U2start.com | General Chat 13

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]
Not really into it but I'm sure reading into it further - I love history and the way culture has come so far yet so far, I'd probably pick up on it a bit more so. In fact I just checked up Wikipedia on that very quote - interesting piece of history. I'll have to read it when I've got a bit more time, not that I don't at the moment but when I'm more cohesive and with it.

As long as you get the grades that's the bit that counts.

Getting somewhere would be nice but hey, we're all young (and I shall not quote a certain line from Tom Waits here) and there's still time.

The funny thing about the quote is the way history has manipulated it...It was supposed to mean, "I am a Berliner", which is what the people of Berlin refer to themselves as, but instead Kennedy included the German word ein, which, in the context of the phrase, transforms the sentence to "I am a jelly-filled pastry", which is what ein Berliner is.

However, the effect of the misquote on the crowd was actually minimal at the rally- the audience supported Kennedy greatly and were rallied with very positive emotion, and still cheered very loudly, likely completely understanding what Kennedy meant. The argument therefore is not that Kennedy alienated himself to the German crowd, or offended them by misusing their language- but that his attempt at consubstantiality (what is achieved when you feel you have successfully been identified with) through the use of the language was not achieved.

Then of course, I stumble upon research that suggests the misquote was done on purpose, as an act of self-deprecating humor to make Kennedy seem like a normal guy who can make mistakes and still smile in a time of seriousness and struggle. I don't really agree with the theory, but whatever.

drewhiggins

14 years

Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:[..]

The funny thing about the quote is the way history has manipulated it...It was supposed to mean, "I am a Berliner", which is what the people of Berlin refer to themselves as, but instead Kennedy included the German word ein, which, in the context of the phrase, transforms the sentence to "I am a jelly-filled pastry", which is what ein Berliner is.

However, the effect of the misquote on the crowd was actually minimal at the rally- the audience supported Kennedy greatly and were rallied with very positive emotion, and still cheered very loudly, likely completely understanding what Kennedy meant. The argument therefore is not that Kennedy alienated himself to the German crowd, or offended them by misusing their language- but that his attempt at consubstantiality (what is achieved when you feel you have successfully been identified with) through the use of the language was not achieved.

Then of course, I stumble upon research that suggests the misquote was done on purpose, as an act of self-deprecating humor to make Kennedy seem like a normal guy who can make mistakes and still smile in a time of seriousness and struggle. I don't really agree with the theory, but whatever.

The Jelly Speech!!! You can tell he surely must have learnt it at the very last second. No way could you mess something as basic as that up.

The misquoting was probably some kind of ridiculous damage control (like they needed it) to say ''Oh well he makes mistakes''. And as long as it got to the people he was speaking to, that he actually tried to understand and involve himself in what they were there for, then there should be no problem. But then you have history trying always to make something that it isn't.

Anyway...

MattG

14 years

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]
The Jelly Speech!!! You can tell he surely must have learnt it at the very last second. No way could you mess something as basic as that up.

The misquoting was probably some kind of ridiculous damage control (like they needed it) to say ''Oh well he makes mistakes''. And as long as it got to the people he was speaking to, that he actually tried to understand and involve himself in what they were there for, then there should be no problem. But then you have history trying always to make something that it isn't.

Anyway...

I agree with you, there really wasn't a problem with him misusing the language in terms of getting his point across- but there's plenty to be argued in the subject of rhetorical devices/practices like the theory of identification where the misuse fails to connect the dots. Kennedy tried to use the language to identify with the crowd, and my argument was that its' misuse failed to do so- sure, they identified with him because he supported their beliefs, but no further due to his use of the language. It may have been understood and welcomed, but it didn't establish a common ground between the two parties in question on its own.

Of course that was only half of the paper anyway, the rest regarded vague language and the straw-man fallacy that uses phrases like "There are those who say", "Some might say", etc, which was actually a repeated line in the speech...the second argument being that what Kennedy thought he was using as a rhetorical device (repetition/emphasis) was actually a rhetorical no-no (the fallacy).

drewhiggins

14 years

Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:[..]

I agree with you, there really wasn't a problem with him misusing the language in terms of getting his point across- but there's plenty to be argued in the subject of rhetorical devices/practices like the theory of identification where the misuse fails to connect the dots. Kennedy tried to use the language to identify with the crowd, and my argument was that its' misuse failed to do so- sure, they identified with him because he supported their beliefs, but no further due to his use of the language. It may have been understood and welcomed, but it didn't establish a common ground between the two parties in question on its own.

Good points and you can't really...if you get something wrong, don't expect a crowd to connect with you on those grounds. They can support what you think, but they don't have to, if it's wrong, go with it entirely.

Essentially, it's the wrong point being made in the end and that surely can't make anyone comfortable. Especially not coming from someone who's in power in one of the biggest political powerhouses in the world.

Of course that was only half of the paper anyway, the rest regarded vague language and the straw-man fallacy that uses phrases like "There are those who say", "Some might say", etc, which was actually a repeated line in the speech...the second argument being that what Kennedy thought he was using as a rhetorical device (repetition/emphasis) was actually a rhetorical no-no (the fallacy).

That's the part I'd be lost on. You don't use rhetoric in politics. The whole political stage is a rhetoric...like that, why re-use it?

MattG

14 years

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]
Good points and you can't really...if you get something wrong, don't expect a crowd to connect with you on those grounds. They can support what you think, but they don't have to, if it's wrong, go with it entirely.

Essentially, it's the wrong point being made in the end and that surely can't make anyone comfortable. Especially not coming from someone who's in power in one of the biggest political powerhouses in the world.

[..]
That's the part I'd be lost on. You don't use rhetoric in politics. The whole political stage is a rhetoric...like that, why re-use it?

Rhetoric exists everywhere, even in politics. In fact, one of the styles of rhetoric itself is called political rhetoric, specifically dealing with using persuasion/promises in language to convey points and gain support. Plato was of the notion that rhetoric was unreliable and a "knack", not something that you should base an argument on- I'm with him, and from it sounds like, you. Especially in a political system, you should be arguing or advocating based on fact, not how you can use language to your advantage. Fact of the matter though is that rhetoric does exist and is still a large factor in politics, however unfortunate that may be, so it can't necessarily be ignored when assessing a speech like that.

Pretty sure you and I are in that same school of Plato though, that rhetoric is the "chicken soup to sickness"...you may use it because you THINK it's making you better, but its really not physically making you better. It's just soothing.

drewhiggins

14 years

Originally posted by EyesWithPrideB3:[..]

Rhetoric exists everywhere, even in politics. In fact, one of the styles of rhetoric itself is called political rhetoric, specifically dealing with using persuasion/promises in language to convey points and gain support. Plato was of the notion that rhetoric was unreliable and a "knack", not something that you should base an argument on- I'm with him, and from it sounds like, you. Especially in a political system, you should be arguing or advocating based on fact, not how you can use language to your advantage. Fact of the matter though is that rhetoric does exist and is still a large factor in politics, however unfortunate that may be, so it can't necessarily be ignored when assessing a speech like that.

Pretty sure you and I are in that same school of Plato though, that rhetoric is the "chicken soup to sickness"...you may use it because you THINK it's making you better, but its really not physically making you better. It's just soothing.

I'm just a bit tired so I'm trying to understand a bit. I'm usually more awake in earlier mornings. If something I write doesn't make a lot of sense it's probably 'cos I'm not all with it.

Language should be used in the same way fact is. Fact is an important thing; nobody's going to listen to something that you've just thought up and think passes for truth (politics no doubt), you need to back it up - and this is what annoys me with the general population; I'll say something and everyone's going to say yay. No they're not - there's always that one person who questions fact, even though it is fact. Backing it up is crucial.

With language, not so much backing it up but using it in the way to support your facts in a well-constructed manner. Never been big on rhetorical questions. I could sit with someone for hours answering a question (yes, one question!!!) but I hate rhetoric. It pretty much blocks off anything constructive. At least in general talking anyway. It works wonders in politics.

If I don't reply back it's probably 'cos I've fallen asleep. Anything else you do write to my post I'll definitely reply to it when I have the time. If so, good night and take care.

MattG

14 years

Originally posted by drewhiggins:[..]
I'm just a bit tired so I'm trying to understand a bit. I'm usually more awake in earlier mornings. If something I write doesn't make a lot of sense it's probably 'cos I'm not all with it.

Language should be used in the same way fact is. Fact is an important thing; nobody's going to listen to something that you've just thought up and think passes for truth (politics no doubt), you need to back it up - and this is what annoys me with the general population; I'll say something and everyone's going to say yay. No they're not - there's always that one person who questions fact, even though it is fact. Backing it up is crucial.

With language, not so much backing it up but using it in the way to support your facts in a well-constructed manner. Never been big on rhetorical questions. I could sit with someone for hours answering a question (yes, one question!!!) but I hate rhetoric. It pretty much blocks off anything constructive. At least in general talking anyway. It works wonders in politics.

If I don't reply back it's probably 'cos I've fallen asleep. Anything else you do write to my post I'll definitely reply to it when I have the time. If so, good night and take care.

Well have a nice night and get some good sleep, in any case-

But yes, I agree- rhetoric is a burden on factual and progressive conversation. When well used, appropriately used, and situationally SOUND, however, rhetoric can turn a solid, fact based argument into an argument that is better received, more fully understood, and overall more agreed with simply because somebody understood it better and your supporting rhetoric allowed your argument to hit home in a perhaps much more individual and unique way. Unfortunately an excellent combination of rhetoric used as support (etc.) as opposed to as a tactic of persuasion (etc.) seems rare.

LikeASong

14 years