Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Uses of rhetoric
The use of rhetoric in everyday life
The use of rhetoric in everyday life
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The most important thing in a speech is the message. An unfading idea is what makes the difference between a good speech and one that is significant. A speech centred on a broad and powerful message is one that is able to endure through the test of time and still resonate with its audience; and is a speech truly worth regarding as significant and valuable. This is why Paul Keating's 'Redfern Speech' given in 1992 , and the speech "It is Still Winter at Home" by William Deane given in 1999 are both considered as significant speeches even after all this time. The speakers draw on themes of humanity, loss and the Australian Identity that stretch beyond their own context, and are able to emphasise their message through rhetorical devices that …show more content…
The 'Redfern Speech' was delivered in 1992, at the peak of social tension between the Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. The Mabo case questioned the issue of landownership, and the discrimination against Indigenous Australians was still ignored by the wider society. Keating used inclusive language such as "the land we live in","our country" and the use of the idiom of "the land of the fair go" in order to unite his audience audience and evoke patriotism in the shared identity as Australians - a point all of his audience can still connect to today. Keating also drew on the common idea of humanity through the prompting of empathy as he asked the rhetorical question "how would I feel if this were done to me?" when mentioning injustices commited against the Aboriginals. Keating was able to speak beyond that day in 1992 at Redfern Park, drawing on national identity and humanity to connect to his audience regardless of the change in context.Deane also needed to unite his audience, but had to look beyond Australia to keep the positive relation between Australia and Switzerland. The Governor General delivered his speech at a memorial service for the greatest loss of young Australians overseas at the time; and was to represent …show more content…
Keating's blunt and logical speech eliminates any scepticism from his audience, and strengthens textual integrity of his timeless message through repetition, emphasis and truncated sentencing. Keating repeats several truncated lines throughout his speech, first series of repeated lines are honest in diction, vivid in violent imagery and straight forward: "We took the traditional lands...", "we brought the dieseases...", "We commited the murders," and so on. This rhythmic emphasis is one that is able to force the audience to see that his message needs no embellishment. It is just honesty and acknowledgment of the past injustices. The next series he repeats "Imagine our selves dispossessed of land...", "Imagine if ours was the oldest culture in the world..." and so on. Both the first series that tugs on logos and the second series that propts pathos are example of how any audience can be persuaded by Keating's powerful use of rhetoric.In contrast, Deane connects with his immediate and wider audience in a way that respectfully and rightfully mournes the tragic losses - though his use of symbolism, euphemism and emotive language. His exhordium appropriately recognises the losses as "profound tragedy" that everyone feels a "great sadness" towards. Although seemingly a hyperbole to the contemporary audience, Deane conveys
Eddie Mabo was a recognised Indigenous Australian who fought for his land, Murray Island. Mabo spent a decade seeking official recognition of his people’s ownership of Murray Island (Kwirk, 2012). He became more of an activist, he campaigned for better access for indigenous peoples to legal and medical services, to house, to social services and to education. The Mabo case was a milestone court case which paved the way for fair land rights for indigenous people. The Merriam people wanted to ensure its protection. Eddie Mabo significantly contributed to the civil and land rights of Indigenous people in Australia due to his argument to protect his land rights. In a speech in 1976, at a conference on the redrawing of the Torres Strait border, Mabo articulated a vision for islander self-determination and for an independent Torres Strait Island (Stephson, 2009).
The speech I chose was Cal Ripken Jr.’s it was given at the Orioles home ball park, Camden Yards at his last home game before retiring. It is a special occasion speech and was given in front of over 48,000 fans. He used a tried and true opening sentence that although a little altered had a very familiar ring. He opened with “As a kid, I had this dream” a very loose but familiar take on MLK’s “I have a dream”. This was a great attention getter and probably had people on their feet immediately. This audience was already motivate to hear his speech so that was not an issue. Most of the fans were there for the purpose of hearing his retirement speech. He did not preview his points in the introduction he addressed those in the body of his speech one at a time. He did not try to establish credibility as he was speaking about himself so who knows more about him than himself.
The 2014 Walkley Award winning documentary, "Cronulla Riots: the day that shocked the nation" reveals to us a whole new side of Aussie culture. No more she’ll be right, no more fair go and sadly no more fair dinkum. The doco proved to all of us (or is it just me?) that the Australian identity isn’t really what we believe it to be. After viewing this documentary
The first is Paul Keating’s Redfern speech of December 1992, during the Mabo case. Keating spoke about the injustices committed against Indigenous people since European settlement of Australia and the need to acknowledge and remedy these. The conflicting source is an interview of John Howard on the 7.30 report in 1997, 4 years after the Mabo decision. Howard deals with the perceived implications of the Mabo and subsequent land title decisions for land ownership across Australia. The two sources conflict as they are taken from opposing parts of the mainstream Australian political spectrum. They reflect the so-called History Wars, a debate regarding the unresolved cultural struggle over the nature of the Indigenous dispossession and the place it should assume in Australian self-understanding. The Redfern Speech sets out the views of the left wing, progressive spectrum of Australian political views. John Howard’s interview sets out the arguments against the political and economic effects of the Mabo decision and subsequent land title decisions and largely reflects right-wing political views. The sources differ not only in their political views but also the time that they were given. Keating sets out his moral perspective regarding the need to rectify the past wrongs and improve the future prospects for Australian indigenous people. It was delivered before the final Mabo high court decision, and so cannot deal with the social, economic and political implications of said decision. Contrastingly, John Howards interview was 4 years after the Mabo decision, during which several subsequent land title decisions had been made. Consequently, his interview focused on his views of the implications of those subsequent events for Australia’s political, social and economic
The National Apology of 2008 is the latest addition to the key aspects of Australia’s reconciliation towards the Indigenous owners of our land. A part of this movement towards reconciliation is the recognition of Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders rights to their land. Upon arrival in Australia, Australia was deemed by the British as terra nullius, land belonging to no one. This subsequently meant that Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were never recognised as the traditional owners. Eddie Mabo has made a highly significant contribution to the rights and freedoms of Indigenous Australians as he was the forefather of a long-lasting court case in 1982 fighting for the land rights of the Torres Strait Islanders. Eddie Mabo’s introduction of the Native Title Act has provided Indigenous Australians with the opportunity to state claim to their land, legally recognising the Indigenous and the Torres Strait Islanders as the traditional owners.
A single word, a single phrase can change someone’s life forever. A speech given with meaning can change a country’s path. In 1974, President Nixon resigned from his presidency from a speech given from the White House, presumably in his office. He declared that his Vice President Gerald Ford take office in his place. Ford then decided to pardon Nixon of all charges placed against him because of the Watergate scandal. They express and get their points across in two different ways, by sharing confident, personal views or through emotion.
Russell, titled ‘End Australia Day’, which simply advocates that it’s ‘time to let it [Australia Day] go’. Contrasting with Roberts-Smith, who was calm and collected, Russell is abrupt and almost pleading at times. The day has ‘outlived its usefulness’ and it’s adamant to Russell that it is time for a change. Noting suitable day changes, such as ‘July 9’, is high on his to-do list. However, he also believes the Constitution is ‘outdated’ and that to be fair to all in Australia it would be wise to ‘scrap it and start again’. His factual statements on the past allow the reader to acknowledge that their ancestors did play a part in the oppression of the Indigenous, but the recommendation of changing the Constitution entirely could be viewed as ludicrous. As trying to cater for everyone in the “new Constitution” could still mean that groups are left out, and the cost of this idea could turn heads in the opposite
A political debate derived from 1990’s that held the British colonists culpable for the beginning of the ‘history wars’ that many protagonists became involved in. ‘History wars’ is divided into two views, one being a conservative view that considered the European settlement to be an achievement of taming hostile land. The progressive view on the other hand, perceives the history to be a reminder of the invasion of their land, frontier violence and dispossession of Indigenous owners. John Howard who represented the liberal party was one of the main protagonists within this controversy, representing the conservative view. Paul Keating, the labor party representative became a legacy, a Keating legacy that began reconciliation evolving in practical and symbolic ways (Ke...
Indigenous Australian land rights have sparked controversy between Non Indigenous and Indigenous Australians throughout history. The struggle to determine who the rightful owners of the land are is still largely controversial throughout Australia today. Indigenous Australian land rights however, go deeper than simply owning the land as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have established an innate spiritual connection making them one with the land. The emphasis of this essay is to determine how Indigenous Australian land rights have impacted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, highlighting land rights regarding the Mabo v. the State of Queensland case and the importance behind today’s teachers understanding and including Indigenous
“Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human History. We reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations—this blemished chapter in our nation’s history. The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians” (apology by Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, 16th November 2009, Parliament House, Canberra.)
It is clear that many steps were taken to achieve the same rights and freedoms as the rest of Australia for the Aborigines especially since 1945. Major steps forward and setbacks included the Day of Mourning, the Aboriginal Protection Act, the Child Welfare Act, the ‘Freedom Ride’, the 1962 Electoral Act and the 1967 Referendum, the tent ‘Aboriginal Embassy’, the protest at Wave Hill, Frank Hardy’s project to find the ‘real Australia’, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam giving back 300 000 square kilometers of land, the Mabo decision in 1982, the Native Title Act, John Howard’s plan in 1996, and Kevin Rudd’s apology speech. Overall, there has been a long struggle for reconciliation. Indigenous Australians now have the same rights as other Australians, but social and economic equality are still to be improved.
Since European invasion in 1788, Indigenous Australians have struggled to maintain their rights and freedoms and to have governments recognise them. Over time, state and Commonwealth governments have implemented policies that have discriminated against Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, denying them equality, opportunity and control of their own lives and those of their children (Jacaranda, 2012). Indigenous Australians have been politically active in demanding their rights. Charles Perkins was an Aboriginal Activist who fought in the struggle for recognition, justice and legal acknowledgments for Indigenous people. To a large extent Charles Perkins has impacted the civil rights of Indigenous Australians; significantly advancing human rights and paving the way for reconciliation.
Throughout the text Keating connects with people on a personal level through his word choice and tone. This connection with his audience allows him to further develop belonging, and evoke a greater emotional response in his audience. This word choice and tone can be seen in the lines, “We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the diseases. The alcohol. We committed the murders. We practiced discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice.”
Sheppard, while in the role of the Prime Minster, states about the lollies. This is a significant moment in the show, strongly communicates the dramatic meaning. As the speech continues, he mentions about aboriginality and brings up the concept of the stolen generation. He talks about the land that was taken from aboriginals and the unification between Australians and the indigenous
The title ‘Anthem of Doomed Youth’, is juxtaposed to its real meaning of anthem being something to celebrate and be proud of. The assonance between the ‘Doomed’ and collective noun ‘Youth’ can come as a shock to society as topic of death and youth do not go together. In other words, the soldiers are too young and are already fated to death by enlisting in the war. This highlights how war is cruel as the soldiers are stolen of their youth, entering a battlefield designed to ‘sapt the soldier 's spirit.’ Furthermore, Owen shows that the fallen soldiers themselves will not get a proper burial of “candles,” “pall,” nor “flowers.” Instead, these are substituted with negative imagery “The pallor of girls’ brows” and personification “patient minds” to demonstrate that the thoughts of the ones waiting for the fallen soldiers back home are the closest thing they will have to a funeral. This is epitomised in the personification “bugles calling them from sad shires,” which conveys a nation in mourning back home. Collectively, these poetic devices in “Anthem for the Doomed Youth” shows that the death of the young soldiers negatively affects the people around