With Lincoln's Gettysburg Address as my frame of reference when I began reading the D-Day Anniversary speeches, there were many things that surprised me in their content and style. At the beginning of his speech, Clinton describes the beach as something that speaks in silence. This seemed a strange way to describe the location of a memorial event, but then goes on to describe it as a place existing in "silence, peaceful silence, ordinary silence" and his words evoke a beautiful image, one that serves as a testament to the great achievement of the men who had once fought there.
I was also surprised by his use of quotations from correspondence between Frank and Pauline Elliot, as I hadn't expected something so personal and intimate to be in the President's speech, but I think these quotations are useful in showing that those heroes who fought on D-Day were also just ordinary Americans. I was also surprised by how many quotations Bush used in his speech, he quoted the words of a variety of people, including FDR, Eisenhower, a GI, a general, Anne Frank, and others. I think his use of various quotations serves to provide more context for remembering past events. I was very surprised that he mentioned such a particular detail as talking about the French woman who would meet her future husband, one of the men who fought in Normandy, after the battle. It was a nice addition to his speech as it lightened the mood a bit, and also made the memory of the event seem more personal. In Obama's speech, I hadn't expected so much of his speech to be dedicated to talking about the current generation's "heroes". Because these people had played no role in the event that was being commemorated, it seemed strange that he talked about them so much, but he clearly wanted to establish that the current generation was living up to the memory of their predecessors. He made it clear that the legacy of honor and sacrifice is one that will be carried on into the future.
In all of the D-Day Anniversary speeches, the logos/ergos element plays a very important role. Each of the presidents dedicates a significant portion of his speech to telling the story of the the men who fought on that beach so many years ago. They remind listeners of their heroism in the face of opposition, keeping the memory of their sacrifice alive. The speeches of Reagan, Clinton, and Obama all call upon listeners to prove worthy of the heroes who fought for them and the sacrifices that were made. Clinton asks "How will we build upon the sacrifice of D-Day's heroes?" The presence of a strong portreptikon element makes these more similar to the Gettysburg address, in which Lincoln says "...we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain." These presidents all implore Americans to continue to fight for what is right. Bush's speech was the only one that seemed less focused on the protreptikon. His speech was much more focused on the telling the story of D-Day and remembering its significance. He does, to some degree, imply that the living should take comfort in the honor of the dead, when he quotes Eisenhower, saying "Because of their sacrifice, my grandchildren are growing up in freedom." I think Reagan's speech has the strongest element of politeia, as he speaks of America's greatness, saying "One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man." Throughout his speech he depicts the US as a symbol of what is right. Obama similarly portrays the US as a force for good, declaring America's "...commitment -- to liberty, our claim to equality, our claim to freedom..." In his speech, Clinton refers to the D-Day heroes as sons of democracy, reminding us of their noble ancestry (progonoi). The D-Day Anniversary speeches all have the common element of thanking and remembering the people from other countries who were part of the fight for freedom. They all acknowledge the importance of a continued alliance to protect liberty and democracy throughout the world. They all differ from the usual features of epitaphios logos in that they do not ignore individuals, but rather tell the stories of individuals and share the words of those individuals. However, they do tell those stories within the broader story of the fight for liberty and democracy.
I find Clinton's speech to be the most effective, mainly because it is very well written. The organization of a speech plays a huge role in how effectively the message is delivered, and I found Clinton's speech flow more smoothly than some of the others. He used less quotations than the others, which I think helped him to stay focused and present a more coherent message. The writing is also eloquent, with several phrases which stuck in my mind, such as "But let us never forget, when they were young, these men saved the world."
I found Reagan's speech to be the most similar to Lincoln's, in that he was using the memorials service and his epitaphios logos in order to make a point regarding the conflict of the time, the Cold War. Lincoln saw Gettysburg as an opportunity to impact public perception of the war and remind people what they were fighting for. Reagan similarly uses his speech on the 40th Anniversary of D-Day to remind the owlrd of the problem of continued soviet military presence in Eastern Europe, which he sees as a detriment to freedom and democracy. He says "We look for some sign from the Soviet Union that they are willing to move forward, that they share our desire and love for peace, and that they will give up the ways of conquest." With these words he portrays the US as a symbol of good and the Soviet Union as a danger to the rest of the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment