In the speeches “I Have A Dream” by Martin Luther King Jr. and “Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation” by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, both speakers confront significant difficulties and obstacles that affect their respective audiences and the broader public. The obstacles they address stem from profound public and governmental issues, including systemic racism and an unexpected military attack. Both speakers utilize rhetoric to persuade and inform their audiences, with particular emphasis on parallelism and epistrophe. By examining these rhetorical devices, we can understand how each speech aims to galvanize its audience and highlight the urgency of the issues at hand.
Historical Context and Public Issues
The historical context surrounding these speeches is crucial to understanding the obstacles each speaker addresses. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have A Dream” speech during the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. This period was marked by intense civil rights struggles, as African Americans faced systemic discrimination and segregation despite the formal end of slavery nearly a century earlier. King’s speech sought to shed light on these injustices and inspire collective action to achieve true equality and civil rights for all.
On the other hand, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation” was delivered on December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This event thrust the United States into World War II, shattering any remaining isolationist sentiments and mobilizing the nation for war. Roosevelt’s speech aimed to inform the public about the gravity of the situation and to unite the country against a common external enemy.
Use of Parallelism
Parallelism is a rhetorical device that involves using similar grammatical structures to create rhythm and make the speech more memorable and impactful. In King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, he employs parallelism to emphasize the ongoing struggles of African Americans. For instance, he declares, “One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination.” This repetition of structure underscores the persistent nature of racial injustices and amplifies the emotional weight of his message. By drawing attention to the continued suffering of African Americans, King seeks to highlight the urgent need for change and galvanize his audience to take action.
Similarly, in Roosevelt’s “Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation,” parallelism is used to detail the scope of the Japanese attacks. He emphasizes, “Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong. Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam. Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands. Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.” The repetition of “Last night” serves to underscore the widespread and coordinated nature of the attacks, thereby conveying the seriousness of the situation and the immediate threat to the nation. This use of parallelism helps to create a sense of urgency and solidarity among the American people.
Use of Epistrophe
Epistrophe is another rhetorical device, involving the repetition of a word or phrase at the end of successive clauses. It is used to emphasize a particular point and make it resonate with the audience. In King’s speech, he uses epistrophe to inspire unity and collective action among his listeners. He states, “With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.” The repetition of “together” reinforces the idea that unity and collective effort are essential to overcoming the systemic injustices faced by African Americans. By invoking the shared struggles and hopes of his audience, King aims to foster a sense of solidarity and motivate his listeners to join the civil rights movement.
In Roosevelt’s speech, epistrophe is used to emphasize the peril facing the nation. He asserts, “There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.” The repetition of “our” highlights the collective nature of the threat and serves to unite the American people against a common enemy. By focusing on the shared danger, Roosevelt seeks to rally the nation and prepare it for the challenges ahead.
Persuasion and Informing the Audience
Both speeches use these rhetorical devices to achieve different ends. King’s speech is primarily persuasive, aimed at highlighting the injustices faced by African Americans and inspiring his audience to take action. His use of emotional appeals and vivid imagery helps to convey the depth of the suffering caused by segregation and discrimination. For example, he vividly describes the plight of African Americans with phrases like “the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination,” which evoke powerful images of bondage and oppression.
Roosevelt’s speech, on the other hand, is more informational, focusing on the immediate need to respond to the Japanese attacks. His use of detailed descriptions of the attacks and their locations serves to inform the public about the scale of the threat and the necessity of a unified response. By providing specific information about the attacks, Roosevelt aims to dispel any confusion or uncertainty and prepare the nation for the realities of war.
Comparative Effectiveness
When comparing the effectiveness of the two speeches, it is essential to consider their different purposes and contexts. King’s speech is more emotional, aiming to inspire and mobilize his audience by appealing to their sense of justice and empathy. His use of parallelism and epistrophe helps to create a powerful and memorable message that resonates with listeners and motivates them to join the fight for civil rights.
Roosevelt’s speech, while also impactful, is more focused on providing information and rallying the nation in response to a specific external threat. His use of rhetorical devices helps to emphasize the gravity of the situation and the need for a coordinated national effort. However, the emotional impact of his speech is somewhat secondary to its primary purpose of informing and preparing the public for war.
Academic Theories and Rhetorical Analysis
From an academic perspective, the use of parallelism and epistrophe in these speeches can be analyzed through the lens of classical rhetoric, particularly Aristotle’s modes of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. King’s speech relies heavily on pathos, appealing to the emotions of his audience to inspire action. His use of vivid imagery and emotional appeals helps to create a powerful connection with his listeners, making his message more impactful and persuasive.
Roosevelt’s speech, while also incorporating emotional appeals, relies more on ethos and logos. His authoritative position as President lends credibility to his message (ethos), while his detailed account of the attacks provides logical reasoning for the need to respond (logos). By combining these modes of persuasion, Roosevelt effectively communicates the urgency of the situation and the necessity of a united national effort.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the speeches “I Have A Dream” by Martin Luther King Jr. and “Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation” by Franklin Delano Roosevelt both address significant obstacles and challenges through the use of rhetorical devices such as parallelism and epistrophe. King’s speech is more emotional and persuasive, aiming to highlight the injustices faced by African Americans and inspire collective action. Roosevelt’s speech is more informational, focusing on the immediate need to respond to the Japanese attacks and prepare the nation for war. By analyzing the use of these rhetorical devices and their effectiveness, we gain a deeper understanding of how each speaker sought to influence their audience and address the critical issues of their time.