WWII Leader Speech Comparison

Churchill and Goebbels both effectively have a strong hold over their respective audiences.  Though Churchill was the newly selected Prime Minister of Great Britain, he showcases his credibility throughout his speech.  Goebbels, on the other hand, uses force disguised as patriotism and pressure in order to control his audience.

Although Churchill and Goebbels were on the complete opposite sides of the war, they both use similar techniques in their speeches.  Both preach of, “Victory at all costs!” as well as their respective empires not being able to survive if they lose, or they will forfeit the futures and the history of their cultures which would be subject to the winners jurisdiction. Both men utilise persuasive techniques like ethos and pathos.  However, in my opinion, I think that Goebbels does a much better job at using pathos because he is constantly poking patriotism to the Germans.  If they feel proud of their country, then the more willing they would be to defend and work hard for it, which is really what Goebbels wants; to get every citizen to do something to help the war effort.  Churchill utilizes more ethos than pathos due to the fact that he needs to convince his audience of his authority and credibility before he can make them emotional. 

Both leaders have a tight hold over their audiences.  Despite the fact that Churchill is a new Prime Minister, he established his credibility early on by describing all of the things that he’s already done in the government, like forming a new administration as well as a war cabinet, which represents the different parties so as to unite the nation.  He says that this happened because they’re in war and there isn’t any time to dilly-dally. Goebbels on the other hand compliments his German audience by relishing their distinct and fine culture and saying that it must be preserved.  Goebbels also addresses the different social groups of German society, including women, the poor, the wealthy, and soldiers. He says women must work in any way possible in order to add to the war effort.  He uses force and underhanded threats that basically all say, “If you don’t help, we will come after you and make sure that you do.”

Both Churchill and Goebbels both have power and control over their audiences by using similar techniques, but in different ways.  Goebbels uses force, threats, and pathos, whereas Churchill uses ethos and his newly instated authority.  Despite their different methods for achieving victory and their manners of persuasion, they ultimately have the same: victory.

Machiavelli vs. Thoreau

Though Machiavelli and Thoreau both speak of the human condition, they both have very different views of human nature.  Machiavelli is much more harsh and Thoreau views humans in a much brighter light.

In Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, he says that people should always do what they believe is right and not to “go with the flow.” If someone believes in something, then they need to do everything in their power to change it and to make a difference to the best of their abilities. Machiavelli, on the other hand, in his work, “The Prince,” believed that a prince had to do whatever it took to stay in power and to remain in control.  Machiavelli’s ideas are more ruthless in the sense that Machiavelli preached to ignore religion, morals, and society in order to get what you want.  Thoreau’s ideas are more ethical and might be considered more “wholesome.” 

Machiavelli says that men are, “…ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, fearful, of danger and greedy for gain.” (Machiavelli, 461) Machiavelli sees the worst in humans and cannot seem them for their good.  His negative impression of the masses also affects his text as he advises all princes to invoke fear rather than love over his subjects.  Fear is much more powerful than love and all princes should care about is power and control.   Thoreau sees the lighter side of the human condition and has more faith in humans.  Thoreau thinks that the State can only achieve complete and total power when individuals are considered the epitome of significance.  For the majority of history, the majority has been more valued over the individual, but Thoreau’s idea is quite revolutionary in saying that the complete opposite is true.

Another major difference between Machiavelli and Thoreau is that Thoreau is more concerned with the State (the U.S. government) and the people, whereas Machiavelli cares more about the Prince and the power he holds.   For example, Thoreau was very much against the war with Mexico.  He believed that its cause was not a just one.  However, he is not against fighting and war: he is against fighting without a cause.  Machiavelli, according to “The Prince,” wouldn’t care whether or not the war had a cause, but only if it would pay off eventually. 

The Finished Product: Social Change 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9MrA3P-sM

Social Change Video (rough draft)

Getting the Right Reps

I can assure you that if you looked at any magazine, billboard, clothing commercial, or even at red carpet events, you wouldn’t be able to spot a woman who looked like your mother, next door neighbour, teacher, or the lady behind you at the super market.  Instead you’d find a stick thin woman, but with someone excellent assets, and with pounds of makeup.  Of course that woman is the one you, a teenage, or just in general, a girl, should look up to and aspire to be like: thin, pretty, and perfect.  Of course, that’s what society tells you to do because all the women in the media look like that and you should too (if you want to fit in, which of course you do: you’re a girl!) 

            These women of the media are technically women, but are they really with all the airbrushing, PhotoShopping, enhanced, and slimmed down they go through?  Since they're setting the ideals of beauty and how women should look like, they make all other women look bad and sub-par.  Everyone believes that these women are the real women of the world and sets their standards at the Kate Moss and Megan Fox level.  I want women, particularly girls, to know that just because they don’t look like supermodels, doesn’t mean they’re not beautiful.  By creating a YouTube video, I will be able to project my idea to the Internet that will hopefully be able to illuminate this misrepresentation of women.  The Internet billions of users a day and would be the most prudent to getting my message across to as many people as possible.

            By making a YouTube video, I think this will be the most effective medium for me as I have a passionate and powerful voice.  For me, I can more easily get my point across through diction rather than the written word.  And since YouTube is public, anyone would be able to hear what I have to say.  I have personal experience with the negative effects of the misrepresentation and will be able to use my ethos and pathos to have people understand how serious this situation is.  In addition to this, I will use logos by utilizing all of the facts and statistics I have about suicides, depression rates, and eating disorder rates all due to poor self-image. 

            Before actually making my video, I will have all of my points and facts written out and well practised so as to make my video as concise and clear as possible.  My goal is to utilize all my modes of persuasion through my video and for people to become aware of this situation.  In my video, I will use several editing techniques like putting different statistics on screen and switching to quotes so as to visually aide my audiences rather than them just looking at me and having to take my word for it.

Toulmin Analysis of Ethos Blog

The major claims of my previous blog were that women are being misrepresented in the media and according to the media, there is a very specific way a woman must look in order to be considered beautiful.  There are impossibly high standards that women must adhere to.

My data was lacking, and even though I included a quote from Tina Fey's autobiography, some wouldn't consider that true data as it is an interpretation of something (though as a woman, everything she said is so true and accurate- but hey, that's just me).  In my rough draft I will include statistics of teenage girl suicides and further information about the eating disorders that plague America's youth.

My warrant is that because the women that are in the media don't actually show real women, teenagers and older women have self-esteem issues and this lack of confidence causes suicide, mental illness, and eating disorders.

A rebuttal to my argument could be that because the women shown in magazines, on TV, and in the movies are beautiful, thin, and flawless, that this has girls have a goal to aspire to look like.  For example, if one girl admires Keira Knightly for her thin stature, then that might "inspire" her to lose weight by eating less or eating healthier.  Some might think that is a positive thing to want to lose weight.  These women might also make girls want to put a lot of time into their appearances by getting a haircut, get nicer clothes, etc.

My qualifiers are that I am a teenage girl who is a target of this representation.  I am constantly exposed to this and its always a slap in the face.  I've been through the negative effects of this and I know what its likfe and this makes me a credible source.

My backing is facts about this will be the poll I took of BMHS girls about how compared to celebrities and models, if they felt inferior/not as beautiful.

Social Change Project Audience Brainstorming

Possible Audiences

BMHS

CGS students

High school students in general

The Internet (YouTube, Tumblr, FaceBook)

Local Newspapers (The Darien Times for instance)

The Fashion Industry (mostly Victoria’s Secret)

Women

Narrowing it Down

High School Students (specifically girls)

This misrepresentation of women is targeted at me.  Teenage girls, in high school and in college are the ones being most affected.  Young women get hit the hardest by this false image of women and they need to be illuminated about what its doing and why it needs to stop.  People, not just girls, are exposed to this constantly, across the world and since its so common, its become okay, no questions asked.

YouTube

The Internet is a wonderful place to display your opinions and thoughts.  YouTube is even better because of the video sharing and how quickly things can spread across the Internet, and therefore, across the world.  YouTube is an open field where literally anything can be posted or said or done.  Not only is it free, but it opens a much broader range of people that are able to view than just one place, like one school for example.  So instead of just having a very narrow range of people hear my thoughts, I could have the entire Internet listening to me.

The Media

I’ve been published in the Darien Times more than once and I think I might be able to do it again.  By being published in a newspaper, there is a much wider audience to view my idea, specifically mostly adults and not just teenagers who, in my opinion, are the main audience of this issue.  My goal is to get as many people thinking about this issue as possible and spread it like wild fire.

I think that my best bet is to post my idea as a video to YouTube. I'm fairly good at speaking and I know that I will be able to get my idea across much better if I'm able to speak it.  People then could hear the passion in my voice, which I think is critical to any argument.  YouTube is also a very public site that is visited constantly.  And because it's the 21st century, posting the link to my video on any social media site or emailing it to family and friends is a good way to get as many views as possible and to spread the word.