Some speeches have been so moving and powerful that they have withstood the test of time. Speeches such as Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech “I Have a Dream” and Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I a Woman”. These speeches touché the heart of American at the time they were given and continue to this day to strike a chord. These two speeches both have some factors in common and many that are not similar. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” has addressing the repressive and hatefully discriminatory view towards African Americans at the time. While Sojourner Truth was speaking out for women’s rights, both African American women and for white women, in her speech “Ain’t I a Woman”. Both speeches though had similar uses of repetition.
In Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech several words and phrases are repeated over and over. In the beginning of the speech the first phrase repeated is “one hundred years later”. This is repeated over and over, emphasizing that African American’s are still not free. That one hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation, African Americans are still denied the freedom promised to them. Then using this literary tool of anaphora, King repeats the words “We must”, “we can never/cannot be satisfied”, and “go back to” Then the famous words “I have a dream” are repeated over and over again in the ending of his speech, sharing his hope that American will allow for all its citizens the freedom promised in the Declaration of Independence. Then the last words repeated are “with this faith” and “let freedom ring”.
In Sojourner Truth’s speech she addresses the subject of women’s rights and refutes the awful claims of the male speakers from throughout the day. Throughout her speech, Truth repeats the phrase “and ain’t I a woman”. She brings up every claim argued by the male speakers about the treatment of women and disproves it. One speaker believes that women need to be helped into carriages and over ditches, yet Sojourner Truth had never been helped into any carriage or mud puddle, and she asks is she not a woman? She refutes all the claims brought up by the male speakers and shows the true power and potential of being a woman.
Both of the two speeches use the power of repetition to emphasize and increase the rhetorical effect. With the repeating of certain words and phrases throughout both speeches the listeners latch on to these words and they become more and more powerful. This use of anaphora increases the rhetorical effect had upon the listeners and draws them into the speech.
I think that both would respond well towards each other’s oratory style. I think that Martin Luther King Jr. would have been a supporter of women’s rights and would have been clapping in the front row for Truth at that women right’s convention. And I am sure that Sojorner Truth would have been standing on the steps of Lincoln’s Memorial during Martin Luther King Jr.’s powerful speech.
I find it interesting to think about Martin Luther supporting Sojourner Truth and the other way around. I had never considered that aspect of the speeches. I absolutely agree with you and feel that would most defiantly appreciate the other.
ReplyDeleteThe other benefit repetition provides is that it increases the likely hood of sinking in. let’s face it, when we hear a long speech, we need to take notes to remember many of the main points, no matter how engaging the speech. I suppose that’ s just the way we’re geared and I doubt if the spectators at either speech whipped out their pencil and paper and started jotting down the main points of the lecture.
Repletion of key phrases not only added emphasis to the crucial ideas, but allowed members of the audience to walk away with a concrete memory of the occasion besides how well the speaker presented themselves.
Also, I think the biggest difference in speeches was the time line. Ms. Truth seemed to be more after a quick and immediate response and change. Martin Luther on the other hand, had a realistic view that it would take time change that current state. It’s not a matter of changing laws or telling people to be nice. The real issue was healing the thought processes of their oppressors and softening the hearts of the slave holders. Hearts full of hatred don’t change quickly.
I agree with your post, the points you make about the speeches ability to actually keep the message in the audience's minds is remarkably simple. If anyone has taken Comm 101 or any other public speaking class they learn the fundamentals to any good speech. The hook, the attention graber, the difference between a memorable speech or something that one guy or gal said. In both speeches they advocate for a change in the status quo but like Rebecca said one gives a realistic timeline in which to make these changes a reality.
ReplyDeleteOur way of doing things is a difficult thing to change, we are all of us creatures of habit. This is one of our greatest weaknesses yet also one of our strengths. I work for a security company and change is rigorously frowned upon. I can see why anyone would want to change the status quo to that of a better one but is the grass really greener on the other side? I mean in the case of Women's and African American's rights it most certainly was a change for the better but in all aspects of life would it be?
I think that you are right they would have supported each other in their causes but for example if we were talking about medicare or another controversial issue like teen pregnancy or abortion would they be agreeing? I am sure many of us feel that in the case of these speeches we should take that call to action and make a change but what about the issues of today? What are we waiting for?