The very best speeches indeed challenge the audience with complex ideas right from the start. They offer a rhetorical treatment of human belief, such as challenging and engaging audiences with their purpose of preserving humanity’s image. Through the use of patriotism, religion and rhetoric within speech, the audience is confronted with complex ideas about society and what defines it. Anwar Sadat’s ‘Speech to the Israeli Knesset’ and Paul Keating’s “Redfern Speech” speech delivered at Redfern park on 10th December 1992, both portray similar intents that challenge the viewers about complex ideas involving modern day society. Equally their use of rhetorical appeals to ethos, logos and pathos express their notions for a better operative society. …show more content…
Keating from the beginning makes apparent through his use of generalised clichés and deliberate provocativeness his critical beliefs of Australia’s social and political standards. This is showcased in his statement “Truly the land of the fair go and the better chance…”, “this is a fundamental trust that we are what we should be”. Like Sadat, Keating recognises through combination of the repetitive anaphora and metaphor “We brought the disease. The alcohol… we committed the murders … we took the children from their mothers”, suggests how white Australia has struggled to understand the atrocities they had committed. For example, The Myall Creek Massacre (1838) which involved the killing of up to thirty unarmed indigenous Australians by ten white Europeans. Keating is able to challenge the audience by combining strong, direct lexicon “We failed to ask – how would I feel if this where done to me” to convey the rhetorical message that appeals to the audiences sense of pathos. This is related to Sadat as he too began to challenge his audience by affirming numerous rhetorical questions relating to a sense of human emotion. I agree that Keating’s speech was able to challenge the audience with complex ideas by