Speeches_Essay_Keating_Bandler

English HSC Notes- Module B Essay In your view, how have rhetorical techniques been used to reveal memorable ideas in the speeches set for study' Speeches are written and orated to raise awareness of important issues present in the context of their composition. Through rhetorical techniques, many speeches convey memorable ideas that stay with the audience for a lifetime, and continue to speak to us and bear relevance in our present time. These memorable messages are evident in Faith Bandler’s Faith, Hope and Reconciliation [1999], Paul Keating’s Funeral Service of the Unknown Australian Soldier [1993] in their respective explorations of Aboriginal rights and war. Faith Bandler uses a variety of rhetorical techniques in Faith, Hope and Reconciliation to portray her memorable message of equality. Bandler’s speech explores the prejudice that Aborigines had to endure, and encourages the reconciliation process to move faster. She opens her speech with separate acknowledgments to “the Indigenous people of Illawarra” and “Lord Mayor, Evelyn Scott, Linda Burney.” This highlights the division between races and subtly introduces her topic of reconciliation. She uses inclusive language to reveal “not what is in it for me, but what is in it for us”, and this is memorable as she is choosing not to divide, instead indicating the benefits of reconciliation to not just Indigenous Australians, but to all. This is unlike Noel Pearson, whose acerbic attack on John Howard’s politics was most memorable, sarcastically stating that Howard “might care to read Robert Hughes rather than the opinion polls” to “comprehend how we might deal with our history”. Bandler was an unwavering campaigner for equal rights in the 1960s, and was integral in making the 1967 Referendum a memorable success. She reminisces on how she and other activists had “lived, breathed, struggled... climbed”, where the cumulative listing emphasizes the hardships that Aborigines had to endure, as well as highlighting how far they have come against “tremendous odds” since their egalitarian mission began. She hyperbolically states that “a genuine people’s movement... can move mountains”, and then concludes her speech with a plea for the reconciliation process to speed up, rhetorically questioning “if not now, when' If not us, who'” This is a memorable aspect of Bandler’s address, as she is exhorting her audience not to delay action, and is invoking within them a desire to act on the problem at hand. Bandler employs various speech elements to ensure that her important ideas of equality and inclusivity embed themselves in the minds of her audience. Bandler’s speech was received well, due to its positive outlook on reconciliation and the memorable ideas it presented. It was spoken during a time of media obstruction to the reconciliation process, and Bandler reinforces the importance of carrying on the task through these obstacles when she uses the cliché, “rights are not handed on a platter... they have to be won.” The authenticity of her speech also influenced its positive reception. She refers to certain watershed moments such as “50 years of citizenship... White Australia Policy... 1967 [Referendum]” to directly address memorable aspects of the Aboriginal campaign for equality and increase the legitimacy of her ideas. The reception in a more modern context has also been positive, as in 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd took reconciliation one step further in his “Sorry Speech”. This may have been a response to Bandler’s attack on governments that they “only might implement [policies], and they might not.” Rudd indicates the importance of acting now, through his use of anaphora in “it is time to reconcile...it is time”. This complements Bandler’s advice to initiate change, signifying the universal relevance of Bandler’s memorable ideas. Memorable revelations are often multilayered and confronting, and Bandler’s exploration of such ideas in her speech resulted in its positive reception, allowing it to speak to us even today. In Unknown Soldier Paul Keating harnesses rhetorical techniques to make his tribute to our lost war victims a memorable event. Keating’s purpose in his address was not only to mythologize the soldiers who sacrificed their lives, but also to disparage war in a modern context. He opens his speech with anaphora of “we do not know”, making his idea of the importance of soldiers’ sacrifices memorable, as they became disconnected from their own country in order to protect it for other citizens. He uses conduplicatio to illustrate the bravery and patriotism of the soldiers, as he states that the war was a “lesson about ordinary people- that they were not ordinary.” Keating simultaneously expresses his negative attitude towards war by the cumulative listing and imagery of the “mad, brutal, awful struggle” and how “victory was scarcely discernible from defeat.” Anwar Sadat further reinforces these views on war in his speech, Statement to the Knesset, where he comments on both parties being the losers in war, as “any life lost in war is a human life... Israeli or Arab.” His decision to grant humanity to both sides is controversial, yet truly memorable. Keating juxtaposes “what we have lost in war” against “what we have gained”, highlighting the injustice of the mass loss of life as well as the “bravery and sacrifice” of the soldiers. He concludes with an anti-war message that all Australians would keep close to heart, as he claims that the Unknown Australian Soldier would “enshrine [Australia’s] love of peace.” Keating uses the power of rhetoric to signify his most memorable idea- his choice to balance the sacrifice of the soldiers up against the views of a modern society of anti-war sentiments. Paul Keating’s speech was memorable and was received well due to its focus on patriotic values. Like Faith Bandler, Keating uses statistics to establish the authenticity of his position. By mentioning the “45,000...who died...416,000 who volunteered...324,000 who served overseas”, his memorable message of the service and sacrifice of soldiers is made more powerful and authentic. His appreciation of the common Australians in “real nobility and grandeur belongs not to empires...but to the people on whom they... always depend” would have also impacted on the reception of the speech, as Keating was stressing the importance of upholding integral Australian values of mateship and ‘a fair go’. However, a further underlying message in this statement is the importance of uniting any divisions among the Australian people. Keating’s address was delivered a short time after Aboriginal rights acts, such as the Native Title Act, and akin to Faith Bandler’s speech, it is a call for reconciliation, this time between war victims and their country. The memorable idea of contrasting the horror of war with the courage and duty of the soldiers still bears meaning in our modern context. From a humanistic viewpoint, the War on Terror and civil wars in the Middle East are causing the loss of many innocent lives, including those of Australian, British and American soldiers, but from a political viewpoint it is the duty of developed countries in the global community to help regions in social struggle, and the soldiers sacrifice their lives back home to honour this duty. Keating’s address is made all the more memorable through his remarkable ideas and patriotic appeal, both of which transcend contextual and temporal shifts. It is always difficult for humans to “find our commonalities”, and this leads to various disputes within our communities that require attention. Rhetoric is designed to provoke action on these issues by the use of rhetorical techniques to captivate and persuade an audience. Through a critical evaluation of Bandler’s and Keating’s speeches, it is evident that they not only provide memorable and inspirational insights on issues of their context, but contain universal lessons which transcend time and will continue to bear relevance to future audiences.