Text Analysis # "Ich bin ein Berliner"
Who Wrote: John F. Kennedy, President of United States from 1961-1963. The speech was delivered in 1963.
Audience: The speech was delivered to a huge street audience in Berlin. The thousands present were the obvious focus but the text of the speech and the drama inherent with giving a street speech in Berlin in 1963 means that the text had an intended audience far wider than those actually present. My read is that the intended audience were Berliners/Germans/Soviets/Europeans/Americans.
Represent: Essentially Kennedy is distinguishing the important differences between the communist nations and the West. He does this with his inspiring words, use of the "Ich bin..." hook and by stressing the importance of personal liberty and freedom.
What is being said: To Germans history is very important. He starts his speech by stating that an ancient Romans prideful boast that they were Roman citizens had been supplanted by the free persons boast that we are all Berliners. He make some really effective points in the speech. The construction of the Berlin wall to keep east Berliners from fleeing to the West {this was a street speech, how close were they to the wall, could they hear him on the other side?}. Kennedy also acknowledges the sacrifice of Berliners who have been "besieged for 18 years." He goes on to optimistically note that their sacrifice will be someday rewarded as he knows that one day all will be free {sad to think he did not live to see the wall demolished in 1992 he would have been only in his late 70's}.
What Proof: The speech is all about inspiration and taking the moral high ground. The tag "Eich bin ein Berliner" is widely known and often repeated. The inspirational rhetoric was very effective. No proof is present as this is not meant as a policy speech.
How is being said: I actually watched the speech on You Tube as I had wondered how the German speaking audience followed along. I learned by viewing the poor film quality video that he did have a German translators who he acknowledged early on in the speech. This was Kennedy's kind of speech: Soaring rhetoric, emotional concepts and themes of freedom and optimism. I don't think their is a modern president who has so many speeches that are still studied and listened to.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Text Analysis #2 "To Expose a Fool"
Who Wrote: H.L. Mencken, noted editor and political writer, wrote this piece soon after the death of his arch nemesis William Jennings Bryant.
Audience: Mencken seems to be writing an open letter to the American people.
Represent: We would call this a "political hit piece today" that probably would be found on an op ed page of a very left or very right of center newspaper or heard via a media source that has a definite and sometimes caustic opinions about issues {Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Keith Obermann come to mind}. Mencken's goal is to discredit Bryant and to expose him and his followers s charlatans and fools.
What is Being Said: Mencken goes after Bryant who had recently died. He paints Bryant as a demagogue who flopped on the issues a number of times in the past and who according to Mencken largely was motivated not because he was working in the best interests of the American people but more because he was pandering to a core constituency who was against human progress, not open to a new ideas,, who generally feared change, were anti-intellectual and exclusively faith based in their filtering of world events. What was really interesting was Mencken's focus on the urban establishment v rural dynamic. Mencken felt that Bryant was largely motivated by a personal grudge that Bryant had against the urban elite and intellectual classes. Wow, this is powerfully contemporary stuff. I was watching Jay Leno a few weeks ago when Glenn Beck was on. Jay is not hardcore interviewer and his role is to keep thinks light. I'll paraphrase an exchange between the two:
Beck: Hates Obama because he is a "Harvard elite" and general intellectual who is out of touch with the way "real Americans" live.
Leno: Wasn't Obama raised by a single mother who was on food stamps
Beck: Yes but he's really part of the intellectual elite
Leno: He seems like a self-made man and a smart guy. I would think that those virtues would be something that you could admire and isn't it important to have smart people in government
Beck: He's an east coat intellectual and out of touch with "real Americans."
How is it Being Said: Have a dictionary handy when you read this! He uses big words, writes a complicated essay, and is very caustic. As they say, he is probably preaching to the choir on this one and not changing the minds of many of Bryant's followers.
Some things never change.
What Proof: Again, I would call this an Op Ed piece so its full Mencken's opinions and short on facts. He does go into various issues that Bryant has purportedly flip-flopped on.
Audience: Mencken seems to be writing an open letter to the American people.
Represent: We would call this a "political hit piece today" that probably would be found on an op ed page of a very left or very right of center newspaper or heard via a media source that has a definite and sometimes caustic opinions about issues {Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or Keith Obermann come to mind}. Mencken's goal is to discredit Bryant and to expose him and his followers s charlatans and fools.
What is Being Said: Mencken goes after Bryant who had recently died. He paints Bryant as a demagogue who flopped on the issues a number of times in the past and who according to Mencken largely was motivated not because he was working in the best interests of the American people but more because he was pandering to a core constituency who was against human progress, not open to a new ideas,, who generally feared change, were anti-intellectual and exclusively faith based in their filtering of world events. What was really interesting was Mencken's focus on the urban establishment v rural dynamic. Mencken felt that Bryant was largely motivated by a personal grudge that Bryant had against the urban elite and intellectual classes. Wow, this is powerfully contemporary stuff. I was watching Jay Leno a few weeks ago when Glenn Beck was on. Jay is not hardcore interviewer and his role is to keep thinks light. I'll paraphrase an exchange between the two:
Beck: Hates Obama because he is a "Harvard elite" and general intellectual who is out of touch with the way "real Americans" live.
Leno: Wasn't Obama raised by a single mother who was on food stamps
Beck: Yes but he's really part of the intellectual elite
Leno: He seems like a self-made man and a smart guy. I would think that those virtues would be something that you could admire and isn't it important to have smart people in government
Beck: He's an east coat intellectual and out of touch with "real Americans."
How is it Being Said: Have a dictionary handy when you read this! He uses big words, writes a complicated essay, and is very caustic. As they say, he is probably preaching to the choir on this one and not changing the minds of many of Bryant's followers.
Some things never change.
What Proof: Again, I would call this an Op Ed piece so its full Mencken's opinions and short on facts. He does go into various issues that Bryant has purportedly flip-flopped on.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Bolshevism Paragraph and Questions
Czarist Russia collapsed in March 1917. It was a long time coming as imperial Russia had long resisted liberalizing forces with reactionary zeal and generally ignored the basic needs of the Russian people for centuries. The change was initially met with the approval of the other allies who were dismayed when in 11-1917 another revolution took place that resulted in the Bolsheviks/Communists/Marxists seizing power. A quick withdrawal from the war by the new Soviet government resulted in the Germans being allowed to consolidate their forces into the Western Front where the war was still very much up for grabs. The allies half-heatedly intervened and eventually withdrew when the intervention became a liability for the war weary allies. Rather than shut their mouths and consolidate their power at home {for a modern example see the Taliban} the Bolsheviks aggressively reacted by spouting off about world revolution etc.. This resulted in a counteraction in the US that lead to quite a bit of trampling on civic rights if your political persuasion was very left of center.
Questions:
What is going on the Pacific NW? Why were we such a hotbed of leftist activity like the Seattle General Strike and the Centralia IWW riot. Could it be that the basis of the NW economy at that time lumber, railroads, logging, fishing, and mining created a left of center attitude?
Were the Palmer Raids and other establishment paranoia about leftists really just the manifestation of a reaction against immigrants and their percieved "un-American" ideas?
Questions:
What is going on the Pacific NW? Why were we such a hotbed of leftist activity like the Seattle General Strike and the Centralia IWW riot. Could it be that the basis of the NW economy at that time lumber, railroads, logging, fishing, and mining created a left of center attitude?
Were the Palmer Raids and other establishment paranoia about leftists really just the manifestation of a reaction against immigrants and their percieved "un-American" ideas?
Monday, January 11, 2010
What did the Doughboys find in France?
Well, in the category of somethings never change they found a group of inhospitable and high strung Frenchmen. In addition to the French people the Doughboys undoubtedly had personal experiences that shaped their lives in a lifelong way. War is always ugly but WWI was really ugly with static trench warfare and battles that cost hundreds of thousand of lives for a few yards of mud. Rather than the battles I am most interested in how the war changed America culturally and socially. Prior to the war most Americans were rural people who probably only travelled a few miles from their homes on rare occasions. Additionally, given the lack of any mass media suddenly Americans of all regions, races and economic backgrounds were thrown together for the first time.
What were the long lasting societal changes in America that were speed up or created by American involvement in WWI?
Do you think that African American Doughboys and their experience in France impacted them to act in a different way when they came back to the United States after the war?
What were the long lasting societal changes in America that were speed up or created by American involvement in WWI?
Do you think that African American Doughboys and their experience in France impacted them to act in a different way when they came back to the United States after the war?
Text Analysis #1 Woodrow Wilson's War Address
Who Wrote: Woodrow Wilson, president of the United States from 1913-1921. Delivered on 4-12-1917
Audience: Wilson is making his case for American involvement in the European war.
What Was Being Said: Wilson lays out his justification for war against Germany. He provides a chronology of German outrages that had led him to the decision to request a declaration of war against Germany. He starts the speech with details on America's attempt to remain neutral, goes over the details of Germany unrestricted submarine warfare and the resulting loss of life and property, dismisses armed neutrality, and discusses Germany's meddling in American and Western Hemisphere politics {the Zimmerman Telegram}. Wilson also vaguely lays out the soft reasons why we fight {democracy and making the world safe for it} and generally goes to a significant degree of effort to vilify the German government and tell the audience we should cast our lot with the Allies.
How Being Said: Clearly the speech is meant for a wide audience and for posterity as Wilson really wrestled with American involvement in WWI. The German government is alternately described as militaristic, imperial, autocratic, selfish and generally un-American. He even describes some other German government's policies "unmanly". In contrast, he paints the allies as being just, democratic, sharing American values, and part of his "partnership of democratic nations" {he was obviously thinking about the League of Nations that would keep the world "safe for democracy"}. Note that he goes to some length to distinguish between bad German government and the German people who are allegedly being taken for a ride by their government{very naive considering the historical record}. The "good" German people theme probably was largely being played for domestic consumption because large German-American voting block was not too keen on going to war against their ancestral home. Not the Russian sidestep, in other words, if the Allies are so good how do you explain Russia being one of them, He rationalizes this in the same naive way he handles the German government vs German people issue: the Russian people are really democratic and good, but their government has taken them for a ride. One wonders what kind of speech Theodore Roosevelt would have given here.
What Proof: Wilson is vague and the speech is probably meant to inspire rather than educate.
Historical Significance: This is a request for a declaration of war by the President of the United States and it was the first time America became directly involved on a European war.
How Does the Document Premise Theme Fit Into the Historical record: I think he got the major points correct. The allies were largely democratic and the Germans were not. The Germans were the aggressor and it was a good idea that they not win the war. He also got it right about an international organization to help preserve the peace in the future.
Audience: Wilson is making his case for American involvement in the European war.
What Was Being Said: Wilson lays out his justification for war against Germany. He provides a chronology of German outrages that had led him to the decision to request a declaration of war against Germany. He starts the speech with details on America's attempt to remain neutral, goes over the details of Germany unrestricted submarine warfare and the resulting loss of life and property, dismisses armed neutrality, and discusses Germany's meddling in American and Western Hemisphere politics {the Zimmerman Telegram}. Wilson also vaguely lays out the soft reasons why we fight {democracy and making the world safe for it} and generally goes to a significant degree of effort to vilify the German government and tell the audience we should cast our lot with the Allies.
How Being Said: Clearly the speech is meant for a wide audience and for posterity as Wilson really wrestled with American involvement in WWI. The German government is alternately described as militaristic, imperial, autocratic, selfish and generally un-American. He even describes some other German government's policies "unmanly". In contrast, he paints the allies as being just, democratic, sharing American values, and part of his "partnership of democratic nations" {he was obviously thinking about the League of Nations that would keep the world "safe for democracy"}. Note that he goes to some length to distinguish between bad German government and the German people who are allegedly being taken for a ride by their government{very naive considering the historical record}. The "good" German people theme probably was largely being played for domestic consumption because large German-American voting block was not too keen on going to war against their ancestral home. Not the Russian sidestep, in other words, if the Allies are so good how do you explain Russia being one of them, He rationalizes this in the same naive way he handles the German government vs German people issue: the Russian people are really democratic and good, but their government has taken them for a ride. One wonders what kind of speech Theodore Roosevelt would have given here.
What Proof: Wilson is vague and the speech is probably meant to inspire rather than educate.
Historical Significance: This is a request for a declaration of war by the President of the United States and it was the first time America became directly involved on a European war.
How Does the Document Premise Theme Fit Into the Historical record: I think he got the major points correct. The allies were largely democratic and the Germans were not. The Germans were the aggressor and it was a good idea that they not win the war. He also got it right about an international organization to help preserve the peace in the future.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)