dreams for their daughter. A common dream, born of two continents.
My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the
possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or ”blessed,”
believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined -They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren’t rich,
because in a generous America you don’t have to be rich to achieve your potential.
They're both passed away now. And yet, I know that on this night they look down on me with
great pride.
They stand here -- And I stand here today, grateful for the diversity of my heritage, aware that
my parents’ dreams live on in my two precious daughters. I stand here knowing that my story
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#!-./012.304!567389!:;<.!=>..?<9@!A<3?6BC!D6B9?CE4!!FG0.!#,,)!
!
$#!
is part of the larger American story, that I owe a debt to all of those who came before me, and
that, in no other country on earth, is my story even possible.
Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our Nation -- not because of the height of our
skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy. Our pride is based on a
very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
That is the true genius of America, a faith -- a faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small
miracles; that we can tuck in our children at night and know that they are fed and clothed and
safe from harm; that we can say what we think, write what we think, without hearing a
sudden knock on the door; that we can have an idea and start our own business without
paying a bribe; that we can participate in the political process without fear of retribution, and
that our votes will be counted -- at least most of the time.
This year, in this election we are called to reaffirm our values and our commitments, to hold
them against a hard reality and see how we're measuring up to the legacy of our forbearers
and the promise of future generations.
And fellow Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, I say to you tonight: We have
more work to do -- more work to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are
losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that’s moving to Mexico, and now are having to
compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour; more to do for the
father that I met who was losing his job and choking back the tears, wondering how he would
pay 4500 dollars a month for the drugs his son needs without the health benefits that he
counted on; more to do for the young woman in East St. Louis, and thousands more like her,
who has the grades, has the drive, has the will, but doesn’t have the money to go to college.
Now, don’t get me wrong. The people I meet -- in small towns and big cities, in diners and
office parks -- they don’t expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have
to work hard to get ahead, and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and
people will tell you they don’t want their tax money wasted, by a welfare agency or by the
Pentagon. Go in -- Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that
government alone can’t teach our kids to learn; they know that parents have to teach, that
children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and
eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those
things.
People don’t expect -- People don't expect government to solve all their problems. But they
sense, deep in their bones, that with just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that
every child in America has a decent shot at life, and that the doors of opportunity remain open
to all.
They know we can do better. And they want that choice.
In this election, we offer that choice. Our Party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the
best this country has to offer. And that man is John Kerry.
John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and service because they’ve defined
his life. From his heroic service to Vietnam, to his years as a prosecutor and lieutenant
governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he's devoted himself to this
country. Again and again, we’ve seen him make tough choices when easier ones were
available.
His values and his record affirm what is best in us. John Kerry believes in an America where
hard work is rewarded; so instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas,
he offers them to companies creating jobs here at home.
!
$$!
John Kerry believes in an America where all Americans can afford the same health coverage
our politicians in Washington have for themselves.
John Kerry believes in energy independence, so we aren’t held hostage to the profits of oil
companies, or the sabotage of foreign oil fields.
John Kerry believes in the Constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of
the world, and he will never sacrifice our basic liberties, nor use faith as a wedge to divide us.
And John Kerry believes that in a dangerous world war must be an option sometimes, but it
should never be the first option.
You know, a while back -- awhile back I met a young man named Shamus in a V.F.W. Hall
in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid -- six two, six three, clear eyed, with an
easy smile. He told me he’d joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week.
And as I listened to him explain why he’d enlisted, the absolute faith he had in our country
and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all that any of
us might ever hope for in a child.
But then I asked myself, "Are we serving Shamus as well as he is serving us?"
I thought of the 900 men and women -- sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and
neighbors, who won’t be returning to their own hometowns. I thought of the families I’ve met
who were struggling to get by without a loved one’s full income, or whose loved ones had
returned with a limb missing or nerves shattered, but still lacked long-term health benefits
because they were Reservists.
When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not
to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families
while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war
without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.
Now -- Now let me be clear. Let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These
enemies must be found. They must be pursued. And they must be defeated. John Kerry knows
this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who
served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military
might to keep America safe and secure.
John Kerry believes in America. And he knows that it’s not enough for just some of us to
prosper -- for alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American
saga, a belief that we’re all connected as one people. If there is a child on the south side of
Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child. If there is a senior
citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription drugs, and having to choose between
medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent. If there’s an
Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that
threatens my civil liberties.
It is that fundamental belief -- It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am
my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual
dreams and yet still come together as one American family.
E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us -- the spin masters, the
negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of "anything goes." Well, I say to them tonight,
there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of
America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian
America -- there’s the United States of America.
The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States;
Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We
!
$%!
worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking
around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes,
we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq
and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging
allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
In the end -- In the end -- In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a
politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?
John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope.
I’m not talking about blind optimism here -- the almost willful ignorance that thinks
unemployment will go away if we just don’t think about it, or the health care crisis will solve
itself if we just ignore it. That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about something more
substantial. It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of
immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely
patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker’s son who dares to defy the odds; the
hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.
Hope -- Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope!
In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not
seen. A belief that there are better days ahead.
I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to
opportunity.
I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people
in cities across America from violence and despair.
I believe that we have a righteous wind at our backs and that as we stand on the crossroads of
history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us.
America! Tonight, if you feel the same energy that I do, if you feel the same urgency that I
do, if you feel the same passion that I do, if you feel the same hopefulness that I do -- if we do
what we must do, then I have no doubt that all across the country, from Florida to Oregon,
from Washington to Maine, the people will rise up in November, and John Kerry will be
sworn in as President, and John Edwards will be sworn in as Vice President, and this country
will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political darkness a brighter day will come.
Thank you very much everybody. God bless you. Thank you.’
!
$&!
V. A Difficult Peace
!
$'!
Egypt's President Anwar el-Sadat Travels to
Jerusalem to Address Israel's Knesset
"DON'T ASK ME to make diplomatic relations with them," said Anwar el-Sadat in 1970, a few
months before Israel's longtime foe became president of Egypt. "Never. Never. Leave it to the coming
generations to decide that, not me." Yet it was Sadat's willingness to go to Jerusalem, in effect
recognizing the state of Israel, that broke the logjam that had existed between Arab and Jew since the
foundation of the Jewish state after World War 11.
Prime Minister Menachem Begin, his Israeli interlocutor, matched the Arab leader's daring by
ceding to Egypt "every inch" of Sinai territory that Egypt lost in its attacks on Israel in return for
formal, peaceful relations and security arrangements. At the Camp David meetings later presided over
by President Jimmy Carter, agreement was reached, and Sadat could proudly allude to the words of
the Old Testament prophet Isaiah: "Let us work together until the day comes when they beat their
swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks." Fundamentalists answered this plea with
assassination in 1981.
Sadat's speech in Arabic to the Knesset came only ten days after he told a reporter he would "go to
the ends of the earth" to pursue peace, a statement that was promptly followed by Israel's expected
invitation. Although the speech broke little negotiating ground on prickly questions like the status of
Jerusalem, the fact of his presence-and the personal danger he was willing to assume-charged his
words with emotion. The concluding blessing, Salam Aleikum, is close to the Hebrew phrase Shalom
Aleichem, meaning "Peace be with you" -and the overlapping of the languages accentuated the
common desire of speaker and spoken to.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
'I come to you today on solid ground to shape a new life and to establish peace. We all love
this land, the land of God; we all, Moslems, Christians, and Jews, all worship God.
Under God. God's teachings and commandments are love, sincerity, security, and peace.
I do not blame all those who received my decision when I announced it to the entire world
before the Egyptian People's Assembly. I do not blame all those who received my decision
with surprise and even with amazement-some gripped even by violent surprise. Still others
interpreted it as political, to camouflage my intentions of launching a new war.
I would go so far as to tell you that one of my aides at the presidential office contacted me at
a late hour following my return home from the People's Assembly and sounded worried as he
asked me, "Mr. President, what would be our reaction if Israel actually extended an invitation
to you?"
I replied calmly, "I would accept it immediately. I have declared that I would go to the ends
of the earth. I would go to Israel, for I want to put before the people of Israel all the facts."
I can see the faces of all those who were astounded by my decision and had doubts as to the
sincerity of the intentions behind the declaration of my decision. No one could ever conceive
that the president of the biggest Arab state, which bears the heaviest burden and the main
responsibility pertaining to the cause of war and peace in the Middle East, should declare his
readiness to go to the land of the adversary while we were still in a state of war ....
Here I would go back to the big question: How can we achieve a durable peace based on
justice? In my opinion, and I declare it to the whole world, from this forum, the answer is
neither difficult nor is it impossible despite long years of feuds, blood, faction, strife, hatreds,
and deep-rooted animosity.
!
$)!
The answer is not difficult, nor is it impossible, if we sincerely and faithfully follow a straight
line.
You want to live with us, part of the world.
In all sincerity I tell you we welcome you among us with full security and safety. This in
itself is a tremendous turning point, one of the landmarks of a decisive historical change. We
used to reject you. We had our reasons and our fears, yes.
We refused to meet with you, anywhere, yes.
We were together in international conferences and organizations, and our representatives did
not, and still do not, exchange greetings with you. Yes. This has happened and is still
happening.
It is also true that we used to set as a precondition for any negotiations with you a mediator
who would meet separately with each party.
Yes. Through this procedure, the talks of the first and second disengagement agreements took
place.
Our delegates met in the first Geneva conference without exchanging direct word. Yes, this
has happened.
Yet today I tell you, and I declare it to the whole world, that we accept to live with you in
permanent peace based on justice. We do not want to encircle you or be encircled ourselves
by destructive missiles ready for launching, nor by the shells of grudges and hatreds ....
I hail the Israeli voices that call for the recognition of the Palestinian people's right to achieve
and safeguard peace.
Here I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that it is no use to refrain from recognizing the
Palestinian people and their right to statehood as their right of return. We, the Arabs, have
faced this experience before, with you. And with the reality of the Israeli existence, the
struggle which took us from war to war, from victims to more victims, until you and we have
today reached the edge of a horrible abyss and a terrifying disaster unless, together, we seize
this opportunity today of a durable peace based on justice.
You have to face reality bravely, as I have done. There can never be a solution to a problem
by evading it or turning a deaf ear to it. Peace cannot last if attempts are made to impose
fantasy concepts on which the world has turned its back and announced its unanimous call for
the respect of rights and facts.
There is no need to enter a vicious circle as to Palestinian rights. It is useless to create
obstacles; otherwise, the march of peace will be impeded or peace will be blown up. As I
have told you, there is no happiness based on the detriment of others.
Direct confrontation and straightforwardness are the shortcuts and the most successful way to
reach a clear objective. Direct confrontation concerning the Palestinian problem and tackling
it in one single language with a view to achieving a durable and just peace lie in the
establishment of that peace. With all the guarantees you demand, there should be no fear of a
newly born state that needs the assistance of all countries of the world.
When the bells of peace ring, there will be no hands to beat the drums of war. Even if they
existed, they would be stilled ....
!
$*!
Ladies and gentlemen, peace is not a mere endorsement of written lines. Rather, it is a
rewriting of history. Peace is not a game of calling for peace to defend certain whims or hide
certain admissions. Peace in its essence is a dire struggle against all and every ambition and
whim.
Perhaps the example taken and experienced, taken from ancient and modern history, teaches
that missiles, warships, and nuclear weapons cannot establish security. Instead, they destroy
what peace and security build.
For the sake of our peoples and for the sake of the civilization made by man, we have to
defend man everywhere against rule by the force of arms so that we may endow the full of
humanity with all the power of the values and principles that further the sublime position of
mankind.
Allow me to address my call from this rostrum to the people of Israel. I tell them, from the
Egyptian people, who bless this sacred mission of peace, I convey to you the message of
peace of the Egyptian people, who do not harbor fanaticism and whose sons-Moslems,
Christians and Jews-live together in a state of cordiality, love, and tolerance.
This is Egypt, whose people have entrusted me with their sacred message. A message of
security, safety, and peace to every man, woman, and child in Israel. Let all endeavors be
channeled toward building a huge stronghold for peace instead of building destructive
rockets.
Introduce to the entire world the image of the new man in this area so that he might set an
example to the man of our age, the man of peace everywhere. Ring the bells for your sons.
Tell them that those wars were the last of wars and the end of sorrows. Tell them that we are
entering upon a new beginning, a new life, a life of love, prosperity, freedom, and peace.
You, sorrowing mother, you, widowed wife, you, the son who lost a brother or a father, all
the victims of wars, fill the air and space with recitals of peace, fill bosoms and hearts with
the aspirations of peace. Make a reality that blossoms and lives. Make hope a code of conduct
and endeavor.
The will of peoples is part of the will of God. Ladies and gentlemen, before I came to this
place, with every beat of my heart and with every sentiment, I prayed to God Almighty.
While performing the prayers at the Al Aksa mosque and while visiting the Holy Sepulcher I
asked the Almighty to give me strength and to confirm my belief that this visit may achieve
the objective I look forward to for a happy present and a happier future.
I have chosen to set aside all precedents and traditions known by warring countries. In spite
of the fact that occupation of Arab territories is still there, the declaration of my readiness to
proceed to Israel came as a great surprise that stirred many feelings and confounded many
minds. Some of them even doubted its intent.
Despite all that, the decision was inspired by all the clarity and purity of belief and with all
the true passions of my people's will and intentions, and I have chosen this road considered
by many to be the most difficult road.
I have chosen to come to you with an open heart and an open mind. I have chosen to give this
great impetus to all international efforts exerted for peace. I have chosen to present to you, in
your own home, the realities, devoid of any scheme or whim. Not to maneuver, or win a
round, but for us to win together the most dangerous of rounds embattled in modern history,
the battle of permanent peace based on justice.
!
$+!
It is not my battle alone. Nor is it the battle of the leadership in Israel alone. It is the battle of
all and every citizen in our territories, whose right it is to live in peace. It is the commitment
of conscience and responsibility in the hearts of millions.
When I put forward this initiative, many asked what is it that I conceived as possible to
achieve during this visit and what my expectations were. And as I answer the questions, I
announce before you that I have not thought of carrying out this initiative from the precepts
of what could be achieved during this visit. And I have come here to deliver a message. I
have delivered the message, and may God be my witness.
I repeat with Zachariah: Love, right, and justice. From the holy Koran I quote the following
verses: We believe in God and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to
Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the thirteen Jewish tribes. And in the books given to
Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord, who made no distinction between them.
So we agree. Salam Aleikum-Peace be upon you .’
!
!
!
%,!
Yitzhak Rabin's Last Words: November 4, 1995
Yitzhak Rabin was the fifth prime minister of Israel and the first native-born prime minister of the
nation. Rabin was a lifelong public servant, serving in such positions as the Israeli Defense Force chief
of staff, ambassador to the United States, a member of the Knesset (Israeli parliament) and two terms
as prime minister.
Rabin had the reputation of being a candid leader, with a brilliant analytical mind. During his
tenure, both the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians and the Treaty of Peace with Jordan were signed.
Rabin was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994, following the signing of the Oslo Accords. The
Accords greatly polarized his image in Israeli society, some seeing him as a hero for advancing the
cause of peace and some seeing him as a traitor for giving away land they saw as rightfully belonging
to Israel.
He was assassinated by Yigal Amir, a right-wing activist who had strenuously opposed Rabin's
signing of the Oslo Accords, while leaving a peace rally on November 4, 1995. At his funeral, which
included four thousand invited dignitaries, Rabin was termed a "martyr for peace," and was eulogized
by world leaders, including Arabs, who promised that efforts to end religious and ethnic bloodshed in
the Middle East would carry on despite the assassination of the Israeli prime minister.
Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan paid tribute to the man who led Israel's forces
in the 1967 Middle East War and then sought a lasting peace with Arabs. "You lived as a soldier, you
died as a soldier for peace," the Jordanian leader said. Mubarak called Rabin a "fallen hero for
peace."[1]
Rabin's last words to those who were devoted to peace are his legacy. 3
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
‘Permit me to say that I am deeply moved. I wish to thank each and every one of you, who
have come here today to take a stand against violence and for peace. This government, which
I am privileged to head, together with my friend Shimon Peres, decided to give peace a
chance -- a peace that will solve most of Israel's problems.
I was a military man for 27 years. I fought so long as there was no chance for peace. I believe
that there is now a chance for peace, a great chance. We must take advantage of it for the sake
of those standing here, and for those who are not here -- and they are many.
I have always believed that the majority of the people want peace and are ready to take risks
for peace. In coming here today, you demonstrate, together with many others who did not
come, that the people truly desire peace and oppose violence. Violence erodes the basis of
Israeli democracy. It must be condemned and isolated. This is not the way of the State of
Israel. In a democracy there can be differences, but the final decision will be taken in
democratic elections, as the 1992 elections which gave us the mandate to do what we are
doing, and to continue on this course.
I want to say that I am proud of the fact that representatives of the countries with whom we
are living in peace are present with us here, and will continue to be here: Egypt, Jordan, and
Morocco, which opened the road to peace for us. I want to thank the President of Egypt, the
King of Jordan, and the King of Morocco, represented here today, for their partnership with
us in our march towards peace.
But, more than anything, in the more than three years of this Government's existence, the
Israeli people has proven that it is possible to make peace, that peace opens the door to a
better economy and society; that peace is not just a prayer. Peace is first of all in our prayers,
but it is also the aspiration of the Jewish people, a genuine aspiration for peace.
There are enemies of peace who are trying to hurt us, in order to torpedo the peace process. I
want to say bluntly, that we have found a partner for peace among the Palestinians as well:
the PLO, which was an enemy, and has ceased to engage in terrorism. Without partners for
peace, there can be no peace. We will demand that they do their part for peace, just as we will
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
$!"Yitzhak Rabin." New World Encyclopedia. 16 Sep 2008, Web. 21 Aug 2011
!
%"!
do our part for peace, in order to solve the most complicated, prolonged, and emotionally
charged aspect of the Israeli-Arab conflict: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
This is a course which is fraught with difficulties and pain. For Israel, there is no path that is
without pain. But the path of peace is preferable to the path of war. I say this to you as one
who was a military man, someone who is today Minister of Defense and sees the pain of the
families of the IDF soldiers. For them, for our children, in my case for our grandchildren, I
want this government to exhaust every opening, every possibility, to promote and achieve a
comprehensive peace. Even with Syria, is will be possible to make peace.
This rally must send a message to the Israeli people, to the Jewish people around the world, to
the many people in the Arab world, and indeed to the entire world, that the Israeli people
want peace, support peace. For this, I thank you.’
!
%#!
VI. Supplemental Materials
!
%$!
Questions to Further Understanding
Part I. Building Nations: Speeches that Reflect and Inspire
1. Both Mandela and Nehru delivered their respective speeches at the start of
momentous transition and change for their countries. What similarities can you find
between the two speeches? In particular, consider diction, tone, style, and structure.
2. What differences are there between the two speeches? What accounts for these
differences? In other words, are the different due to a difference in diction, tone,
style, structure, purpose of audience?
3. What do you think is the ultimate purpose behind each speech?
4. Which do you personally find more compelling and why?
Part II. The Complexity of War: Speaking to Your Audience
1. Each of these speeches is vastly different from each other in terms of purpose.
However, each speech is clearly tailored to its audience. Indicate what techniques
the writers use to do so and how effective they seem to be.
2. Discuss what the apparent purpose of each speech is in regards to the theme of war.
3. Given their clear differences, can you find any commonalities between the speeches?
What are they and why might they exist?
Part III. Women’s Rights: Speaking with Passion and Power
1. These speeches are written by three very different women about a similar topic.
What commonalities can you find relating to style, structure, diction, or tone?
2. What importance does audience play in each of these speeches?
3. What is the apparent purpose of each speech? How do you know this?
4. Which speech do you like the most and why?
Part IV. The American Dream: Speeches to Unite and Ignite
1. Obama’s rhetorical style has often been compared to King’s. From reading these
two speeches, why do you think that is? Give specific examples to support your
response.
2. What is the apparent purpose of each speech? How do you know this?
3. What rhetorical devices do both use to capture their audience’s attention?
4. Having listened to both speeches, how do their speaking styles impact the meaning
and/or impact of these two speeches?
5. Which speech do you like the most and why?
Part V. A Difficult Peace: Speaking to Build Bridges
1. The Arab-Israeli conflict is one of the most complex and difficult conflicts of our
time. How does each speaker grapple with the complexity and difficulty of their
topic?
2. To what extent is their language similar and different to each other? Why is this the
case? (Think in terms of audience and context).
3. What is the apparent purpose of each speech? How do you know this?
!
!
%%!
Differences Between Oral and Written Communication
Most of us intuitively understand that there are differences between oral and written
language. All communication includes the transfer of information from one person to
another, and while the transfer of information is only the first step in the process of
understanding a complex phenomenon, it is an important first step. Writing is a fairly static
form of transfer. Speaking is a dynamic transfer of information. To be an effective speaker,
you must exploit the dynamism of oral communication, but also learn to work within its
limitations. While there is a higher level of immediacy and a lower level of retention in the
spoken word, a speaker has more ability to engage the audience psychologically and to use
complex forms of non-verbal communication
The written language can be significantly more precise. Written words can be chosen with
greater deliberation and thought, and a written argument can be extraordinarily sophisticated,
intricate, and lengthy. These attributes of writing are possible because the pace of
involvement is controlled by both the writer and the reader. The writer can write and rewrite
at great length, a span of time which in some cases can be measured in years. Similarly, the
reader can read quickly or slowly or even stop to think about what he or she has just read.
More importantly, the reader always has the option of re-reading; even if that option is not
exercised, its mere possibility has an effect upon a reader's understanding of a text. The
written word appeals more to a contemplative, deliberative style.
Speeches can also be precise and indeed they ought to be. But precision in oral
communication comes only with a great deal of preparation and compression. Once spoken,
words cannot be retracted, although one can apologize for a mistake and improvise a
clarification or qualification. One can read from a written text and achieve the same degree
of verbal precision as written communication. But word-for-word reading from a text is not
speech-making, and in most circumstances audiences find speech-reading boring and retain
very little of the information transmitted.
On the other hand, oral communication can be significantly more effective in expressing
meaning to an audience. This distinction between precision and effectiveness is due to the
extensive repertoire of signals available to the speaker: gestures, intonation, inflection,
volume, pitch, pauses, movement, visual cues such as appearance, and a whole host of other
ways to communicate meaning. A speaker has significantly more control over what the
listener will hear than the writer has over what the reader will read. For these techniques to
be effective, however, the speaker needs to make sure that he or she has the audience's
attention--audiences do not have the luxury of re-reading the words spoken. The speaker,
therefore, must become a reader of the audience.
Reading an audience is a systematic and cumulative endeavor unavailable to the writer. As
one speaks, the audience provides its own visual cues about whether it is finding the argument
coherent, comprehensible, or interesting. Speakers should avoid focusing on single
individuals within an audience. There are always some who scrunch up their faces when they
disagree with a point; others will stare out the window; a few rude (but tired) persons will fall
asleep. These persons do not necessarily represent the views of the audience; much depends
upon how many in the audience manifest these signals. By and large, one should take the
head-nodders and the note-takers as signs that the audience is following one's argument. If
these people seem to outnumber the people not paying attention, then the speech is being
well-received. The single most important bit of evidence about the audience's attention,
however, is eye contact. If members of the audience will look back at you when you are
speaking, then you have their attention. If they look away, then your contact with the
audience is probably fading.
Speeches probably cannot be sophisticated and intricate. Few audiences have the listening
ability or background to work through a difficult or complex argument, and speakers should
not expect them to be able to do so. Many speakers fail to appreciate the difficulties of good
listening, and most speakers worry about leaving out some important part of the argument.
!
%&!
One must be acutely aware of the tradeoff between comprehensiveness and comprehension.
Trying to put too much into a speech is probably the single most frequent error made by
speakers.
This desire to "say everything" stems from the distinctive limitations of speeches: after a
speech, one cannot go back and correct errors or omissions, and such mistakes could
potentially cripple the persuasiveness of a speech. A speaker cannot allow himself or herself
to fall into this mentality. At the outset, a speaker must define an argument sharply and
narrowly and must focus on only that argument. There are certainly implications of an
argument that are important but cannot be developed within the speech. These aspects should
be clearly acknowledged by the speaker, but deferred to a question-and-answer period, a
future speech, or a reference to a work that the audience can follow-up on its own. Speakers
must exercise tight and disciplined control over content.
As a rule of thumb, the audience will remember about one-half of what was said in a twentyminute talk. After twenty-minutes, recall drops off precipitously. Oral arguments should
therefore be parsed down as much as possible. There are very few circumstances in which an
audience will recall a great deal of the information in a speech longer than twenty minutes.
Most evidence suggests that audience recall declines precipitously after 16 and one-helf
minutes.
Oral communication uses words with fewer syllables than the written language, the sentences
are shorter, and self-referencing pronouns such as I are common. Oral communication also
allows incomplete sentences if delivered properly, and many sentences will begin with "and,"
"but," and "except."
The upshot of these differences is that one should not think about speeches as oral
presentations of a written text. Speeches are genuinely different from written prose, and one
should not use the logic of writing as a basis for writing a speech.
Vincent Ferraro and Kathryn C. Palmer
Mount Holyoke College
South Hadley, MA 01075
Speaking and Arguing: The Rhetoric of Peace and War
!
%'!