Powell's Rivers of Blood - Speech or Presentation Example

Introduction The structure is relevant to aspirant immigrants to Britain from the Commonwealth. The structure of the speech makes it easier for these audiences to easily interpret the relevant messages of the speech. By doing so, they are able to quickly become more knowledgeable about immigration legislation biases they encounter and standing up for their rights and themselves to fight for any immigration benefits that should lawfully be given to them. The speech’s structure of also initially mentioning the nature of the conflicts involving immigration regulations in Britain, then gradually detailing sample conflict situations of such also made the audiences become more aware of the causes of the immigration conflicts they suffer from. By being more aware of the causes of these conflicts, they would be better equipped in resolving them in the long run. The speech also made a huge impact on potential immigrants to Britain by having the speaker, Enoch Powell, initially mention his observations of the situations of others that involve immigration conflicts in the speech before tackling on other issues involving his desires and needs. This just goes to show the audience that Powell gives priority on the plight of others so much so he proves his fair judgments of the underlying conflicts involving British immigration. Powell’s quoting of quotes of famous people in the middle of his speech also made his speech gives an extra highlighted appeal which may more likely alert the audience’s senses when in the middle of reading the speech. Powell’s description of moving emotions in the middle of his speech also made his audience break their suspense of guessing the next situations and facts that are to be discussed in the speech. Upon reading the description of these emotions, they already follow through that great emotions and disappointments are involved in the conflicts surrounding the British immigration legislations. Powell’s description of the more ravaged feelings of loneliness and hatred after the great emotions and disappointments are narrated in the middle of the speech also gives audiences opportunities to feel the more powerful deep negative emotions felt by immigrants to Britain who are unfairly denied their rightful immigration benefits. These ravaged feelings seem more real to the audiences when described after the great emotions and disappointments involving immigration conflicts are told as the audiences already had prior knowledge of the ravaged feelings prior to feeling the deep emotions involving them that are felt from reading the speech. Body The audiences of the speech are persuaded to convince to believe that what they interpret as the message of the speech is really what it is. This message they get is Mr. Powell’s tremendous disapproval of immigration to Britain by foreign nationals. They are so much so convinced due to certain harsh words Mr. Powell used in his speech such as ““negligible proportions” of the present immigrant inflow, and an “urgent encouragement of re-emigration”, Speech That Has Raised A Storm (Anon., 1968). The audience is also convinced that one of the foremost reasons Powell is against immigration is due to the racist attitude he holds. This is evident when he voices out his opinion on the Race Relations Bill as lawfully implementing “a risk of throwing a match onto gunpowder,” Speech That Has Raised A Storm (Anon., 1968). The audience was also convinced that Powell holds a highly discriminatory stance against immigrants, based on reasons that are biased and irrational. In his speech, Powell states that immigrants are not willing to be flexible in adjusting with the British culture and practices that is why they would never be able to become assets to the country, but would always remain as liabilities. This insight of Powell is evident when he states in his speech: “although "many thousands" of immigrants wanted to integrate, he contended that the majority did not, and that some had vested interests in fostering racial and religious differences "with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population,” Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010). The other audiences were all the more convinced that Powell was entirely discriminatory in his speech when one of his audiences, Howard Wheeldon states that he was amazed only one person got annoyed upon hearing Powell’s words during the entire speech, Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010). The audiences also knew from this point on that they seemed very passive and submissive by taking Powell’s words with a grain of salt, and not voicing out their disapprovals of how biased Powell was when discriminating against race in relation to British immigration. Upon realising this, the audiences all the more became convinced it was about time to stand up for themselves and take action against the discriminatory practices being hurled against them by the British politician. They decided to conduct rallies and campaigns throughout Britain in opposition against these discriminatory practices and beliefs. The audiences of this speech allowed their displeasure and disapproval at Powell’s belief become known in April 23 when 1,000 London dockers conducted a strike making the public know how wrong Powell was in holding such biased beliefs, Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010). The strike participants walked in protestant marches starting at the East End going to the Palace Of Westminster holding placards up high that say "Don't knock Enoch" and "Back Britain, not Black Britain,” Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010). 300 of these participants went inside the Palace Of Westminster, 100 of them to vouch for the MP for the group of Stepney, Peter Shore, while 200 of them to vouch for the MP for Poplar, Ian Mikardo, Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010). Another strike incident that took place courtesy of the audiences of the speech took place in April 24 when 600 dockers conducted the strike at St. Katharine’s docks, while multiple factory workers also followed suit in conducting strikes, Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010). On the other hand, the results of the opinion polls taken by The Gallup Organisation participated by the audiences of the speech were contradictory of the strike incidents proliferating throughout Britain, Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010). The results of these opinion polls taken at the end of April are the following, Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010): “74% agreed with what Powell had said in his speech; 15% disagreed. 69% felt Heath was wrong to sack Powell and 20% believed Heath was right,” Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010). In the United Kingdom, most especially prevalent in England, the population members are accused of disseminating biased judges against racial quotas, immigration, and multiculturalism, Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010). Several materials with slogans vouching for Powell’s beliefs were scattered throughout the United Kingdom, Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010). Such slogans were the following: "Enoch was right" and "Come back Enoch Powell – we should have listened,” Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010). In tribute to “The Rivers Of Blood” speech, the band called “Brutal Attack” released a song entitled “Rivers Of Blood” in their 1985 album called, “Stronger Than Before,” Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010). They performed this song at the “Rock Against Communism” concerts in the 1980s, Rivers Of Blood Speech (Anon., 2010). The rhetoric techniques used in the speech are radical. I say this as I can definitely see clearly Mr. Powell wanted some fundamental changes to take place in Britain. He wanted Britain to overhaul its immigration legislations and completely bar foreigners from immigrating to Britain due to racial and cultural discriminatory beliefs. He does this by making sure he conjures up a long speech detailing in specific words and sentences his intentions in a very straight forward manner. He was not concerned at all in being sensitive to the feelings of the victimised foreigners who would read the speech. In fact, it was in his well meaning intentions to hurt the feelings of these people so as to achieve his purpose of eliminating immigration of foreigners to Britain. He was not really successful in his quest to achieve his goal. Instead of just accepting Powell’s views with discouragement, immigration benefits supporters stood up for their beliefs by staging strikes in plenty of areas around the country to show their dismay over Powell’s views and desires. Therefore, audiences can definitely see in this regard Powell would have a hard time achieving his goal despite being radically upfront with his views as evidenced in the rhetoric techniques he employs. This just goes to show that numerous people nowadays are not easily scared of tactics implemented by radical people. People know better than get easily get scared of tactics that had no bases to get scared of as they know better not to judge a book by its cover. It has taken a lot of hard work and determination for people to stand up for themselves as cowardly people when it comes to dealing with immigration issues are very common in first world countries. People who oppose these regulations often feel they are powerless to protest and bring in some timely changes to the immigration world in first world countries due to the power these countries hold among themselves around the globe. The language in the speech is radical as they are harshly thrown out with the intention of enabling the reformation of immigration legislation in order to bar foreigners from ever applying for permanent residency in Britain. The language of the speech is considered below the belt radical as specific insulting words are thrown out against potential immigrants to Britain in ways that degrade their dignity, self-worth and potentials as individuals. These words are so insulting that they discourage immigrants from striving with determination in order to achieve their dream life in Britain in many aspects. There were numerous distinctive oratorical traits exhibited in the speech. These oratorical traits are the following, The Types Of Oratory (Anon., 2000): -Forensic oratory- this is defined as follows: “Forensic oratory is speaking about the past in a matter of legal judgment,” The Types Of Oratory (Anon., 2000). Powell was speaking about his discriminatory views about immigration to Britain by using his past negative experiences with foreigners immigrating to Britain, The Types Of Oratory (Anon., 2000). He feels as though the foreigners who immigrated to the country took away numerous state benefits, employment and professional opportunities, and also robbed the country off in keeping their monoculture characteristic in its firm place in Britain, The Types Of Oratory (Anon., 2000). Because of these experiences, he is trying to put forth a message to the British government that immigration to Britain from overseas does more damage than good to the nation and must be stopped. Although Powell did not speak of his displeasure with immigration to Britain as an oath testimony statement, his views were considered lawfully narrated as he was delivering his displeasure in a speech in a state owned venue with numerous political figures as audiences. Therefore, his speech was also considered forensic oratory. -Deliberative oratory is defined as follows: “Deliberative oratory is speaking about the future. Its purpose is getting someone to move to an action,” The Types Of Oratory (Anon., 2000). Mr. Powell was clearly able to disseminate his message to the public of his views about the future of Britain, both globally and economically, should massive immigration to the country continue to flow through. He delivers this message with the intention of getting the politicians or concerned authorities in the country to get their acts together into proposing and passing legislations to stop immigration to the country. -Epideictic oratory is defined as follows: “Epideictic is spoken about in the present and is used to praise or blame someone or something,” The Types Of Oratory (Anon., 2000). Powell blames the deprivation of citizens of his country of public benefits and employment opportunities to the immigrants who continue to pursue their dream of settling down in Britain. Likewise, he blames the loss of cultural identities of European British residents and citizens to the immigrants who brought in a multitude of various cultures to the country. -Persuasive oratory is defined as follows:” move the audience into believing what they want them to believe,” The Types Of Oratory (Anon., 2000). In this speech, Powell was trying to make the concerned government authorities in Britain to propose and pass legislations barring foreigners from living permanently in Britain. He uses strong and harsh words in order to have a better chance of convincing these authorities that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of immigration in Britain. -Informative or expository oratory is defined as follows: “Informative or expository oratory uses the mechanics of rhetoric to inform an audience. Usually informative speeches are given to someone who already has the same view as the speaker,” The Types Of Oratory (Anon., 2000). Powell was trying to state the nature of the situation of immigration to appropriate authorities in Britain. He was hoping that in doing so, he would be able to convince them even more that immigration brings more ills than blessings to British society, if they are already convinced of this situation. -Argumentative and persuasive oratory is defined as follows:” Argumentative oratory is similar to persuasive oratory and has basically the same goal but deviates in that it is intended for a more direct attack,” The Types Of Oratory (Anon., 2000). Powell was using the argumentative oratory more than he was using the persuasive one. By using harsh words describing the country’s immigration, it was pretty obvious he was attacking the country’s immigrants. However, when he used metaphorical words in describing the immigration situation in Britain, he was not making a direct attack. Therefore, he also used the persuasive oratory in this regard. Great speakers are often present in special events such as parties, workshops and other special functions, The Types Of Oratory (Anon., 2000). They often play huge roles in these events as audiences obtain much of their knowledge and experiences from the speeches they give. Powell’s speech is very pertinent in relation to massive British exploration in early history by the Romans, Saxons, Vikings, and Normans armies (Barrow, 2001). Powell’s speech also brings strong relations to Africans who were brought by force to Britain as immigrants to serve as slaves or servants in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Barrow, 2001). As years progress, massive immigration in the country occurs, particularly from refugees in France, Ireland, Russia and other countries in order to prevent experiencing famine in their native lands (Barrow, 2001). Although this incident may contribute little influences on Powell’s immigration views as it covers European immigration, this incident still serves as the leading force in immigration trends from other countries to Britain. Powell may secretly wishing European immigration was not as massive as it were in the past, because if it was not massive immigration to the country from other parts of the world would not have been so rampant today. One of the incidents that led massive immigration from non-European countries in the twentieth century was the immigration of citizens of Carribean, India, Pakistan, Hong Kong and other countries to Britain (Barrow, 2001). They mainly settle in large cities in the country such as London, Birmingham, and Manchester (Barrow, 2001). 8 percent of Britain’s population holds non-European cultures and ethnicities (Barrow, 2001). This percentage of Britain’s population makes up about 4.6 million people in the country (Barrow, 2001). A situation which Powell makes it known in his speech he dislikes very much. BBC news channel reports this new finding:” in September 2005, immigration made up more than half of Britain’s population growth from 1991 and 2001” (Barrow, 2001). In 2007, a latest research finding indicates that the net immigration numbers equal to 145,000 a year (Barrow, 2001). People immigrating to Britain bring two cultures to the British society actively (Barrow, 2001). However, Powell seems to see this as a detriment instead of an advantage as he seems to feel multiculturalism brings the lost of one culture, and does not hold the presence of two cultures at the same time. He is terribly wrong in holding this view. This incident proves him wrong: “the Notting Hill carnival celebrates the Carribean culture and is now a very big part of the British life today” (Barrow, 2001). Among the highlights of British immigration are the following incidents (Barrow, 2001): “1600s- Asians brought to England as slaves. 1700s-Refugees from the French Revolution (1789) arrive. First records of Chinese sailors in London. 1950s and 60s- Settlers from other new Commonwealth nations arrive- India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. 1970s-East African, Asians and Vietnamese arrive. 1972-Asians expelled from Uganda; 27,000 admitted to UK” (Barrow, 2001). Powell used the anacoluthon rhetorical device when he mentioned some harsh words to describe the immigration situation in Britain, A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). He lacked using appropriate grammatical words when he used these words in his speech as these words were given out figuratively. Anacoluthon rhetorical device is defined as follows: “lack of grammatical sequence; a change in the grammatical construction within the same sentence,” A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). He also used anastrophe as a rhetorical device as he was seeking to build a mysterious image and remain mysterious in making known his speech’s message by jumbling up the words. Anastrophe rhetorical device is defined as follows: “transposition of normal word order; most often found in Latin in the case of prepositions and the words they control. Anastrophe is a form of hyperbaton,” A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). Powell also contrasted immigration benefits and disadvantages in a parallel way, and thus, using antithesis rhetorical device in this aspect, A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). He also does this in such a way that he sends out the message that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits of immigration to Britain. Powell also used the apostrophe rhetorical device in the middle of giving his speech by switching from talking about the plight of the general population of Britain to talking about the liabilities immigrants and immigration legislations in effect bring to the country. Apostrophe device is defined as follows: “a sudden turn from the general audience to address a specific group or person or personified abstraction absent or present,” A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). The usage of asyndeton rhetorical device is also present in the speech. Powell intentionally omitted proper coordination of phrases, clauses and words in order to send off dramatic emotions that he is feeling regarding his disapproval of immigration of foreign nationals to Britain. Asyndeton rhetorical device is defined as follows: “lack of conjunctions between coordinate phrases, clauses, or words,” A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). The readers would also be negatively moved by the speaker’s usage of the cacophony rhetorical device. He uses this device in order to make the immigrants and potential immigrants all the more feel his displeasure and insulting words on immigration to Britain. Cacophony is defined as follows: “harsh joining of sounds,” A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). Powell also hoped to hurt the feelings of immigrants and potential immigrants by using the catachresis rhetorical device in his speech. He does this by harshly exaggerating the immigration situation in Britain. Catachresis rhetorical device is defined as follows: “a harsh metaphor involving the use of a word beyond its strict sphere,” A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). The speaker ultimately used the climax rhetorical device in closing his speech. He does this in order to send out his emotional message. Climax rhetorical device is defined as follows: “arrangement of words, phrases, or clauses in an order of ascending power. Often the last emphatic word in one phrase or clause is repeated as the first emphatic word of the next,” A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). Readers can also see Powell exercising hyperbole rhetorical device in this speech. He exaggerates the disadvantages he gleans from immigration to Britain by foreign nationals just so he can get across to the public his severe displeasure about it. Hyperbole is defined as follows: “exaggeration for emphasis or for rhetorical effect,” A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). An example of a work that uses the hyperbole rhetorical device is the following, A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004): “My vegetable love should grow Vaster than empires, and more slow; An hundred years should got to praise Thine eyes and on thine forehead gaze; Two hundred to adore each breast, But thirty thousand to the rest. Andrew Marvell, "To His Coy Mistress,”” A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). Powell also stressed the importance of the disadvantages of immigration to Britain over its advantages, and hence, using the Hysteron Proteron rhetorical device when stressing this importance. Hysteron Proteron is defined as follows: “inversion of the natural sequence of events, often meant to stress the event which, though later in time, is considered the more important,” A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). Examples of works using hyperbole device is as follows, A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004): “"I like the island Manhattan. Smoke on your pipe and put that in." -- from the song "America," West Side Story lyric by Stephen Sondheim (submitted per litteram by guest rhetorician Anthony Scelba),” A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). “Put on your shoes and socks!,” A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). “Hannibal in Africam redire atque Italia decedere coactus est. Cicero, In Catilinam,” A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Anon., 2004). Conclusion In my opinion, the speech was enough to severely hurt the feelings of immigrants and potential immigrants to Britain. At the same time, the speech was also enough to discourage potential immigrants from immigrating to Britain. The speech also contained many hurtful words enough to drive away immigrants from the country. However, on the contrary, these incidents never happened. Immigrants and potential immigrants continued to stand up for their rights and benefits they believe they should lawfully keep and obtain. References: 1968. Speech That Has Raised A Storm. Birmingham Post Online [internet] 22 April. Available at: http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/powell_press.htm [Accessed 08 April 2010]. Wikipedia. 2010. Rivers Of Blood Speech (Updated 30 Mar. 2010) [Online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech [Accessed 08 April 2010]. Member Of Team. 2000. The Types Of Oratory, s.d. [Online] Available at: http://library.thinkquest.org/C001146/curriculum.php3?action=item_view&item_id=11 [Accessed 08 April 2010]. Barrow, M. 2001. Are The People In Britain Ethnically Diverse? (Updated on 02 Oct. 2001) [Online] Available at: http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/multiculture.html [Accessed 08 April 2010]. University OF Kentucky, Division Of Classics. 2004. A Glossary Of Rhetorical Terms With Examples (Updated on 22 Dec. 2004) [Online] Available at: http://www.uky.edu/AS/Classics/rhetoric.html [Accessed 09 April 2010]. Read More