President Obama's Speech in Oslo
If you haven't read or listened to this, it is a must. Look at the language and think of his purpose. Remember the audience, occasion and context! Each of you should provide a brief response on the language used. There are 4000 words approx. so pick a line or 2 and be brilliant. Don't duplicate though! Post by the Xmas Anon finale.
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 8:13 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
"But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks"
This is excellent rhetoric by Pres. Obama. He first addresses one of the reasons why his winning the Nobel PEACE Prize is controversial. Than he undercuts the critics by pointing out 42 other countries have the same problem; this makes his involvement less aggrevating. He even singles out Norway as one of those 42 other countries, thus specifically addressing the live audience. All in all a great example of a rebuttal.
"We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity. "
ethos: our children and grandchildren deserve to live in freedom and prosperity
pathos: we're fighting for our children and grandchildren; so that they may have a better future.
logos: if we fight now our children and grandchildren will have a better future and we want them to have a better future therefore we must fight.
his compelling diction choices of words like "impose","enlightened", "freedom" and "prosperity" all add to his pathos convincing the world that the US is acting justly
"I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace."
Towards the beginning of this phrase he uses ethos and some pathos to stir up the masses- he refrences the soldiers that have fought before us- since they are generally seen as heroes, they are fairly credible and respected. This same heroism brings pathos- we remember people we've known who have died or been injured, which illicits an emotional response and we think, " I need to do this for them, if nothing else; to defend what they died/fought for." Ethos and pathos help him to assure people that we are doing the right thing because people before did it for us. Which brings me to my next piece....
The idea of a "just war" is repeated throughout this speech- I think maybe this idea is what people are talking about when we say the "Obama Doctrine." He uses repetition to achieve his purpose of instilling this idea into people. (This idea being the notion that some wars are justified.) This is what he'll be remembered for, I predict.
"In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War." Another wonderful example of a rebuttal. Obama uses the fact that even though the world has advanced weapons capable of destroying the world, we didn't use them. The world remains committed to peace. Obama says that he will continue this legacy of peace with his Nobel Prize.
“We are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.” I like knowing that the leader of my country knows that we are able to choose our own path, it is not pre-destined to us. I also find it admirable how he states that some of the decisions he has to make are very difficult, but are necessary given the circumstances (such as the military, even though peace is the ultimate goal) and we are supported by 42 other countries including Norway as Obama points out to make it more personal.
"So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be? "
Obama is really heavy on the logos here, discussing the reasoning behind one of the biggest dilemmas America has ever faced. He proceeds in a very logic-oriented fashion, first defining the problem, then going to a solution that has worked in the past, then applying it to modern times. While it takes him a while to get to the answers to those questions, it doesn't seem to detract from the overall pretty clear cut organization of this speech - nothing fancy, just straight thought process.
PS - can you find the typo in the above quote? It's also on the NYT page.
"And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale."
By acknowledging these scary truths, Obama is proving he is not ignorant of these obvious threats, but will try to his best ability to meet the challenges. He goes on to reassure the public of this in the following paragraphs. By showing the audience that he is well aware of the challenges we face and is ready to take them on, he is earning the respect of the people.
"As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines."
In these lines Obama addresses a rebuttal. In real life Obama is fighting a war many people do not agree with. Pointing out their perspective and then refuting it makes his purpose, to justify his actions & receiving the peace prize,even stronger.
Mark: "inreconcilable?" That's not just a typo; he actually used that term in his speech.
I'll take the obvious one- "And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage."
Obama himself acknowledges that he hasn't really done much (yet?) to be worthy of this prize. He places this at the beginning of the speech because it's the only logical place to put it- it allows him to get this uncomfortable idea out of the way so that he can get on with his main ideas on peace, while establishing that he is humble and aware of the circumstances in which he was chosen.
"For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us."
President Obama uses very strong language here when talking about not sparing the "pregnant mother, medic, or red cross worker". He also brings up a very resonable logical arguement when he points out the fact that all major religions have the basis "that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us". This points out the flawed rationalization of the insurgent's actions in the middle East.
"The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred."
President Obama uses emotional and eloquent diction in this section of his speech. He uses pathos to appeal to the emotion of the audience. He uses strong words to describe the negative effects that today's war on terrorism has done to different countries around the world. He uses very emotional words such as "children scarred" "more civilians are killed than soldiers" to show the different effects that today's wars and conflics have caused all throughout the world.
Ramon Banzon
So I was reading along the speech, and found it mostly to be Obama explaining his foreign policy. This line particularly stuck out (it barely missed my head):
"I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war.
Hmm... what? This seems to be a terrible choice of words. I think what this is saying, in a rather indirect way, as that we will join fights but not start them. Unfortunately, by saying "places scarred by war" it makes it sound as if we only go into places that are ruined by war... as if we are so sloppy that we try to avoid any somewhat organized civilizations.
"In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies."
"Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe."
Obama is definitely trying to appeal to the opposite party here, and is pretty successful at it. The latter quote is also a pretty solid example of what he wants to continue to do. I suppose that helps justify the award some.
It feels like this speech does way too much justification. Unfortunately, it's necessary... couldn't the Nobel committee have held on a bit longer?
- Thomas D
I like how no one else is commenting on this...
Thank you for the 12 comments. I appreciated the variety of techniques you chose to describe and for also doing a very fine job of explaining the purpose and effect of the use of those particular techniques. You have cultivated a skill that will serve you well in the future both in your own use and in analyzing other's use.
Mr. Thompson
Post a Comment
<< Home