An analysis of oratory

Essay by flames1823High School, 12th gradeA-, October 2008

download word file, 4 pages 1.0

Downloaded 325 times

All the orators I studied are very patriotic, whether they are attacking another race or country, or defending their own race and country. I think the orators do this to boost their people’s morale, because when you believe in yourself you are more likely to achieve what you want to achieve.

All of the orators I studied use negative image projection to talk about their country and the country they are in war against. Saddam Hussein used the most followed by Hitler. Saddam Hussein uses lots of 2nd person pronouns ordering his people to act on the situation at hand. “We have come to expect you and your people and the Arab nation are calling upon you”. He also uses inclusive pronouns, to show that he is with the audience in fighting the Americans. “God foiled the aggression and the aggressors and, thanks be to God, we only suffered light losses in the failed attack”.

Osama on the other hand used lots of 2nd person pronouns in his speech, as he was mostly talking about the Americans throughout his speech so he used the 2nd person pronouns to distance himself from the Americans. “Some have the impression that you are a reasonable people. But the majority of you are vulgar and without sound ethics or good manners.” Throughout his speech he used one inclusive pronoun, “These schemes are paid four in our blood and land, and your blood and economy”. All of the orators I studied used inclusive pronouns when talking about themselves and their country, and used 2nd person pronouns when talking about the country they in which they are in war against. The orators use inclusive pronouns when talking about their country, because the statements the say have more impact, as its not just that particular person that agrees on that matter, but their whole country. The orators use 2nd person pronouns when talking about the country they are going to war with because the 2nd person pronouns distance them from that country, and show that they have different beliefs and don’t agree on the subject at hand.

When Saddam Hussein was faced with the prospect of America attacking his country, he resorted to insulting the Americans, and complimenting his own country so that there self esteem was lifted. He referred to the Americans as cowardly aggressors, having weak and empty souls, and being the winds of evil and the hiss of vipers. He referred to his own country and people as ‘brave Iraqi armed forces’, ‘glorious Arab nation’ and the ‘great steadfastness of the noble Iraqi people’. Osama on the other hand, when approached with the same situation of the Americans invading his country, he tries to point out the evilness of the Americans, so that he can gain sympathy and hopefully protection from other countries. “This gang and their leader enjoy lying war and looting to serve their own ambitions. The blood of the children of Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq is still dripping from their teeth”. He uses the word ‘children’ when talking about his country (Afghanistan), because children are associated with innocence, and he wants us to think that his country as innocent. He uses the word ‘teeth’ when talking about the Americans to try make the Americans into an evil monster, and that is the mental image which we get when we read the sentence.

Hitler when trying to exterminate the Jews refers to them as diseases and viruses. ‘Don’t be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don’t think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside; this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst’. He is making the Jews be perceived as sub-human, as it is easier to kill sub-human things. He gets the Germans to hate the Jews, as it is much easier to kill or allow to be killed when you hate. Hitler is at least honest about his goal with the Jews. Hitler is at least honest about his goal with the Jews. George Bush on the other hand says that he is sending his troops into Iraq to apparently to ‘protect’ the Iraqis. Here is something I found in an article about the Americans invading Iraq “The American forces have messed up greatly where many have been found guilty of rape and murder (in cold blood) and let’s not forget that these are only the issues we actually hear about... God knows what else is happening”. Rape and murder doesn’t sound like protection to me does it to you? When faced with a similar situation as Hitler, Bush decides to hide his motives. In doing this he didn’t get public criticism and he was allowed to send his troops into Iraq. If bush had said that he wanted to go into Iraq to rape and kill he wouldn’t have got any public support. But by saying that he is going to protect the Iraqis people think he is a good person, when he is not.

Bibliographywww.americanrhetoric.com