Segregation Now Segregation All Speech Analysis
Demagoguery is a powerful way for individuals to recruit people for power and personal gains. Two people who are perfect examples of that are Governor George Wallace and Islamic State (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. The “Segregation Now, Segregation Forever” speech by Governor George Wallace and the “A message to the Mujahidin and the Muslim Ummah” speech by Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi are speeches both leaders use to recruit new people towards their cause, as well as motivate the followers they already have. Governor Wallace talks on a national level to Southern people who are for segregation. His main cause is to keep the Federal government from integrating black and white people together. Al-Baghdadi talks to all Muslims on an international
…show more content…
If you read their speeches and not have any context on what they are talking about then you might be inclined to support them. If you read closely you will see that each speech has its own flaw in making the their argument fallacious. They both used the form of stacking the deck. Wallace uses it by talking about all the damage that was done to the south during the Civil War. He victimizes the South even though the real purpose of the war was to free the African-Americans from slavery. Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi also stacks the deck for his cause by using victimization to show how much damage has been done to the Muslims. But these attacks brought to the Muslims are ones that Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has provoked through his hunger for power.
I feel that both of these speeches had to use demagoguery to connect with their audience. Without it there would be no way to bring out emotions for people to believe into their argument. They were both smart to use religion in there speech because it was something they knew there audience held high above all. I also believe that these speeches do a good job on challenging the true motives of the out-group. They bring up valid claims that should show how evil the opposition can
If you read their speeches and not have any context on what they are talking about then you might be inclined to support them. If you read closely you will see that each speech has its own flaw in making the their argument fallacious. They both used the form of stacking the deck. Wallace uses it by talking about all the damage that was done to the south during the Civil War. He victimizes the South even though the real purpose of the war was to free the African-Americans from slavery. Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi also stacks the deck for his cause by using victimization to show how much damage has been done to the Muslims. But these attacks brought to the Muslims are ones that Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has provoked through his hunger for power.
I feel that both of these speeches had to use demagoguery to connect with their audience. Without it there would be no way to bring out emotions for people to believe into their argument. They were both smart to use religion in there speech because it was something they knew there audience held high above all. I also believe that these speeches do a good job on challenging the true motives of the out-group. They bring up valid claims that should show how evil the opposition can