Great orators

[Jona Lendering]

Here's a little poll, just for fun. It's not about the quality of the speech but about influence - which orator was able to change history by the power of his words? To remember who these people were, I have added links to hear their voices again, but that does not mean that the speeches I linked to were their best ones.

Personally, I would have included some others. Pope John XXIII and Willy Brandt have said memorable things - some of them still truly inspiring and therefore influential. However, I could not find movie clips.

President Bush has admitted that his use of the expression "crusade" to describe the war against terror led to the radicalization of otherwise moderate Muslims, and was, in a sense, a catastrophically influential speech. For obvious reasons, this speech is no candidate.

[Robert Vermaat]

*WARNING! MODERN POLITICS AHEAD!*

I consider Raegan, Kennedy or Goebbels of no influence at all. They may have been great speakers, but had no lasting influence.
Goebbels did not start the 2nd World War nor end it in any way. Now, if you had mentioned Hitler...
Raegan may have had a successful presidency, but no influence when it comes to history. The downfall of the Soviet Union was inevitable, but the arms race that pushed Gorbatjov over the edge was not just Reagan's work.
Kennedy may speak to the imagination of many, but where's the influence in terms of realpolitik?
Churchill really did not manage to win the war single-handed as some think, and his influence did not last until the next election. Although he was re-elected later, I don't see that much influence after the war was over. De Gaulle I find a bit more difficult to judge, because I'm not really in the French zone of influence, although he did have a more lasting influence when one considers the formation of the European Union.

Now Martin Luther King I consider a close second, because his words inspire and continue to insptire. He still influences millions, although the influence may not be as visible as conquering another country. His powers of speech were unsurpassed.

Had you nomineed Mahatma Ghandi I would have given him the title. maybe too soft-spoken, but his words touched and still touch millions. Non-violent resistance is mostly his invention.
But, not in the list.. :?

So, Khomeini of course.
We don't often see his speeches, and I would not really call him an orator at all! But his words brought down countries and governments, and the influence still dominates Middle Eastern policy. Iran may be the next 'evil state' in the eyes of many, which is in fact a recognition that the revolution that Khomeini started has led to regional dominance. Of course, that Bush jr. took out Saddam has helped a lot. And the West has fuelled the fires. Occupied by Britain, the Soviets, America, then we sponsored a dictatorship and stifled democracy. (Anyone remember the demise of Mossadegh?). Then when they shook off the dictator, the West boycots it and supports the enemy (Iraq). Iran feels it has been downtrodden too long by the rest of the world. We need to watch out for Khomeini's disciples. They want power, they see how to get it and they're dangerous. I fear Lebanon was just a first ripple.

But why is Khomeini the only one mentioned without a first name, but his occupation (Imam) instead? (his real name was Ruhollah Mostafavi, al-Khomeini being a nom de guerre)

[Robert Vermaat]

President Bush has admitted that his use of the expression "crusade" to describe the war against terror led to the radicalization of otherwise moderate Muslims, and was, in a sense, a catastrophically influential speech. For obvious reasons, this speech is no candidate.

I find him very influential, but he has disqualified himself as a non-orator. His speeches are practised. Is that what you refer to as 'obvious reasons'? Besides that, modern US policy is not a feat of Bush jr. but his back-office.

[Jona Lendering]

Is that what you refer to as 'obvious reasons'?

No, the obviously not-so-obvious reason was that I wanted to prevent a debate about modern politics. :wink:

[Praefectusclassis]

Good idea Jona. :wink:

[Jona Lendering]

*WARNING! MODERN POLITICS AHEAD!*

(Anyone remember the demise of Mossadegh?)

He had been overthrown by the CIA before I was born, but yes, that coup was the beginning of all troubles in the Middle East, and although the occupation of the US embassy in Tehran during the Revolution must be condemned in the strongest possible terms, it was a poor politician who did not see it coming. The Americans reaped what they had sown.

What saddens me, with friends in both Tehran and Chicago, is the list of misunderstandings between the two nations. Shortly before the attack on the Twin Towers, the soccer teams of Iran and the USA played a friendly match, and all pundits agreed that this was the beginning of a detente, and the wounds of the Mossadegh coup and the hostage crisis could finally be healed. I have heard Iranian young people speak full of admiration for the man they lovingly call "George Dubya".

And then comes this "Axis of Evil"-speech, and the Iranian leadership decides to embark upon a nuclear program that is kept secret. The program itself is not a violation of international treaty; the secrecy is. What a mess they have made of it. I wonder what the UN will do the next days, if only because I want to visit my Iranian friends this winter.

BTW, the book to read about Mossadegh is Stephen Kinzer, [amazon]All the Shah's Men. An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror[/amazon].

[Praefectusclassis]

Please consider this topic CLOSED pending staff deliberations.