Critical Introduction

Hey! Thanks for visiting our blog. We’re five English 101S students at the University of Maryland and have been studying rhetoric for the past two months. Our main discourse is media from the 1960’s. We attempt to see a creator’s works from multiple angles of attack and ultimately attempt to find out what an author is truly trying to say in his/her works. For this blog we are studying JFK’s 1960’s Cuban Missile Address and George W. Bush’s 9/11 Address. Both of these speeches were made after/during an imminent danger that threatened the safety of American citizens. America was in a dark time during both of these eras, but likewise it was perhaps also a time where words could really stand out and make a difference.

We chose these texts because of their innate exigence. During the 1960’s the Americas were under great tension against the USSR. The Russians were able to take over Cuba and plant their own nuclear weapons on its soil. Had their control of Cuba been allowed, it would have meant giving them the ability to launch missiles to a large part of the Americas. John F. Kennedy’s immediate response to this crisis was crucial for informing the American people, protecting the livelihoods of the Cubans, and likewise preventing an all-out nuclear war. Similarly, Bush’s speech was made soon after the terrorist attacks by Al-Qaida on America. Many lives were lost as planes were crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a failed attempt on the White House. Bush had a similar duty to raise American morale and to detail a course of action to mend America and prevent such an event from happening ever again. Both of these events happened during tense times in America, both requiring leaders that had great skill in orating and were able to mediate the situation effectively.

Our blog logically goes through rhetorical arguments of these texts, starting with audience and then analyzing ethos, pathos, logos, and kairos. As we have already discussed, both texts are very timely as they are in direct response to an unpredicted and unprecedented events. This is also why we put heavy emphasis on the background and history leading up to these events, so the reader understands the weight and urgency of each situation. Because both of these men are presidents, logos is already established as they are both incredibly powerful men who have the responsibility to address and lead the nation in times of uncertainty. Because these are professionals with professionally written speeches being broadcast to hundreds of millions of people, the reader can realize that they carry great prestige and that their words should be listened to and believed. Pathos however is the strongest of their appeals as both men talk about the possibility and the tragic reality of losing lives. They both rely on values of patriotism, humanitarianism, loss and peace to rally the American people in the defense of their homeland. With our analysis of them discussing such harrowing and emotionally charged topics, the reader learns about the power of emotional persuasion prevalent in speeches that seek to stir a nation.

As you start to explore our blog and discover the elements we have highlighted in the speeches, you may take note of the all these ranging components and observe how they mesh together to build a larger, more meaningful picture of the time. Both the Cuban Missile Crisis and September 11th are still framed in American society as traumatic events. Uncertainty, doubt, and hysteria ran free and significantly impacted people’s perceptions at the time, leading us to concentrate on the pathos expressed in both speeches. Hopefully looking through this blog provided some insight on critical points in American history!

Logical Fallacies in Bush's Speech

George Bush's post 9/11 speech had many facets of persuasive writing, but also a few fallacies. Ad populum is ever present in the speech as he repeatedly cites American values in peace, prosperity, democracy and freedom in order to make a statement of how grand the country is. When stating that "freedom itself is under attack," he implies that the United States is the manifestation of Freedom. He hopes to unify all Americans by using words with positive connotations to generalize how people should feel at a time like this, as well as be supportive of their country. Boldly stating that "either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," Bush makes a hasty generalization as well as an either or fallacy. He generalizes people and nations who do not support the United States as being in league with the terrorists, when in reality many countries may be completely isolated or uninterested in the conflict. He threatens that if a country does not support or help his own country, they will be no different than terrorists, implying military action against them. This creates a black and white rendition on the newfound war on terror, oversimplifying the complex relations and policies that many world powers partake in.

Logical Fallacies - JFK's Cuban Missile Crisis Speech

John F Kennedy's  address to the nation about the Cuban missile crisis was not a perfect speech that had a few logical fallacies.  The first logical fallacy that JFK uses is ad hominem. JFK constantly brings up the history of the Soviets and how untrustworthy they are. For example in his speech he says: "our history -- unlike that of the Soviets since the end of World War II -- demonstrates that we have no desire to dominate or conquer any other nation or impose our system upon its people." He uses their old actions to show that the rockets the soviets put in cuba are there to destroy the US but in reality,  the reason the rockets are in Cuba was for Soviet's self defense in the mutually assured distruction agreement. He attacked the Sovet's character instead of providing the real reason.  Another thing JFK does is say "Our own strategic missiles have never been transferred to the territory of any other nation under a cloak of secrecy and deception". The intresting thing is as he says that there are US rockets sitting in turkey; no worries, he did not lie. The rockets were put in Turkey without the "cloak of secrecy and deception", but everyone assumes that meant that America never put rockets outside of US terretory. A similar trick was used by Obama to get elected: he said that he would move troops out of Iraq (everyone thought the troops would be brought back to the US), instead he moved them to a diffrent country (Afghanistan). 

Stasis: Action - Winston Churchill "We Shall Fight on the Beaches"

We Shall Fight on the Beaches - Winston Churchill

Kennedy's Cuban Missile Address and Bush's 9/11 Address both called for allies to band together and fight for the "greater good". It seems the greatest, most fervent speeches are given when a nation is threatened and its way of living endangered. Winston Churchill gave his speech "We Shall Fight on the Beaches" in response to the risk of German Invasion during the early stages of World War II. Although the United Kingdom was already greatly weakened, Churchill delivered his speech to raise British morale and promised victory over the Germans at all costs. Churchill uses the stasis of action constantly throughout the speech. One of the most famous parts of his speech demonstrates his determination to win and appeals to British patriotism and strength: "We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." Churchill's uncompromising will immediately inspired those listening and was immediately recognized as historic. In a moment of doubt and impending defeat, it is in times like those where words may have the most profound affect. Perhaps that is why so many effective presidents are also adept orators, people that can sway millions of people and change the course of history simply with words.

Canons of Rhetoric

Through both John F. Kennedy’s and George W.Bush’s speech several canons of rhetoric are utilized. Although a lot can be said about the delivery of both speeches, the fact that the speeches are still looked at today by contemporary commentators carries a lot of weight. Stylistically, to contrast the speeches, I felt as though Kennedy appealed more in that regard by using more descriptive terminology and appealing more to a sense of exigence. Both speakers appeal greatly to pathos, and employ methods to pull at the heartstrings of the audience; in Kennedy’s case that being based on impending fear while Bush’s argument resting on the past trauma and united as a nation in a time of crisis. Both speakers establish a present an argument to stir the emotions of the audience hearing their speech, one of the five canons of rhetoric. Overall, the speeches were effective at addressing the American nation in times of need, and many noticeable similarities can be observed when granting a difference in time period.