English Essay †Speeches Essay Example for Free

English Essay – Speeches Essay Question: there are as many different ways of interpreting and valuing texts, as there are readers. Of the countless speeches recorded throughout time a select few have transcended their original contexts and political battles to retain relevance today. We have viewed their progress over time as their outspoken ideas and reception withstanding relevance within our changing society regardless of altering values. Aung San Suu Kyi, Emma Goldman and Dr. Martin Luther King’s empowering speeches have spanned across decades, united in their aim to draw attention to a lack of freedom, justice and democratic rights and are unique in urging others to support their fight for disadvantaged social groups. In Aung San Suu Kyi’s â€Å"Keynote address at the Beijing World Conference on Women† in China 1995, she speaks with deep conviction regarding the lack of freedom that women suffer. So too does Emma Goldman when in 1917 she delivered â€Å"The political criminal of today must needs be the saint of the new age† to a jury consisting entirely of men. The discrimination that these two women discuss exemplifies women across the world, continuously being persecuted for their gender. Suu Kyi did not make use of rhetoric in her speech but instead chose to develop a sense of intimacy and appealed to her audience’s intellect through a close up video recording. Her tone and stoical approach invites her listeners to adopt new perspectives and to include women in the political process as â€Å"no war was ever started by women†. Her campaign continues with an age-old proverb of her culture that â€Å"the dawn rises only when the rooster crows† metaphorically depicting how women are subserviently treated today by the â€Å"rooster†. The proverb needs to change as it is because the dawn appears that the rooster crows. Goldman too addresses the issue of discrimination by analysing the way women are treated by power wielding men, more specifically in the legal and political system. During her defence against claims of conspiracy she defends her anarchist position and utilises sarcasm and truncated sentences to ridicule the jury when she repeatedly declares that she is facing â€Å"Gentlemen of the jury† and  only gentlemen. The anaphora illustrates her contempt that there are no females present in the jury, that these men are supposed to be honest gentlemen, an oxymoron in her eyes, and so should treat her the same way they would treat others in the same position. A personal interpretation examines men’s hold on power in society but times have changed and society must reject traditions that no longer reflect the truth. Suu Kyi’s speech comes at a time when China is stepping out of the shadows and recognising women as their own entities when it once saw them as 2nd class. Its reception today would not have altered since she spoke but there are more people supporting her cause and helping to fight for the freedom of women. There is global understanding that throughout history we are met with the same boundaries and are eternally urged to fight for equality and justice. These boundaries were met when Dr Martin Luther King challenged the widespread attitudes of society by calling on his fellow American’s by offering â€Å"a new leaf† and justice to all, no matter what race or colour. Culture in the southern states was heavily segregated in 1963 and racial division was enshrined in southern custom and law. King delivered his speech when it was needed most, however Emma Goldman delivered â€Å"The political criminal of today†¦Ã¢â‚¬  ahead of her time as the mere idea of freedom of speech was considered scandalous. With two separate causes represented by great speakers; Negro’s and free speech, both composers attempted to win their audiences support for their cause. King delivered â€Å"I have a dream† to a crowd of 250,000 followers and millions watching on television and used rhetoric gained from his preaching days coupled with the use of many anaphora’s to effectively to inflict fear upon his audience. His appeal to their emotions instilled that â€Å"it would be fatal†¦to overlook†¦the movement† and unless something is done about racial injustice, life is worthless. Emma Goldman’s clever use of rhetoric defies tradition and unlike King’s use of emotion she alienated her audience by stirring negative opinions and called upon her intellect to win her battle. In 1917 when Goldman plead to the jury she sought justice in her defence against claims of conspiracy. Urging the court to form an unbiased opinion and recognise her fight for freedom of speech she alludes to her fellow so called anarchists â€Å"Jesus, Socrates, Galileo, Bruno, John Brown† to prove she is not wrong and that nothing willà ‚  make her change her position. King was greeted with an euphoric and peaceful reception as he was seen as a freedom fighter and today in our contemporary world the significance of his speech remains evident. By appealing to both audiences’ intellect regarding injustice, King and Goldman aimed to persuade their respective audiences of the right path to choose. When King bellows out that the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination, his metaphoric emotive language heightens his passion for freedom for his people from more than slavery. Similarly to King, Goldman fights for justice and through a series of rhetorical questions she asks the jury a final time to â€Å"please forget that I am an Anarchist†¦Have we been engaged in a conspiracy? Have these overt acts been proven?† She asks for a fair trial and to not be disadvantaged because of society’s values – she only wishes for justice to prevail. Sadly the jury found her guilty but her works reception reaches a higher extent today as we can appreciate her effort in changing society’s perception of free speech. While injustice was inflicted upon three social groups, Aung San Suu Kyi, Emma Goldman and Dr. Martin Luther King stood up and were three speakers who managed to defy old-fashioned social and political beliefs of their time to be recognised in our contemporary society. When delivering their speeches they gained the attention and support of a crowd through their stage presence, use of rhetoric and particularly political contextual values that aim to achieve this. In order to be recognised they needed to give their audience a purpose and through earnest ideas of freedom, justice and democratic rights their reception has not altered from when they were delivered to now as we are continually fighting for such causes.

Czar Nicholas II :: essays research papers

On May 6, 1868, an event happened that would change the fate of monarchy in Russia. Czar Nicholas Alexandrovich Romanov II was born in the Blue Bedroom of the Alexander Palace. Ominously, this occurred on the Orthodox day of feast for St. Job the Sufferer. This omen would prevision the never-ending trials he would face in his lifetime. In 1894, Nicholas's father, Czar Alexander III, died from a liver disease called nephritis. At age 26, Nicholas felt that he was not ready to rule Russia. However, he believed that his autocracy was a God-given right. To give up any part of it would go against the traditions of his country and religion. This belief, though seemingly right at the time, would later have a part in the death of his reign. Czar Nicholas II was short, only about five foot six inches tall. His other relatives seemed to tower above him. Though he worked out in his private gym daily, he would always be seen as slight and wiry. Because his legs were so short, most people agreed that he looked most regal when mounted on horseback. He always wore his brown hair parted on the left. His beard, also brown, was streaked with golden highlights as if the sun had reached out and stroked it with a kindly finger. The Czar had a nervous habit of brushing his mustache up with the back of his hand. In time, this gesture would become his distinct signature. Because of his sheltered life under the fear of terrorists, Nicholas grew up secluded from the world. Unfortunately, this caused him to never had the self-confidence and self-reliance he would need later in his life as the last czar of Russia. Though seemingly weak, his first love was Russia and the second his family. He refused to have secretaries, in the belief that this would help bring him closer to his people. Again, it did not work. He was seen as a phony by the entire country. Nicholas and his wife, Alexandra, soon had a family. After four girls were born in succession, they were still hoping for a boy to fall heir to the throne. On July 30, 1904, their wish was granted. A son they would call Aleksey was born and Nicholas and Alexandra were ecstatic. However, the joy was short lived. Aleksey had hemophilia, a hereditary disease in which the blood does not clot right.

Frank O’ Conor – Oedipus Complex

My Oedipus Complex Frank O’Connor Question: What do you think of Larry’s attitude to his father? Do you think his behavior is justified? Explain your answer. Answer: Larry in the story â€Å"My Oedipus Complex† has a very composite character made of hardness. With very few things that he noticed and experienced in life, his conclusion to a certain topic doesn’t come up with much logic. Though he is the only child till the birth of Sonny, but due to a very coddling behavior by his mother throughout this period of his father being in the war, it became obvious to him that he is â€Å"the boss around†. When his (Larry’s fathers) back was tuned, mother let me get a chair and rummage through his treasures. She didn’t seem to think so highly of them as he did† (O'Connor) Events of his mothers lack or carelessness made him come up with the idea that may be his father wasn’t that important. Never knowing the role of his father and living with such little knowledge he keeps guttering around in his own flow. Again, his priority was considered the most as there was no one else with his mother.He hadn’t any siblings and was poised with a thought of being unable to afford a new person in the house. His very sense of freedom made his day and the time passed by along with his mother. Ever since Larry’s father arrives home after the war, he feels this very lack of superiority that he lived with. He was being less noticed and was stopped from coming up with his childish acts. All of a sudden he starts getting annoyed off the thoughts of being ignored by his mother as his mother had to spend more time with his father.He had to compromise on his own share of his mother’s reaction and her response wasn’t quite what he expected. In a very small time the changes in return of things he did earlier, was growing unbearable for him. His grab on his freedom collapses as his very little intelligence couldn’t do much good to him. He tries doing things that started to be an ignorant part of his parents. He started expecting from things that was barely a part of his daily life, now even a cup of tea would matter to him. He starts feeling he is cared less in the house.His father on the other hand was quiet calm responding to the situation, realizing that Larry is just a small child. He carried on being the quiet guy up to sometime but sooner ahead he was obvious to have lost a grasp on it. â€Å"I see he’s better fed then taught,† (O'Connor) Stated his father concentrating on larrys reaction to things. Sooner as Sonny arrives in the scene, the tables turn as Larry concentrates on his mother and accepts the fact of his father, but doesn’t easily seem to buy the fact of Sonny consuming most of his mother’s attention then.Throughout the whole time, his acts seemed childish because there was someone older who was compared more mature. Talking big word s are easy but Larry is still a child who was cared for but not in all ways. Larry had his mother to stay busy with before but as she grew busier with his father’s presence later on, he starts thinking of what he should do to prevent his father from taking his time. He came across jealousy and his expectations kept on crawling, making him emotional and irrational at times.

Political Parties And Interest Groups - 1088 Words

he goal of this paper is to demonstrate how political parties and interest groups are able to get citizens to participate in politics and political party participants or interest group members. This is a comparison and contrast paper. The following will be a comparison between political parties and interest groups. Three points will be mentioned. The first point will be the purpose, the second will be the role they play and finally three strategies parties and interest groups use to get people to participate. A political party is a group of dedicated people who come together to win elections, operate the government, and determine public policy. Political parties are quite different from interest groups, which seek to influence, not run,†¦show more content†¦Party members and individual politicians have a made group aliens that usually cooperate with their determination to pass and implement legislation. In addition party alliances close the space between the legislative and executive branches. While separated by the Constitution, the existence of political parties narrows the space between the branches and helps them work together. Political parties also inform and energize their members. They send brochures also do media campaigns, knock on multiple peoples doors, and call several voters on their phones. In addition, parties have fundraising apparatuses set that simplify their candidates’ chance to be able to finance their campaigns. Finally parties also serve as critical watchers for the public. The adversarial relationship between the major parties ensures that the party that is out of power will keep a close eye on its opponent and notify the public of anything that should not be done in policy misstep. Political parties use persuasive techniques such as criticizing the opposition and flattering the public. They also write in a lot of other techniques such as rule of three, alliteration, hyperbole and superlative. its a bit like advertising really. Political arties hold political rallies to gain support from the people. Social media is one of the most effective platforms for raising awareness of political issues, encouraging people to vote, and promoting