Exactly 52 years ago, on August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King delivered his famous speech in Washington with the words “I have a dream...”. We decided to remember her and six other famous speeches of great people with whom every educated person should be familiar.
I have a dream…
In 1963, one of the largest protests in the history of the country took place in the United States - the March on Washington for jobs and freedom, in which up to 300 thousand people took part. About 80% of the march participants were black, reflecting the main agenda of the event - a protest against racial segregation.
The struggle for the rights of blacks in the United States was then in full swing, and one of its active participants was Martin Luther King, a Baptist preacher from Tennessee. King also took part in this march, becoming one of the speakers.
Martin Luther King speaking at the march.
King's speech was replete with references to the Bible, and also addressed concepts of American freedom and equality that had long been proclaimed but had not become a reality for African Americans by 1963. King, being an experienced preacher, perfectly structured the tempo of his speech, combining it with his singing timbre.
The speech made an indelible impression on all participants in the march and ultimately forced the US authorities to grant equal rights to all its citizens. It can be called the most famous work of oratory of the twentieth century.
CONTENT
- Sujourner Truth: “Am I not a woman?”
- Winston Churchill, Fulton speech
- Joseph Goebbels, Speech on Total War
- Martin Luther King: "I have a dream"
- Mach
- Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
- Olzhas Suleimenov, "Nevada - Semey"
Words inspire people to change the world and fight for human rights, and sometimes start political conflicts on a global scale. We have collected seven speeches and performances that in one way or another influenced the course of history.
Sujourner Truth: “Am I not a woman?”
Sujourner Truth is a well-known abolitionist (the movement for the abolition of slavery and the freeing of slaves), a former slave, and one of the first black feminists.
Photo source: wikimedia
She addressed the audience with her famous "Ain't I a Woman?" speech. at a women's rights meeting in 1851 in Akron, Ohio.
At that time, women citizens did not dare speak in front of an audience, since the public only supported male speakers who dominated the discussion, and they laughed at them, but during Sujourner's speech the hall fell silent.
She openly demanded personal freedom, respect for herself and her interests, gratitude for work and recognition of personal achievements, equality in rights and morality, regardless of skin color and gender.
After this speech, the activist met with Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant, demanding that women be allowed to vote in presidential elections. She also promoted legislation to protect the land rights of former slaves.
Although the American mentality was not yet ready for such changes, the activities of Sujourner Truth left a mark on the history of feminism and the fight for the rights of blacks.
And then this little guy in the back says that women can't have as many rights as men because Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and from a woman! The man had nothing to do with Him.
And if the first woman God ever created was strong enough to single-handedly turn this world upside down, then these women together can turn it back, put it back on its feet again! And as long as they ask to do it, men better let them.
From Plevako to Reznik: famous speeches of lawyers in court
Speech by Fyodor Plevako on the Lukashevich case
The speeches of the legendary lawyer Fyodor Plevako, who practiced in the 19th century, are considered a model of judicial eloquence and oratory. Often his judicial monologues are short and casual, as if they had not been carefully prepared in advance. The famous lawyer Anatoly Koni said that Plevako is “a man whose oratory turned into inspiration.” Plevako was guided not only by logic, but also paid attention to psychological factors. He evoked a feeling of sympathy for the defendants and thus sought leniency towards them.
- 10 best forensic monologues in cinema history: part one
August 31, 9:29 - 10 best judicial monologues in the history of cinema: part two
September 7, 10:26
Many of Plevako’s court appearances were included in collections and published. Including the speech on the Lukashevich case. On October 25, 1878, on his father’s estate, Nikolai Lukashevich shot his stepmother Fanny Lukashevich. He was accused of premeditated murder, and his defense lawyer (Fedor Plevako) insisted on reclassifying the murder as committed in a fit of insanity. The fact is that after the appearance of the stepmother, relations in the family went wrong, and constant scandals occurred. Plevako began his speech by saying that intentional murder is the most terrible evil.
But there are other types of murder. For example, passionate (in a fit of rage) or when the criminal did not have a goal to kill. As the lawyer noted, the legislator had to admit that murders are committed in a state “when there is no place for human judgment, when there is no basis for the accusation.” Plevako reasoned that a person’s powers are not limitless and sometimes he is not able to cope with the difficulties that arise in his life. And only after that he moved on to the personality of Lukashevich. Starting from childhood, he talked about the difficulties he had to endure. About the fact that he was deprived of parental affection, studied far from his home, found himself in a war, and when he returned, he met his stepmother instead of his mother. She transferred all the discord in her relationship with Lukashevich’s father to her stepson, and was indignant that he was “able to work, lives in their house, eats their bread.” And the defendant’s father, in conversations with his son, did not portray his new wife in the best light. And he even suspected her of having an affair with her second son, the brother of the accused.
Fragment of Plevako’s speech:
“Fanny Vladimirovna, who somehow especially knew how to arouse the hatred of the people around her, did not think at all about reconciliation with her stepson. On the contrary, she systematically, artificially tried to worry him and for this she came up with a new method - a lawsuit. She declares to the magistrate that her stepson insulted her, citing a lot of witnesses.”
On top of all this is the news of his brother’s death. Not only relatives, but also people who knew the family were sure that Fanny Lukashevich was to blame for his death. For the defendant, according to Plevako, there was one consolation - this was his father’s estate, from where his stepmother moved out. At the same time, she told her husband to pay her a certain amount for maintenance. The lawyer explained that on the fateful day the stepmother decided to return to the estate, precisely when “the indignation in the house reached its most extreme limits.”
As a result, Lukashevich was found guilty of murder committed in a fit of insanity. The jury returned a not guilty verdict.
Speech by Pyotr Alexandrov on the Zasulich case
Revolutionary and socialist Vera Zasulich was accused of attempted murder of the St. Petersburg mayor, General Trepov. On January 24, 1878, she came to Trepov for a personal reception under the guise of the applicant and shot him with a pistol. The crime was classified as premeditated, with premeditated intent. According to Zasulich, she was outraged by the lawless actions of General Trepov, who ordered the flogging of political defendant Alexei Bogolyubov, who was being held in a pre-trial detention center. The case was considered by the St. Petersburg District Court with the participation of jurors on March 31, 1878. Zasulich's defender was lawyer Petr Alexandrov. Alexandrov told his colleagues: “Give me the defense of Vera Zasulich, I will do everything possible and impossible to justify her, I am almost sure of success.”
“Give me the defense of Vera Zasulich, I will do everything possible and impossible to justify her, I am almost sure of success.”
In his court speech, the lawyer made a connection between the flogging of Bogolyubov on July 13 and the shooting of Trepov on January 24. He explained that the defendant did not have any personal motive; she was not familiar with the mayor before the assassination attempt. And she did not immediately intend to commit this crime. The lawyer spoke about the life and fate of Zasulich. At the age of 17, she met student Sergei Nechaev (as it turned out, a state criminal). At his request, Zasulich handed over letters several times, knowing nothing about their contents, and then was charged with a state crime and spent 2 years in prison.
Zasulich found out what happened to Bogolyubov. She was waiting for justice, that someone would stand up for the helpless convict. She was also worried about another question: who would stand up for the fate of other unfortunates?
Fragment of Alexandrov’s speech:
“Zasulich created and secured in her soul forever one sympathy - selfless love for anyone who, like her, is forced to drag out the unhappy life of a suspect in a political crime. “When I commit a crime,” thought Zasulich, “then the silenced question of Bogolyubov’s punishment will arise. My crime will cause a public trial.”
For the first time, a woman appears here for whom there were no personal interests or personal revenge in the crime - a woman who, with her crime, connected the struggle for an idea in the name of someone who was only her brother in the misfortune of her entire life... She can leave here convicted , but she will not come out disgraced, and we can only wish that the reasons that produce such crimes will not be repeated,” said Alexandrov.
Zasulich refused the last word. The debate was declared over. She faced prison for the crime, but the jury ultimately found her not guilty.
As soon as the verdict was announced, pandemonium began in the hall. Everyone applauded and shouted: “Bravo!” And Alexandrov’s speech was later published in many Russian newspapers and translated into foreign languages.
Speech by Sergei Andreevsky on the Bogachev case
On April 10, 1892, in the courtyard of house No. 8 on Vladimirskaya Street in St. Petersburg, student A. Bogachev stabbed his wife five times. The wounds turned out to be minor, the attacker was detained at the crime scene. Bogachev pleaded guilty to attempted murder of his wife, but then changed his mind: he said that he injured his wife in a state of passion and excessive irritability. The lawyer who defended Bogachev, Sergei Andreevsky, asked for leniency for his client and assured that he had no intent to commit a crime.
In his speeches, Andreevsky always put in the foreground the personality of the defendant, his life and the conditions in which he committed the crime. Andreevsky believed that criminal lawyers should learn to reveal the human soul, as they do in fiction. By the way, before becoming a lawyer, Andreevsky worked as a prosecutor and was even offered to speak in the Zasulich case with the prosecution, because he had established himself as a first-class judicial speaker. But Andreevsky refused.
Bad advice: top mistakes lawyers make in courts
In his speech in Bogachev’s case, the lawyer spoke about the difficult fate of his client. He lost his parents as a child and lived poorly all his life. By the age of 20, he managed to get a job as a secretary at the newspaper “Novoye Vremya” and receive a stable and good income. He decided to marry for love, the lawyer assured. But, according to Andreevsky, the bride had other views. Louise Gleb-Koshanskaya did not like Bogachev. She was noticed in connection with someone else and she needed marriage in order to be considered a decent woman in society. Another reason is the spouse’s money and connections. Bogachev’s chosen one, with the help of her husband, wanted to achieve her dream of becoming an actress. Problems in their family began immediately after the wedding: first, the mother-in-law and another daughter moved in with the newlyweds, then the wife secretly entered drama school and began endlessly spending her husband’s money. All scandals ended with the lover Bogachev giving in. He even had to quarrel with the editor because of a critical review that Novoye Vremya published about his wife. And then, having become pregnant, the wife tried to get rid of the child. As a result, Bogachev lost his job, got into debt, and his wife, mother and sister moved out of the apartment, which he could no longer pay for. The lawyer assured that having survived this, his client could no longer respond to his wife with “eternal courtesy and angelic kindness.”
Fragment of Andreevsky's speech:
“Having examined this case, we can believe the defendant that he acted in a state of instant blackout, that he did not say the terrible words - “we must kill her” ... It was some kind of senseless bloody brawl after long feats of amazing patience, generosity and slavery , is one of those meaningless scenes that are possible only after tense family disagreements, supported by an experienced schemer.
Andreevsky managed to obtain leniency for the principal and prove that the crime was not intentional; Bogachev was found guilty of attempted murder of his wife in temper and irritation and was sentenced to exile in the Tomsk province.
Andreevsky has other famous judicial monologues. Stenographers came to almost all of his affairs in order to later publish his speeches in newspapers. In 1891, Andreevsky published a collection of his court speeches, and after that young lawyers began to quote parts of his monologues in their meetings.
Speech by Vladimir Spasovich on the Cronenberg case
Banker and nobleman Stanislav Kronenberg was accused of subjecting his seven-year-old daughter Maria to torture. In July 1875, the father caught the girl stealing prunes and severely punished her - he flogged her with rods for 15 minutes at full force. The girl's screams attracted the attention of the janitor and the former maid, who contacted the police. In the “History of the Russian Bar,” this case is called extremely important, including because different approaches to family pedagogy collided. Conservatives were afraid that after the trial the state would begin to interfere in family affairs, liberals hoped that the case would somehow help correct the cruelty of some parents. Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin dedicated the article “The Cut Off” to the Cronenberg trial. He also described what was happening at the meeting and the words of the defense lawyer.
After talking about the life and family relationships of the defendant, lawyer Vladimir Spasovich moved on to the main question: do parents have the right to punish their children? He said that from the entire investigation it was clear that his father punished him with rods only once. And the doctors who spoke at the trial said that “the injuries did not have a particular impact on the child’s health.” Therefore, the defense lawyer suggested to the jurors that parents can punish their children in ways that do not harm their health. That his principal had the right to educate and punish his daughter if he was dissatisfied with her behavior.
Fragment of Spasovich’s speech:
“They say: “For what? Is it possible to punish so strictly for a few pieces of prunes and sugar? “I believe that from prunes to sugar, from sugar to money, from money to bank notes, the path is straight, the open road.”
As a result, the jury acquitted Cronenberg. The public widely discussed this decision. There were disputes about the legality of the acquittal of the father who beat his daughter, and about the institution of the legal profession, which defended the culprit.
For Spasovich it was an assignment, after which he received a lot of criticism. It is possible that he could somehow refuse it, but he did not. Saltykov-Shchedrin was very dissatisfied with the lawyer: “The most natural thing would be to turn to Mr. Spasovich with a question: if you do not approve of either slaps or rods, then why get involved in such a case, which consists entirely of slaps and rods?” Fyodor Dostoevsky approved of Cronenberg’s acquittal, because it helped save the family, but he condemned Spasovich for crossing out the feeling of compassion for the child with his statements: “A girl, a child; she was tortured, tortured, and the judges want to defend her - and what a holy cause it seems!”
Speech by Mikhail Barshchevsky in the Constitutional Court
In October 2019, the Constitutional Court considered the complaints of three Muscovite women who suffered from repression. For many years, women could not receive compensation guaranteed by law - free apartments to replace those that were taken away from them. The most emotional and vivid were, of course, the speeches of the applicants. But the monologue of the representative of the Russian Government in the Constitutional Court, Mikhail Barshchevsky, also deserves attention. He took the floor after a representative of the Moscow government, who expressed the opinion that placing “children of the Gulag” in the general queue is a fair decision. Barshchevsky began his speech with an apology addressed to the applicants, “on behalf of some, at least Muscovites, for what they heard.” Then he told the story of his family: his grandfather was shot, his grandmother miraculously survived but was deported, and his father managed to return to Moscow only in the mid-1950s.
Fragment of Barshchevsky's speech:
“The government, the state power, has ruined lives. And today someone is finding legal hooks to say: “We are not responsible for anything, we have nothing to do with it.” You and I - you, my colleagues, and I - we are the current government. And if we are not responsible for the actions of the previous government, then think about what will happen to our descendants.”
As a result, the Constitutional Court obliged legislators to provide victims of repression with the right to housing. He recognized as contrary to the Constitution the provisions of regional laws and the Moscow law, which do not recognize the right of children of repressed people to improve their living conditions.
Speech by Henry Reznik on the Lebedev case
One of the most significant court speeches in modern times was delivered by lawyer Henry Reznik in defense of his colleague Alexander Lebedev. In mid-December 2021, Lebedev was accused of presenting to the court as evidence a deliberately forged certificate (it confirmed that his client did not violate the conditions of house arrest). The investigation cited the testimony of the pediatrician who issued this certificate. According to her, Lebedev’s trustee asked to issue the document “retroactively.” The investigation decided that the lawyer should have known about this, which means he presented the court with a deliberately forged document.
Eight bad tips: what a lawyer should not say during negotiations
Lebedev did not admit his guilt. He stated that he was confident of the paper's authenticity. A criminal case was first opened against the lawyer under Part 3 of Art. 303 of the Criminal Code - falsification of evidence in a criminal case of a serious crime, and then reclassified as interference in the activities of the court (Article 294). The case could have been dismissed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. The prosecution asked to fine him 200,000 rubles. and exempt from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
But Lebedev petitioned for the case to continue to be heard. His defense insisted on a full acquittal. In court, Reznik stated that lawyering is based on trust - when receiving documents from a client, the lawyer considers them authentic and does not check their authenticity. Reznik added that the defense attorney should not turn into a judge for his client and doubt the evidence presented by the client. Therefore, the representative has no choice but to ask for the document that the applicant is asking to be included in the process.
About 40 lawyers and attorneys came to support Lebedev, because the professional community considers this case “an attack on the nature of the profession.” If Lebedev is found guilty, then any action by the lawyers during the trial could be interpreted as “obstruction of justice,” Reznik warned.
Fragment of Reznik’s speech:
“The Federal Chamber of Lawyers perceives this untenable criminal prosecution as an attack by the enemies of the legal profession on its basic foundations. I am convinced that this attack on our legal institution will fizzle out. But I would like to stop it here, in the first instance of the district court, which is closest to protecting the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens - our clients. Lawyer Lebedev, who honestly and conscientiously performed his professional duty, is subject to acquittal. Such odious cases should not appear on the judges’ tables.”
As a result, in 2021, the Tverskoy District Court acquitted lawyer Lebedev. The lawyer himself said that the court did not see obstruction of justice in his actions. The court did not take into account the fact that a false certificate was included in the case, because this document was presented by the trustee.
Materials used to create the collection:
AND I. Kozachenko. Truth and law. Court speeches by famous Russian and foreign lawyers. Book 2.
F.N. Gobber. Selected Speeches.
IN AND. Smolyarchuk. The trial of Vera Zasulich.
EAT. Vorozheikin. Judicial speeches of famous Russian lawyers.
I.V. Gessen. History of the Russian Bar.
- Anastasia Sinchenkova
Winston Churchill, Fulton speech
On March 5, 1946, at Westminster College in Fulton (USA), former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill delivered the Fulton Speech, “announcing” the beginning of the Cold War.
Photo source: nationalchurchillmuseum.org
Sir Winston himself called the speech “The sinews of peace.” The phraseological unit is translated into Russian as “the sinews of the world,” but the word sinews can also mean physical strength.
This is clearly not the liberated Europe we fought for. And not Europe, which has the necessary prerequisites for creating a lasting peace.
He mentioned that in the countries of the Soviet Union there is strong control over people, and this is contrary to the principles of democracy:
No one knows what Soviet Russia and its communist international organization intend to do in the near future, or what the limits, if any, of their expansionist aspirations are.
Churchill also, without mincing words, accused the Soviet Union of building an “iron curtain” over Europe and trying to force communism on the peoples of the planet:
And for this (to contain the USSR - editor's note) it is necessary, under the auspices of the United Nations and on the basis of the military strength of the English-speaking community, to find mutual understanding with Russia.
Many researchers believe that a radical cooling between the former allies would have occurred without Churchill and his speech. But it was after it that the era of rivalry began, and the former allies found themselves on opposite sides of the ideological barricades.
“How much does your life weigh?”
Up in the Air (2009), directed by Jason Reitman
Still from the film “Up in the Air” (2009)
Ryan Bingham is a termination specialist. He is invited by company executives to break bad news to laid-off employees and try to dissuade them from suing. Not the most inspiring profession, but Bingham is a good speaker and an expert in human psychology. He shows upset people the situation from an unexpected angle - life does not end with losses, and sometimes a lot of baggage only prevents them from moving on.
“How much does your life weigh? Imagine for a second that you have a backpack over your shoulders. I want you to feel the straps pressing down on your shoulders. Do you feel it? Now I want you to fill it with everything you have in life. Start with the little things, with what is on your shelves and drawers - trinkets, souvenirs. Now put bigger things. Your chair, bed, kitchen table - put everything there. Your home, whatever it is - a one-room apartment or a two-bedroom house. I want you to put all this in your backpack. Now take a step. It's kind of hard, isn't it? This is what we do to ourselves, day after day - we wear ourselves out so much that in the end there is no strength left to take a single step. But we must not forget that movement is life. Now I'll set your backpack on fire. What will you want to take out of it? Photos? They are needed only for those who have a bad memory. Drink some herbal tea and let your photos burn. Why, let everything burn. Imagine waking up tomorrow and nothing pressing on you. It’s even invigorating, right?”
Joseph Goebbels, Speech on Total War
Joseph Goebbels is considered one of the worst criminals of World War II. He is a prime example of how oratory inspires not only democratic freedoms, but also totalitarian propaganda.
Photo source: wikimedia
From 1933 to 1945, Goebbels served as the Reich Minister of Public Education and Propaganda of Germany. All this time, he systematically turned the German people against others - especially the Jews. Goebbels is one of the provocateurs of Kristallnacht, the first massive wave of attacks on Jews that began the Holocaust.
Goebbels' most famous speech was the Total War Speech, delivered at the Berlin Sports Palace on February 18, 1943. After the defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad, which lasted more than six months, German citizens were depressed and exhausted. Therefore, Goebbels decided to appeal to the people. He told how Soviet soldiers would treat prisoners of war when they captured German territory.
The Minister of Propaganda gesticulated and appealed to feelings rather than to reason; manipulated the audience and called people to war; insisted on mobilizing all resources to repel the enemy. In the end, the enthusiastic audience of thousands actively supported the minister’s words.
Joseph Goebbels did not participate in hostilities, but easily led the people and sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to their deaths.
I ask you: do you want total war? If necessary, do you want a more total and radical war than we can imagine today? (...) Arise, people, and let the storm break!
"Get into the person"
“The meeting place cannot be changed” (1979), director - Stanislav Govorukhin
Still from the film “The Meeting Place Cannot Be Changed” (1979)
Soviet investigator Gleb Zheglov understands people no worse than Dale Carnegie - he manages to extract information from the most intractable witnesses. At the request of his young mentee, Volodya Sharapov, Gleb shares his rules of successful communication - they remain relevant even more than thirty years later.
“So, rule one - remember, I won’t repeat it. Solidify it like a drill code. Always smile when talking to people. Understood? People love it. And now the second rule - be attentive to the person and try to encourage him to talk about himself. And how to do it? But for this there is a third rule: find a topic that interests him. Rule four - show sincere interest in the person. Delve into him, find out how he lives. This is, of course, difficult. In general, you will have to sweat. But if you can do it, he will tell you everything.”
Martin Luther King: "I have a dream"
The US Abolition Act passed in 1865, but African Americans continued to suffer persecution, humiliating segregation, and attacks by members of racist organizations. By the end of the 1960s, one in two African Americans lived below the poverty line.
Photo source: wikimedia
America has certainly failed in its commitment to people of color.
On August 28, 1963, the March for Jobs and Freedom took place at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, where over 250 thousand people witnessed the most famous anti-racist protest.
I dream of the day when this country rises from its slumber and demonstrates its true beliefs. I have a dream that one day this nation will stand upright and live by the true meaning of its principle: “We hold it to be self-evident that all men are created equal.” I dream of the day when my four children will live in a country where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by their personality.
This speech and the March on Washington were the culmination of Martin Luther King's fight for racial equality. That same year, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his fight against racial inequality through nonviolent resistance.
And on December 21, 1965, the UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. There are now 177 countries participating in it.
What does oratory consist of?
If the topic of eloquence is a hobby for you, then you don’t need to delve too deeply into the intricacies, but you should know the main components of a good speech.
- Preparation. The key to a successful performance directly depends on your preparation for it. The clothes in which the performance will take place require careful selection.
It is important for a girl not to wear a lot of makeup and have a modest appearance. This will position the audience and will not distract attention.
It is important for men to look neat and ironed. Show success and confidence, otherwise the listener may simply not attach due importance to the words.
You need to pay attention to elements depending on your audience. After all, for businessmen, money and the high cost of style will be an important element. For schoolchildren or students, a simpler and more relaxed look is suitable.
- Introduction. You can start with a life story or an unusual phrase that should hook the listener. This technique is called a "hook". The Steve Jobs speech we talked about above had a hook in the form of a joke.
Always use pauses between main parts of speech. This helps you digest what was said and at the same time you can see people's reactions.
The art of oratory is based on the ability to draw images, but only the right images. It has to be something that can be specifically represented, and if it involves numbers, then it needs to be used on slides or translated into something that can be visually measured.
- Main part. Of course, there are no specific rules for the main part, but a couple of tips can be given. Break up your speech in a logical way so that it is clear where you transition into another part of the speech.
Don’t make your speech a monologue, otherwise the listeners will simply get bored and feel like guests. Ask rhetorical or direct questions, draw someone from the audience into a conversation, or call them on stage. Ask to do some task. Speak with energy.
- Conclusion. You can end your speech with a beautiful phrase or take a step back. There is no need to drag out the conclusion and say something else.
You can emphasize the main thing from the speech and begin to lower the tone at the end. Then everyone will understand that the performance is over. The art of concisely and clearly ending a speech requires mandatory practice.
- Personal examples and stories. Now it is difficult to surprise with some facts or insert into the text of the main part something completely new for the target audience.
Therefore, personal stories are on a par with pauses and images in the fundamentals of the art of successful speaking. Let's say if you are a businessman, then it would be good to tell how you made your first money. By telling a story from your life, you bring the viewer closer to you, giving you the opportunity to imagine themselves in your place. And if you write your speech correctly, then you can integrate key points into the story and convey the necessary information to the viewer.
Mach
Mahatma Gandhi became a spiritual mentor for many freedom fighters. In his anti-oppression teachings, he promoted the concept of self-government "swaraj". Its essence is for India to become independent from Great Britain.
Photo source: plus-one.ru/GEORGE RINHART
On November 3, 1917, at the opening of the First Gujarat Political Conference, Gandhi gave a speech on promoting self-rule and decentralization of power in India. He spoke of the power and influence of civil disobedience, which was the willful breaking of unjust laws.
We can petition the government, agitate in the Indian council for our rights, but for the real awakening of the people, internal action is more important. External activities are colored to a certain extent by hypocrisy and selfishness.
Swaraj as Gandhi was not fully realized, but his concept led to changes in the political, economic, military and educational institutions of Great Britain in India, and the philosophy forever changed political practice by demonstrating to humanity the effectiveness of peaceful protest.
Today, many cities around the world have monuments and memorials to the Mahatma. His birthday, October 2, has been proclaimed by the UN as the International Day of Non-Violence.
Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
In July 1863, the largest battle in North American history took place - the Battle of Gettysburg. Harvard University President Edward Everett was invited to speak at the opening ceremony of a soldiers' cemetery in Pennsylvania. At that time he was a popular speaker among the people.
Photo source: history.com
Everett's speech was listed as the main speech on the program, and someone from Congress was scheduled to speak after him. But due to the postponement of the ceremony, all candidates refused. Therefore, the organizers turned to the president.
Against the backdrop of Everett's two-hour speech, rich in references to current issues and images, Abraham Lincoln's speech seemed completely minimalistic. It took two minutes and 272 words.
The President spoke about the significance of the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War and the building of democracy.
Lincoln called the democratic principles of true equality, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, the most important for building a unified state, where every citizen will be equally important and valuable.
We who live must devote ourselves to the great task still before us - to take from these highly honored dead an even greater commitment to the cause to which they remained fully and completely faithful, to be filled with the conviction that they did not die in vain, that our nation, with God's help, will be reborn in freedom and that the power of the people, by the will of the people and for the people, will not disappear from the face of the Earth.
The text of the Gettysburg Address is engraved on the interior wall of the marble Lincoln Memorial in Washington, included in anthologies, and every American schoolchild knows it by heart.
Money as the goal of oratory
Currently, trainings and seminars discussing the topic of how to make money have flooded the Internet. In fact, the Internet contributed to this. It opened up opportunities for earning money, and therefore for learning. After all, before, the main source of independent learning was the book.
An example of millionaires' speeches at universities or online seminars on the Internet - all this relates to business topics where the main goal is to make money. The purpose of these speeches is to motivate the listener, charge them with emotions and the desire to do something. All this is driven by the desire to have a lot of money and be independent. A good way to convert knowledge of oratory into money is to open a school for the practice and study of eloquence.
