Comments on: Response Assignment #3

By: larry bowen

larry bowen — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:56:42 +0000

the trth about these two speeches is we can`t dismiss the fact of personal feelings with both speeches,when a personality governs a speech or sermon, to me the subject matter takes a back seat to ones personal ideology and remember,mlk did mostly sermons with religious ideologies not public speeches , there is a difference .

By: Sean Carter

Sean Carter — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:25:48 +0000

After viewing both of the speeches, I noticed some key signs of ideology. Both Hitler and King were vivid with their speeches and ideas on how to unite their group or class, and the goal once that is done. I feel King was more clear and expressive with his speech. Not to be bias, but King’s speech moved me more. I could believe his ideas and visions more because of the realisticness and logic behind his beliefs, where as with Hitler, it felt like his speech was more of a rally. The way King express his vision of kids of all colors playing, and equal opportunity in this country gave me more of a realist dream to imagine than Hitlers. Hitler showed signs of ideology, even with symbols. In his speech he is show with a Swatstica on his sleeve, which presents an idea with verbally being said. Also, another symbol I was able to point out was the hand gesture the crowd threw up once he pauses.
Both speakers showed strong signs of interpellation. As the camera panned acrossed the crowd, you can see in the faces of the people, in both films, how they felt as one, yet looked like the speakers were directing to them all, but individually. The speakers were able to get very personal with their crowds by using realistic ideas, inflection in their voices, and using phrases like “my people…my youth” to establish a closer connection.
To address the last question, I feel as though the “American ideology” is a myth, or false. Like stated in the TT, political speakers, teachers, etc. shadow the truth with false ideas of what else the real issue could be. Why is a certain class of people in a certain location more prone to theft and crime? It ISN’T because of poor teaching, bad parenting, movies etc. Sure, all of these things play some small role to the real issue, but the real issue is poverty. I completely agree with TT on that example.

By: Dwight Osborne

Dwight Osborne — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:10:42 +0000

After looking at the YouTube of Hitler and Dr. Kings speeches I can understand why people followed them. People needed some type of home and purpose and I think that the both of they did that. Hitler came at a time when the people was going throught a bad time (poverty) and they needed a leader to show them the right direction or at lease what they thought was the right direction. Dr. King came at a time when blacks where treated as unequal compared to whites and they needed support and a leader to show them the right direction also. Hitler and Dr. King where a like in a way because they both wanted what they thought was right for their nation.

I think that the two speches relate to Subjectivity because they advertising to their people a future, just like a sign that advertises Nike shoes trying to get people to get their shoes. The book said that if you have any amount of black in you then you are considered black, this is also connected with the two speeches because I think that the people that followed these leaders believed that they were in a catagory of people like high class and low class. I think that as a socity we put our self in a book to limit us who we are and what we can be.

By: Whitney H

Whitney H — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:09:40 +0000

Hitler spoke directly to the youth because he knew they would be the future of Germany. “We want to be one people, and you, my youth, are that people,” he told the young audience. Hitler used interpellation to speak to the entire crowd, “you, my youth,” and have them each listen as if he spoke directly to them. He could manipulate them and make them feel like the task at hand was a brave and honorable one. I, like Valentin Flores, found it surprising that Hitler hoped for a future without classes or ranks. Yet, he felt he had reason to blame Jewish people for Germany’s problems because of the wealth that some Jewish people possessed and the positions they held in society, so a future without classes or ranks made sense in his mind.
Martin Luther King includes the audience using “we” and “negro” often, suggesting that it was necessary that the entire group had to work together toward equality. He used vivid imagery including “storms of persecution” and “winds of police brutality” to appeal to the emotions of each audience member. His message was one of overcoming, that if they fought for and gained equality, there would be peace between all people of the United States.
I think that a few people touched on different parts of American ideology. Of course we consider ourselves the most powerful country, dominant in most areas and deserving of anything, as is apparent in our adoption of “American” rather than “United States American,” just like we talked about in class. There is also the equality ideology mentioned by Britany Steger. No one in the United States is, in fact, equal. We have upper, middle, and lower classes that enjoy the benefits this country provides them or struggle to survive because certain freedoms don’t extend to everyone that needs them. Evelyn Torres also raised a good point about the freedom ideology in the United States. I think her idea concerns democracy and its freedoms that it supposedly extends. It indeed only goes so far. Finally, democracy itself is an American ideology, just like the Ideology Handout states, “We assume that democracy is the political system best suited to the nature and aspirations of humans, we see history as a movement towards democracy, we assume that once all nations have achieved democracy they will continue to be democracies forever, unless they erode. These assumptions are ideology.”

By: Geoff Firestone

Geoff Firestone — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:04:44 +0000

Its amazing to me how both Hitler and MLK were both able to use very similar tactics to get their powerful message across. Both these men were amazing public speakers able to hold the attention of their audience for great lengths of time. In the case of Hitler’s speech, he used the tactics of his booming voice and body language to get his message across. I felt Hitler used a very stern almost threatening use of his voice to instill within his people a sense of a great fearless leader. This tactic obviously worked because he rallied an entire country behind him in a very short time. As everyone noticed it seemed he was talking directly to the youth of Germany in his speech. I believe he did this almost as trying to instill pride in everyone starting from the ground up (from the youth to the elderly). When looking at Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech he uses very similar tactics as well. He has an amazing ability to capture and hold his audience by using his strong powerful voice and beautiful poetic writing. He is slightly different from Hitler in delivering his speech though, he uses very little body language and instead of using such a threatening tone, he uses a much more genuine, and powerful tone. He too is very stern in his words but he is such a magnificent writer that he is able to convey his message in an almost poetic manner.
I agree completely with Adam, these two men almost have identical ideologies of creating a better future for their people, but the methods of doing so are 180 degrees opposite. Hitler used a violent tactic to try and get rid of his “problem” with the jews, while King used his non-violent direct action to solve problems faced by blacks in this country. Both men were masters of public speaking and were able to instill such a sense of pride in their “subjects” that they were able to both accomplish many of their goals.
I think the ideologies of America although slightly truthful are more mythical. We say we are a country of freedom and rights, yet we can’t even protest without permission. We say we are a country that accepts everyone and their beliefs/religions yet we profile and stereotype probably more then anywhere else in the world. We are so “anal” about everything as well for example the reaction to Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction was sickening. The American ideologies look good on paper but do we really follow them is the question.

By: ben p

ben p — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 23:04:19 +0000

Though I had a hard time reading the subtitles, both speeches seemed disturbingly similar in a lot of ways. I could see both Hitler and Dr. King preaching the importance of national targeted towards each nations’ youth. It’s pretty easy to tie both speeches to the chapter on ideology. Hitler speaks in wide generalities about seemingly self-evident issues in creating a strong country: national pride, brotherhood, srength in untiy, racial supremecy perhaps? Dr. King speaks an oddly similar message as well. One of brotherhood and unity but in a slightly more accepting sense of the words.
In my opinion, however, these too seperate ideologies disect in terms of the line between what is knowledge and what is assumed. The Theory Toolbox says “there has to be some preexisting agreement concerning what will count as knowledge, or what criteria will be used to judge new or developing knowledge”(86). In other words, Hitler may have been a great speaker with some neat ideas but a lot of what he said was his own speculation that could not be related back to any acknowledged truths. Dr. King, on the other hand, was still bringing his own new ideology to the table but was expressing ideas that were already agreed upon by the nation hundreds of years ago.

By: Jamie Weisinger

Jamie Weisinger — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:18:28 +0000

I swearrrr… I am taking the most interesting classes this semester. For some reason, they’re all tying together with the things that I’ve experienced and learned this year down in New Orleans.

I’m currently taking Race, Gender, and Class in US History, and we just finished up the unit on slavery, the Civil War, and Restoration in the South. We’ve been talking about politics and society and ideas in Cultural Studies, and the conversation we had about the Confederate flag last week, and this week I just got to watch the Martin Luther King speech; it all ties together.

One thing that stood out in MLK’s speech was when he was talking about how it had been 100 years since Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and yet black citizens in America still didn’t have equal rights. Analyzing the years that followed, I think that this was because Americans, after the Civil War, were still stuck in an a conservative “ideology” and most people weren’t realizing that ex-slaves were, in fact, now Americans. This meant that blacks in America were now black Americans, and were therefore entitled the same “liberties” and “freedoms” as white Americans.

100 years later, the Civil Rights Movement was what it took to get Americans out of the Conservative mindset and helped them to come to terms/realize/understand/accept that, yes; blacks citizens are entitled to all the freedoms of the US Constitution. Once more and more people started realizing that this was the “new American way”- whites and blacks are equal- that’s when there is a change of ideological structures.

I think, as a country, we’re in an ideological transition right now; Bush approval rates are at an all-time low, and it seems that more and more Americans are losing faith. Of course, there are people who are going to have real, hard facts, figures, and reasons as to why we should all hate George W. Bush. However, it’s pretty true that it’s become a cultural trend to hate on George W. because it’s what “all the cool kids” are doing.

I agree with Lisa, who states, “The American ideology is wanting to fit in society.” I think that more and more young adults are growing up in a time where it is pretty apparent that, in reality, we are still not all free in this country. I think that this is a belief that a majority of the country has and for that reason, along with several dozen more legitimate and factual reasons, Bush has become so disliked in America.

By: Olivia Cole

Olivia Cole — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:11:10 +0000

While I am not 100% comfortable with the term “interpellation,” I’m going to try to do my best in working with it in the hope to understand it better.
Although Hitler was no king, he made all the German youth listening to him his subjects. Whether they lift their arms in the Nazi salute or not, they are still hailing Hitler because they are—to use the language of Althusser—being hailed, and answering the call. When Hitler calls for his “subjects” to make a strong Germany, the subjects have no freedom to disagree or to turn away because Hitler has established himself as the hailing authority figure; he has made himself a king of his own ideology: he has established his words as an absolute truth, and the individuals of the audience’s recognition of this truth are what cause their “one-hundred-eighty-degree physical conversion” into subjects.
While Hitler and MLK had very different agendas—with some common concepts—they are both, in their speeches, doing the same thing: commanding the audience and making them their subjects, “rallying troops.”
Watching these two clips causes me to wonder about the audiences though. MLK’s followers wanted peace—some through more extreme measures than others—and Hitler’s followers claimed to want peace, but don’t these seem like two very different ideas of peace? Does this mean that one’s subjectivity depends on his interpellator?

By: Valentin Flores

Valentin Flores — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 22:06:01 +0000

In Hitler’s speeach i was able to find more ideology than in the MLK speach. It could be that i’m so used to living the life that he speaks about. What stood out to me was that Hitler states a society without classes or rank. This was shocking to me as an idea because it brought me back to Karl Marx’s Manifesto. Marx was also a huge ideololistic person with his idea of communism. When Hitler told this to his youth i believe it was just to convince his troops to keep fighting. For example in the reading it talks about the word freedom. Even though americans are free we are still not able to run around and do what we want. I believe it is the same with Hitler saying there won’t be any social classes. Obviously he is going to be on top. For the MKL speech what got me the most was that he kept repeating negros. If i’m correct there were all types of races being discriminated against. I guessing that MLK as a ideolistic person he was just genoralizing his subject. Just like when politicians generalize a group of criminals as minorities or such. When it comes to ideology i believe that people shouldn’t believe all of it but just except it and try to approach the same idea differently. Sort of like just gathering the information and doing something with it for your self.

By: Adam Menard

Adam Menard — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:41:48 +0000

Both Hitler and King are considered two very great public speakers. So the similarities in their speaches isn’t too surprising to me, but I still think they are very different. They both use the same method of speaking, alluding to a better and more prosperous future, but the acctual messages are the exact opposite. King is trying to unite a country that has divided itself because of their difference in race. Hitler is trying to divide a country and remove people based on their religion. Their ideologies are as identical as you can get, but their methods are abhorrently different.