We Need a Speech…

This post will be of interest to my Canadian readers, most of whom will now be aware of the fact that last week in the Canadian Parliament, the Prime Minister rose and offered a formal apology for the aboriginal residential school system that had been put in place - ironically enough in the same chambers of parliament over a century ago. The last schools closed down within the lifetime of all those reading this post.

I won’t go into that shameful part of our history and its aftermath because both the speech of the Prime Minister and the reply by Chief Phil Fontaine do a moving job of doing exactly that.

As I talked to you before on many occasions, on the matter of effective and engaging speeches, sometimes it is just the event itself that is so fraught with moment, that it supersedes the words and the oratorical skills of the speaker(s). That said, in the context of this occasion, I believe they rose to the task at hand admirably.

As to the value of such a speech - the value of a public national mea culpa - you just ask those who had been on the receiving end of state sanctioned destruction and inquire if such an apology is of value.

Put yourselves in their shoes for one minute. Some so-called authority figure shows up on your doorstep and tells you they are going to take your children away to educate them “properly”. What you won’t be told is that their language, their culture, and their confidence will be thoroughly destroyed. Well perhaps they won’t tell you that. Nor will they tell you that your children might well be in physical and sexual harm’s way. And as it turns out they were.

We are all implicated.

Now before you protest that’s just liberal guilt talking, that you can’t be faulted by the acts of your ancestors, you might want to have a little reconsider of that particular moral high ground.

My best friend articulated the matter thusly:

“I was glued to my TV during the apology from the House of Commons on Wednesday. I was watching for the nuances, the signs that what was being said was sincere, that the words were clearly attached to a commitment to healing and reconciliation.

It has taken too long for this gesture. There have been other apologies - the former federal government, through the Minister of Indian Affairs, our own church through the words of former Primate Michael Peers.

This time the words of contrition seemed to coincide with a national awareness, an accepting of the horror that took place and the inherited responsibility that comes with it, especially by Euro Canadians such as myself. This is not a popular position to take. Guilt by association - as some would call it - isn’t legitimate, the events had nothing to do with me, I would never have done those things and am therefore blameless in this matter.

Unfortunately life isn’t as simple as that. A heavy mantle lies on our shoulders precisely because it was our ancestors who perpetrated these deeds. One can’t on the one hand take all the glory of our forebears, the nation and community building, the wars fought and won, the faith defended, the jurisprudence and democratic institutions that were planted, the kindliness and caring that was instilled in our nature and national psyche, without also taking responsibility for actions which were repugnant, which evidenced institutional racism and the teaching of bigotry and intolerance in the name of God.

The legacy we have been handed includes much to be proud of and much to be ashamed of. It isn’t enough to merely build on our strengths, we also have to correct past mistakes.

The residential school system and the racial assumptions that flowed from it poisoned not just the generations who had to suffer the abuses directly - people who were never parented and those who were never allowed to parent - but the children of those, and their children too. The sickness continues, handed down from one generation to another as family shame and sickness often are.

People who have never seen a residential school continue to suffer. The sins of the father are visited on the children.

First Nations people have inherited a bad situation and so have the Euro Canadians. We’ll have to work together in order to free us all from this history.

It’s something we have in common, something that needs to be purged from both our consciences. Genuine acceptance of aboriginal peoples as equals by the police, before our courts, in our churches, schools, the housing and employment markets and right across society will evidence true acceptance of our white history and a believable desire to be forgiven for what we have done as a people. Official ceremonies and carefully chosen words are all very well and they are most certainly welcome, coming as they did from the elected representatives of the men and women who make up this country. But much more will be needed. Leaders must speak out strongly in order to encourage and sponsor change, to alter attitudes.

Hopefully this time the words will mark an honest turning point in how First Nations and Euro Canadians could see each other: brothers and sisters under the sun in this fine land, God’s chosen brought together in His love and for His purpose, embraced in heart and spirit, forever linked in a mutual fellowship as we work to honour the planet and its past and to play our own unique part in the creation story.

With hope that we may all overcome this and every barrier that separates us.”

The Speeches

Prime Minister Harper

Part I

Part II

National Chief Phil Fontaine Replies

June 15th, 2008
Comments:1 Comment Category: Essential Speechwriter

Then John McCain is toast and Hillary Clinton may end her campaign sounding churlish, self-centered, and yesterday’s woman.

Speeches are more than the right words on the page.  The ability to engage an audience also depends on the oratorical skills of the speaker to deliver those words with a believable and infectious passion.  That means how you look, gesture and sound can be just as important as the words you are trying to deliver.

You would think on the day when the Democratic nominee for President was finally settled that the players who all had a significant stake in the occasion would rise to the oratorical challenge.

Not so much in the case of two of them.

Let’s start with Mr. McCain.  He seems to have this extraordinary way of delivering a speech that totally obliterates the efficacy of his message.  Go take a look at his website where they are playing selected video extracts of the speech he delivered Tuesday night. Regardless of what you might think of the text he was delivering, watching him deliver it leads you to a single conclusion - rhythm is not his forte.  He has this rather alarming habit of stopping in mid-sentence (not a speech delivery sin in and of itself since well placed pauses can certainly heighten dramatic affect) and delivering a cross between a grimace and a grin.  It gave the strange impression of a walking, talking corpse out of a B horror flick.  Then he would punctuate his points by an odd clenching of the fist and a downward motion of the arm, or with both arms with fingers pointing down, totally out of sequence to the delivery of his words. Like a fellow dancing off the beat.  The man needs a speech coach and his handlers should sit him down to watch his delivery style.

Incidentally, the reaction of the audience to his speech, with some occasional proforma cheering, could best be described as muted.

In the scheme of things should style over substance be what counts for the job of POTUS?  Perhaps not.  In terms of electability it does.

In the case of Hillary Clinton, before clearly adoring crowds, she delivered her message with such a sense of entitlement that I am guessing in that moment a whole group of super delegates, who might have otherwise supported her, suddenly had a change of heart.  Actually, 28 of them threw their support to Obama the next day.  How many of those switched their support on the basis of what they heard her say and the way she said it, we will never know.

It was all so unnecessary.  Of the three she can be the most articulate and likely is the most knowledgeable on the issues of the day. It is hard to believe that she could throw it all away by an extraordinary lack of insight into how she comes across in her speaking style. She too needs to watch videos of herself.  Her speech of substance on Tuesday was made less so by an annoying “what does Hillary want” sense of self-importance.

In the scheme of things should tone trump substance in such an important race?  Probably not, but it probablydoes.

Then there is Senator Obama’s speech.  His oratorical skills have been described as a cross between Martin Luther King and John Kennedy.  He so clearly has the best stage presence and oratorical skills, that there is just no contest. The audience didn’t care nearly so much about the substance of his message.  They wanted to come away with a sense of optimism about their lives and the possibilities for their country.  On both counts the Senator delivered.  His was a speech they could cheer about.  And they did.

In the scheme of things, should stage presence and performance skills be what counts for winning the job.  Probably not, but they just might.

It will be very interesting to watch the proposed un-moderated debates between the two men.  How fast they can think on their feet, argue and counter argue, and make their points articulately, without a script in front of them, will be very telling.  Not to mention exciting.  Political junkies the world over will be keeping score.

Next time - a look at the words they delivered on Tuesday.

June 5th, 2008
Comments:4 Comments Category: Essential Speechwriter

One of the trickier types of speech to write, and one that you should consider carefully before accepting, is the speech given by experts to experts.

It is one thing to have an expert, say — a medical specialist — give a status report on the current state of diabetes research — at a fund-raising gathering. It is a fairly easy proposition to interview diabetes scientists on the subject which you then translate into plain English. On top of that you would add the standard bit of promotion to encourage the audience to contribute financially to the cause.

Now let’s say you had that same medical researcher but this time he is giving a keynote speech, opening a three-day medical conference on the latest innovations in diabetes research and everyone in the audience is an expert on the topic as well. Now you have a real problem on your hands. You start out your research as you might have with the fundraising speech. You would do some basic Google research on diabetes, and then track down some experts to interview before you talk to your speaker.

Now it gets difficult. The problem is you don’t know what you don’t know, and so how can you ask intelligent questions, the answers to which you might want to plug into your speech. Unfortunately your interviewee doesn’t know what you don’t know either. From experience I can tell you that after a long interview I’ve asked a question “is there anything else I should be asking you?” Dumb question. It sometimes elicits some fill in the gaps information. More often it is this the rather stunned and understandable silence.

This is where the God question comes in handy. The God question takes various forms - usually prefaced by the phrase ” If you were God…..” followed by words that might elicit a more voluminous response. For example, ” If you were God where would you put the emphasis on diabetes research?” Or “If you were God doling out research funds where would you put them?” Or “If you were God and the government came to you for advice about finding a cure for diabetes, what would you tell them?” This accomplishes two things. It gets them talking about the subject in terms that you might not have thought of, and the conversation can go from there. And they are happy to wax philosophic on the topic since it is unlikely you are going to quote them as God. It is, in short a conversation starter, although I reserve the asking of it until near the end of the discussion.

So, remember the God question. A very useful tool when you are really worried about not knowing what you don’t know!

May 21st, 2008
Comments:1 Comment Category: Essential Speechwriter

Senator Obama talks about race and racism in America. Will laying down a few home truths garner him more support or less?

March 21st, 2008
Comments:1 Comment Category: Essential Speechwriter

March 5th, 2008
Comments:No Comment Category: Essential Speechwriter

February 27th, 2008
Comments:3 Comments Category: Essential Speechwriter