Delano et alia (sous-titre: Canis Canem Edit).
More from CMCL-C 121. This one comes from a group project on the speech FDR made in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor on 07 December, 1941. My portion of the assignment deals with analyzing the different groups of people who would be affected by the speech. Once again, it is much better on paper. Maybe I’m just terrible at writing speeches in general. I should stick to essays and such, as the pen is also mightier than the tongue.
09 November 2008
Roosevelt had five audiences to whom he was addressing his speech. First, he was telling Congress to initiate measures to declare war on Japan. However, his statement reflects the unforeseen nature of the attack by posing the declaration not as a response, but instead as an immediate consequence of the attack; that the state of war “has existed” – not, say, “will be set forth” – between the two countries.
Second, Roosevelt was speaking to the troops. However, he doesn’t speak to them directly as he did to Congress; rather, he simply informs them of his plan of action, and that they should expect orders in the near future.
Moving further into the speech, we find a list of nations in addition to the United States including British-controlled Malaya and Hong Kong that Japan has invaded. By including this in his speech, Roosevelt informed Americans, but more importantly his global audience that Japan had not only targeted Pearl Harbor, but other islands and island nations in the Pacific as well. His international audience also included Germany and the other Axis powers, on which he was involuntarily declaring war.
Next, while they were part of the international audience, Roosevelt had a few words for Japan specifically. Prior to the attacks, they and the US were participating in negotiations. From David Lawrence’s 01 December entry in Diary of a Washington Correspondent published in 1942,
“Japan and the United States are engaging in what may be termed the most fateful piece of international jockeying the world has seen in many years. Neither government appears to want war, but each nevertheless wants all of the advantages of the victory that war might give.”
In one part of his speech, Roosevelt accuses Japan of being unashamedly misleading. Referring to a document delivered by the Japanese Ambassador to the US to the Secretary of State just after the initial attack, he states, “It contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.” In short, Roosevelt subtly but firmly questions the integrity of his Japanese audience, because of the obvious masquerade that was their Empire.
Lastly, Roosevelt is speaking to his American audience as a whole. Since its beginning in 1939, the nation had been divided on the war. The bombing of Pearl Harbor brought us briefly together against Japan; in his speech, Roosevelt worked to preserve that unity. He was also addressing an audience doubtful of the reliability of the military defense system. To that affect, Roosevelt explains that the attack was unexpected, unprovoked, and the damage unpreventable. Rather than spelling it out, he instead procured a general sense of solidarity, the effectiveness of which cannot be questioned.
Tangent:
My roommate has a safe installed in his closet. It’s not actually bolted in, but it may as well be because it is a top-notch safe. Passcode and key entry. Now, what about me makes him uncomfortable enough to store his valuables (or whatever the hell is in there) in a safe? He obviously doesn’t trust me, but all of my things are out in the open. I have no reason not to trust him, but this safe completely violates that. Maybe he doesn’t trust the people in the hall, but I’m fairly certain that, automobiles aside, he is alone in his ownership of a security key separate from the one used to open the door.
I take offense to this. It was not out of line for him to purchase a safe, nor is it terrible that he is using one, but to have a high-security device in a situation like ours is ridiculous, and it does nothing but make me incredibly suspicious. By having a safe, he doesn’t want me to know something about him that would either embarrass him or get him in trouble. There are certain things I absolutely will not tolerate, but I am a very liberal person in that regard. I would definitely not rat him out unless there were human remains in that safe. I know he smokes, I know he drinks, and I definitely know he surfs the web for porn late at night. Does this make me think less of him as a person? Only slightly, on the account of his god-awful smoking habit. But I would still trust him, simply because I have no reason not to. But owning a safe in a relationship like this? Not only do I dislike him even more than I did originally, there are scarlet pennets streaming left and right, and I am really quite worried now for the safety of my own property.
This is really dumb. This is not what having a roommate is supposed to be like. Maybe we’ll have disagreements, but there has to be an element of trust. Any vague notion that we might have had a somewhat trusting relationship is gone. I’ll just have to sit and wait this out. And hope for the best.
-
Leave a Reply