Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Pearl Harbor Address – The structure of the speech

Historians see FDR's powerful address to Congress on December 8^th 1941 as a turning point in American history, uniting the country in a patriotic surge of support for the 'good war'.

This speech is one of the most famous American discourses and it is considered by politicians and political experts as a masterwork of leadership communication in crisis.

But...Why?

Let's analyze the structure of the speech, we will see that a strategic language and a proper attitude can make the difference.

First of all, we notice that FDR's speech is significantly similar to an harangue.  He captures the public attention using strong expressions and a powerful tone of voice. He is a leader, and he has to demonstrate that he is able to deal with such a difficult situation.

The first part of the speech is an accusation, it highlights with strong words and direct sentences how Japan has to be considered as an 'infamous betrayer'. It continues with the declaration of innocence of the USA and ,again, it goes on with a chronicle of the tragic event : the President points out that the USA have been deceived by Japanese Institutions.

President Roosevelt now makes a list of all the attacks launched by Japanese forces. The use of a 'directory' is a very useful and immediate strategy used by many politicians or leaders to capture listeners' attention, and to convey a concept or an idea in a simple and direct way.

Roosevelt's advocation now has become judgement. He has to demonstrate that his choices and reactions are the right answer to Pearl Harbor attacks. He is now 'the father of the nation', he has to demonstrate his strenght and his power, he wants his citizens to believe that only with a brave and aggressive behaviour USA will be victorious.

This short but extremely powerful speech is a perfect example to see how words can change people's mind, they can create participation and ideology.

...and that's why we all should be careful with them!

G.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Pearl Harbor Address - Choice of Lexis

I have created a representative image of Roosevelt’s speech.

The size of the words indicates their frequency in the speech but also the importance that they have in it.

Firstly we find many times the verb “to attack” ( also we find attack as noun): ”Japan/Japanese forces attacked. We can understand that Roosevelt wants to underline the violence of Japan.

Secondly the verb is often juxtaposed with the adverb “deliberately”:  “the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked […]”; “that the attack was deliberately planned […]”. It means that the attack is voluntary and sought.

Then we can see how the word “peace” is always linked with The United States: “The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific”.

To put in other way Roosevelt's purpose is tell that USA are the “good” (he nominates God’s help) while Japan is the “evil”. About Japan he uses the sentence “false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace”.  Very strong is the word “false”, because it describes how for Roosevelt Japan is false and liar. But he doesn't directly say it.
For these reasons he says: “the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory[…] will gain the inevitable triumph”.

Semantic fields:
America and its people (Usa, Americans, congress, people);
Japan and its people (The empire of Japan, Japanese forces);
War/Enemy (air and naval forces);
Geopolitics (Pacific see/area, Guam, Hong Kong, and so forth).

Finally, in my opinion, in this way he wants to justify his decision to respond to the attack of Japan.

V.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Pearl Harbor Address - Historical Background and Audience He Wanted To Reach

The Presidential Address to Congress of December 8, 1941 was delivered by the Us President Franklin Delano Roosevelt the day after the Japanese attack on the Pearl Harbor Base.

The event:

The Pearl Harbor Base, located on the Hawaiian island of O'ahu, was attacked on the morning of December 7 by 353 Japanese planes. The assault was carried out in two phases, both by airplanes and military ships. The final result was the damage of all the eight Us Navy battleships, with four of them being sunk, the destruction of eight other ships, the loss of 188 aircrafts, the death of 2402 people and the wounds for other 1247 Americans.

The speech:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt made a very brief speech, long approximately seven minutes.

He started, as usual in these occasions, with an address to the others political figures ("Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives").
The speech was later called the Infamy Speech, citing a passage in which the President indicated the date of the attack as "a date which will live in infamy".

No more others direct interactions with the audience are made, except the last sentence in which he asked to "that Congress declare ... a state of war ... between the United States and the Japanese Empire".

But, obviously, this speech was addressed to all the American citizens, primarily, and to all the International community. After this event, the Second World War became a World-wide War in the pure sense and the perspectives completely changed.

A.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor Address

Here it is the written text of the speech that we analyzed.

http://www.politicalspeeches.net/us-politics/franklin-delano-roosevelts-pearl-harbor-address

There is also the tape of that day.

Enjoy it.

Aung San Suu Kyi's Nobel Peace Prize Speech: Al Jazeera's Point of View

Aljazeera.com dedicates a long article to Suu Kyi and her impassioned speech.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/06/201261610252337322.html

The Burmese political leader describes her feelings during her long imprisonment and says that winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 encouraged her to keep up the struggle for democracy in Myanmar.

The ceremony, which was held on June, in Oslo's City Hall, has been a very important political and social event, and Suu Kyi's speech has been listened and recorded by thousands of people.

Her oration received two standing ovations and a huge relevance all around the world.

Aung San Suu Kyi vicissitudes have been analyzed deeply in an article dated 30 May 2012 :

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2009/05/2009514339158749.html

Here, Al Jazeera journalist reports a sort of biography of the Burmese leader. It's a detailed article, and there are narrowly described all the events that have led to the imprisonment and, then, to the winning of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Going back to the first article, we can see that the journalist reports a lot of Suu Kyi's quotes.

This helps us analyze her speech and focuses readers' attention on determined issues. For example it says :

"Often during my days of house arrest, it felt as though I were no longer a part of the real world. ;

and : "What the Nobel Peace Prize did was to draw me once again into the world of other human beings, outside the isolated area in which I lived, to restore a sense of reality to me ".

In my opinion, these quotes are really significant. They show us the humanity, the personal feeelings and fears of this unique woman.
Al Jazeera's article, and the speech itself, want to involve the people in this touching story.
Suu Kyi's aim is to be remembered, not as a woman who sacrificed her life, but as a symbol of political and social resistance against violence and abuses.

G.

Aung San Suu Kyi's Nobel Peace Prize Speech: BBC's point of view

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJxhcQzGl6A)

-What happened/ The facts:

On last 16^th of June the Burmese pro-democracy campaigner, Aung San Suu Kyi, has finally given her acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, 21 years after it was awarded¹.

In 1991, she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but she couldn't go to receive the prize because she was under house arrest (imprisonment lasted almost 24 years). She was freed in late 2010.

-What BBC points out from the speech:

BBC highlights different parts of her speech in two reports about Aung San Suu Kyi's Nobel Speech .

In the first, entitled Suu Kyi says Nobel award meant Burma was not forgotten², there is reproduced the part of speech in which she talks about the importance of Universal Declaration of Human Rights; in particular she appoints two highlights of Declaration:

“[...]disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspirations of the common people [...]”

“[...] it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law[...]”.

In these she has found her strength. She believes that democratic institutions and practices are necessary for the guarantee of human rights.

Now we can see the fruit of the endeavours of those who believe in democracy and in the human rights.

She continues the speech telling that we have to have faith in the future but she warns against blind faith and she urges the unconditional release of all political prisoners, saying "one prisoner of conscience is one too many".

The article also underlines the importance that San Suu Kyi has and has had for Universal peace. The Thorbjorn Jagland (Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee) opening ceremony words are very significant:

“In your isolation you have become a moral voice for the whole world”

“a precious gift to the world community”.

One of the most important thing that the article points out is what had meant for San Suu Kyi receiving Nobel prize.

The prize it is like“a door in her heart”

“Winning the Nobel Peace Prize made her real once again. It had drawn her back into the wider human community”.

“The Nobel Peace Prize has drew the attention of the world to the struggle for democracy and human rights in Burma”.

“Burma was not going to be forgotten”

“The Nobel Peace Prize drew her once again into the world of other beings outside her isolation" ³

We find this part of speech in the second BBC's service “Suu Kyi in Oslo for Nobel speech” reported by Fergal Keane. He talks about Burma's transition and about violence in the north of the country. Here we find also an interview with Suu Kyi where she confirms her optimism about Burma's political future but not a blind optimism. We have to be aware of the challenges that still lie ahead.

For the journalist this is the day of her celebration.

BBC gives much importance to San Suu Kyi. We can understand it through various articles dedicated to her.

On BBC site we have also a specific page about her profile and her history (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11685977).

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11685977)

V.

1  Fergal Keane, Suu Kyi in Oslo for Nobel speech in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18471439

2 Suu Kyi says Nobel award meant Burma was not forgotten in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18464946

3 A part of Suu Kyi Nobel speech in Suu Kyi says Nobel award meant Burma was not forgotten in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18464946

Aung San Suu Kyi's Speech: Euronews point of view

Aung San Suu Kyi is an important lady from Burma that 20 years ago(in 1991) won the Nobel  Prize by fighting in her own Country for more democracy. The Myanmar's pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi couldn’t receive her Nobel Prize until this June.  She has been under house arrest until  2010 when she has been released; then this year, in April, she was elected to the national parliament: she was finally able to make her speech of thanking.

Euronews reported some essential points of her speech as for example that many people in Burma are not been freed yet, and their only fault was (and is) to ask for more democracy. http://www.euronews.com/2012/06/16/aung-san-suu-kyi-finally-makes-nobel-acceptance-speech/



Unfortunately, Euronews is very brief in reporting news, that's why I wanted to post a video that I found on YouTube to give to her speech the importance that it deserves.
This video contains the first 6 minutes of her speech, I hope you will enjoy it....


L.

Aung San Suu Kyi's speech (France 24 point of view)

Aung San Suu Kyi, the son of the Burmese national hero Aung San and also the famous Burmese opposition politician, was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. At the time, she was detained under house arrest. She was released on November 2010 and, in the last April, she was elected to the national parliament.

Due to her situation, she couldn't receive her Nobel Prize until this spring. Obviously, she couldn't make her speech in front of the Norwegian assembly. She finally did it in the last June.

http://www.france24.com/en/20120616-burma-pro-democracy-leader-suu-kyi-deliver-nobel-speech-norway-oslo-21-years-late

France 24 didn't focused on the event particularly and the reporter decided to cite some interesting quotes from the Burmese MP.
The sentences range from the Burmese situation ("There still remain such - political prisoners - in Burma. It is to be feared that because the best known detainees have been released, the remainder, the unknown ones, will be forgotten") to global aspects ("Absolute peace in our world is an unattainable goal").

http://www.france24.com/en/20120615--en-week-asia-aung-san-suu-kyi-nobel-prize-burma-afghanistan-australia%2C%20

This page contains the video of a small TV program aired weekly, "The week in Asia", where some Asian aspects are scanned. I strongly recommend you to watch this emission.

Here is the complete video of the speech. Enjoy it.

A.

New Hampshire: Euronews point of view

New Hampshire Elections: Euronews (LACKING) point of view.

Unfortunately Euronews didn't write any article about the election in New Hampshire even if the fact is  socially and politically very interesting. For the first time an USA's State will have an all female delegation.
In my opinion this election is important because it represents how the world is changing: people are beginning to open their own mind and to fight the male chauvinism that kept our societies stuck in a big mistake which is to underestimate the "weaker sex".
Euronews basically gave information about the general aspects of the presidential elections and then about Obama's election (here an example http://www.euronews.com/2012/11/07/obama-re-elected-as-us-president/).
Personally I'm offended by Euronews inaccuracy. I think this was a great topic of conversation that would have caught the interest of many people.


L.

US election: The power of women (The peculiar case of New Hampshire) - BBC’s point of view

On BBC News Magazine the journalist Kate Dailey explained in her article that women with their vote have made win Obama and at the same time lose Romney.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20231337

    “When Republican candidates were caught making clumsy statements about rape and abortion, their supporters called the ensuing uproar a "distraction" from the real issues.

 But in this election, it became abundantly clear that women's issues are not fringe issues, and women are not a special interest group. Instead it was women who cast the bulk of the votes this election - 53%, and women who proved the deciding factor, breaking in Barack Obama's favour by 11 percentage points.

 At the same time, a historic number of female representative were elected, including the first openly gay senator (Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin), the first Asian-American female senator (Mazie Hirono, Hawaii) and the first female military veteran wounded in combat (Representative Tammy Duckworth, Illinois)”.

 ( Kate Dailey, US election: Women are the new majority, BBC News Magazine, Washington)

  The article appoints the peculiar case of New Hampshire’s elections. New Hampshire will be the first state to send an all-female delegation to Congress. This is an historic result but in the article this is only mentioned.
For BBC it is more important pointing out the different approach that the two parties have had with female electorate. We can see a criticism of how Republicans have made their campaign. They didn’t have considered women power and their point of view.

  “Mitt Romney, to his credit, tried to tap into the power of female votes during the campaign by promising that a strong economy would mean better wages for women and more opportunity for female advancement. It wasn't enough. Women, says the pollster Norm Ornstein, are just as concerned with the economy as men. But their view of the economy tends to be more complex - they want both a robust employment rate and a strong social safety net if things go wrong.”

 ( Kate Dailey, US election: Women are the new majority, BBC News Magazine, Washington)

The trump card is precisely this. In Democratic Party the majority is constituted by female and minority candidates. They are women who talk to women. In Republican Party we have many fewer women. 

 Men and women split between the candidates: overall, 55% of women voted for Mr Obama, 44% for Mr Romney. For men, 52% voted for Mr Romney and 45% for Mr Obama.
In 2008, Mr Obama gained a higher percentage of the male vote (49%) and a similar percentage of the female vote (56%).
However, there was a division between married and unmarried women: 53% of married women voted for the Republican candidate, while Mr Obama won unmarried women two-to-one: 67% to 31%.
Overall, women make up more of the electorate - 53% - slightly more than their share of the US population.

These women made up 23% of the electorate this year, and they broke overwhelmingly for Obama, 67-31. (Married women preferred Romney 53-46.)

  ( Kate Dailey, US election: Women are the new majority, BBC News Magazine, Washington)

V.