Jess Mannion
March 5, 2008
Speech #2
I. INTRODUCTION:
A. ATTENTION GETTER: History is dead!
i. This is a very bold statement to make isn’t it?
ii. Let’s think about it, history was in the PAST, right? Why should we care about what happened back then, it’s over.
1. For instance, FDR was old, is dead, and I highly doubt any one of us knew him personally.
2. Why should we care about what he had to say concerning an issue that really has no effect on us, or does it?
B. CREDIBILITY: Recall, in my last speech I analyzed the basics of FDR’s address to Congress concerning the attack on Pearl Harbor.
i. I addressed who he was talking to, the constraining aspects on his speech, and why it was given in the first place.
ii. Since then I have conducted more extensive research on both FDR and his “infamous” speech.
C. THESIS: Using rhetorical techniques such as, ethos and synecdoche FDR crafts his Day of Infamy speech to allow audience to feel comforted while perceiving the attack on Pearl Harbor as a surprise.
i.
- The message purveyed is far from dead and can be used as a tool to avoid history repeating itself today.
D. PREVIEW: FDR is admired in the utmost respect and is often commended on his presence and impact as a speaker.
i. However, it is the tragedy surrounding the speech that allows it to evade scrutiny.
1. Nevertheless, some aspects should be questioned. As Rousseau once said, “As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State "What does it matter to me?" the State may be given up for lost.” (Rousseau)
ii. I will now embark upon a dissection of the speech.
iii. I will reveal various rhetorical techniques and address areas often criticized.
1. Areas of the speech used by FDR to veil his advanced knowledge of the attack from the people being addressed.
iv. In addition I will reveal the importance of this speech in modern times and the impact it has on us today.
(TRANSITION): At this time I will now let you listen to an excerpt from the speech, be sure to pay attention to the tone of voice that FDR exercises.
II. BODY:
A. ****POINTI
i. From the get go FDR’s voice is strong and eminent.
ii. According to our Zarefsky text, “vocal cues are among the audience’s earliest evidence in judging a speaker’s ethos.” (Zarefsky)
iii. Although his voice is commanding, it is not overwhelming.
1. Previous to this speech FDR conducted “fireside chats” to address the nation over radio broadcast.
2.
According to Bannon these “chats” “add an element of intimacy to his relationship with the people” (Bannon) iv. It was this intimate relationship that connected with the audience to reassure them that they would be ok in the end.
v. Critics would say this ethos could have served dual purpose, creating a false sense of innocence of the attack.
vi. By use of ethos, Roosevelt reassures his people that this was a “deliberate” surprise attack, but was it really?
(TRANSITION): Let’s listen to some more of his speech this time, pay special attention to the employment of synecdoche.
B. ****POINT II
i. In this excerpt Roosevelt states, “The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.”
1. Roosevelt has characterized “the whole for the part” a characteristic Merriam Webster classifies as synecdoche. (Merriam Webster)
ii. Roosevelt makes the assumption that everyone in the United States has taken on the same opinion concerning the matter.
1. This not a lot of time to consider what really happened.
iii. By saying “The facts of yesterday speak for themselves.” Roosevelt applies personification to imply that the attack was as he says, “deliberately planned” and “deliberately sought to deceive. “
1. Making note that he also described current diplomatic negotiations with Japan as, “contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.”
iv. If there was no known threat or hint of attack than why would the following have occurred?
1. According to Daryl S. Borgquist, a U.S. Naval Reserve Public Affairs Officer and a Media Affairs Officer for the Community Relations Service Headquarters at the U.S. Department of Justice: “President Franklin D. Roosevelt requested the national office of the American Red Cross to send medical supplies secretly to Pearl Harbor in advance of the 7 December 1941 Japanese attack.” (Ahmed)
2. So whether or not Roosevelt knew of the attack in advance is questionable.
v. Continuously repeating the words such as attacked, deliberately, premeditated, unprovoked, and surprise Roosevelt easily persuades his people of intimate connection that THEIR nation was a sitting duck in an open pond.
(TRANSITION) Now let’s go back to this whole history issue. Why should we care about whether or not Roosevelt knew of the Pearl Harbor attack in advance or not? We weren’t alive then and the threat of that particular pending war is over.
C. ****POINT III
i. Roosevelt coined Dec. 7th, 1941 as, “a date which will live in infamy”
1. Infamy isn’t something that should be repeated, thus Roosevelt labeled the term as a hope for no other occurrence of this kind in the future.
ii. History can and will repeat itself. We may not be threatened by the possibility of Japan attacking us again, but there are other possible threats on the horizon.
iii. A New York Times article quotes, “It is true that those who do not study historyare doomed to repeat its mistakes.”(NY Times)
1. Take for instance the events of Sept. 11th:
a. Chief of staff for the Long Island Air Force Association said, “Sept. 11, 2001, attack at the World Trade Center was almost a repeat of Pearl Harbor”(Bain)
b. President George Bush even gave a similar address to the nation reguarding the surprise attack and was also criticized for possibly knowing about the attacks in advance.
iv. Roosevelt’s speech thus serves as a warning.
1. Learning from the mistakes made in the past is a vital part of living in the future.
(TRANSITION) I leave you to make your own decisions and remind you not to be afraid to question or forget about history.
III. CONCLUSION:
Whether or not Franklin Roosevelt knew about attack on Pearl Harbor in advance is a mystery; however his uses of rhetorical techniques to pervade his message are not. Roosevelt performed one of the most recognized speeches in history that should not be forgotten.
BIBILIOGRAPHY**:
Bain, Brandon. "PEARL HARBOR ANNIVERSARY;." NewsDay 7 Dec. 2007, sec. A: 16. LexisNexis Academic. Penn State, State College. 1 Mar. 2008.
"Bush's Vision, and the Reality." The New York Times 15 Sept. 2006, sec. A: 24. LexisNexis Academic. Penn State. 29 Feb. 2008.
Day of Infamy Speech. 2007. YouTube. 26 Feb. 2008
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques; Philosopher: 1712-1778
"Synecdoche." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed. 2005.
“The President’s Message.” The New York Times 9 Dec. 1941: pg. 1. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. The New York Times (1851-204)
Zarefsky, David. Public Speaking Strategies for Success. Boston: Pearson Custom, 2005. 303.
Comments:
Whitney Trompeter: You had a good attention getter. You started off with a really confident tone and it was really good, but try to keep that throughout your speech. Instead of saying synecdoche (or however it's spelled), you could have just said like writing devices or explained it, because it seemed like it was hard for you to say. You did a great job connecting hte beginning and the end of your speech with "history is not dead". It was a really good, interesting speech! Good job.
Carolyn Graham: The beginning of your speech was very solid and had a great attention getter. You had a nice volume and good voice inflection throughout your speech. My only criticism is that your speech didn't really seem to flow but I think its just because you were nervous and hesitating in between words/ sentences. Your visual aid was a really nice way for you to give us examples of what you were talking about. A little more eye contact might be good, but overall nice job! Again, especially the intro!
Maria Martin: I loved your intro- it really caught my attention. You also had great volume throughout your speech, and really seemed to know what you were talking about. I think it was really good how you correlated vocab terms as you dissected his speech; that really tied things we learned from class into your speech. One think I noticed is you were playing with your hair a little bit, and it was just a little bit distracting but not much, overall though, great speech!
Enrique: You had a terrific opening tone, and your attention getter was related to history! Your tone was very relaxed and the words were definitely appropriate for the audience level. I think that your hand gestures were used efficiently, and that the points were important. I know there was a word you could not pronounce, but it did not affect the quality of the speech! Just remember not to overdo the quotation mark signal too much next time! Great Job!
Scot Brown: Delivery was somewhat choppy, and eye contact could use work. And practice pronunciation of a work like synecdoche if its one you plan to use a lot.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.