The Reason Why “Change” or “Dream” Were Not in Obama’s Speech
Published in Asahi Shinbun
(Japan) on 22 January 2009
by Toshiya Umehara (link to original)
(Japan) on 22 January 2009
by Toshiya Umehara (link to original)
Translated from
by Yota Mukaiyachi.
U.S. President Obama erased his famous "change" from his inauguration speech on the 20th. Instead, he appealed throughout his speech for responsibility and obligation under difficult circumstance as well as a return to the American ideals such as rule of law and human rights.
What stood out in his speech was his attitude in pointing out the reality of the crisis, the history, and how the country should change from now on, while he minimized the use of vocabulary that could bring cheers from the huge crowd. In terms of the historic moment of the first African-American president, he talked emotionally of the meaning of his presidency given the fact his Kenyan father would not have been greeted in a restaurant under Jim Crow nearly 60 years ago. Nonetheless, he did not expand on the topic, hinting at his attitude to overcome the race issue.
Since he is well known for his excellent speechs, media expected that a historic line would come from his mouth. But he must have thought that he should express his determination rather than congratulate a position that shoulders real responsibilities to rule a nation.
Looking at the vocabulary he used in the speech, he never used "dream," which would remind one of Dr. King, and both "hope" and "ideals" appeared only three times. On the other hand, he used "new" eleven times, "generations" eight times, and "spirit" five times and explained his views on ideals clearly. The names of countries mentioned in the speech besides the U.S. were Iraq, Afghanistan, and past battlefields in the U.S. history. This highlights the beginnings of a war-time administration.
He also mentioned, if not named, Islamic fundamentalists such as Al-Qaeda and declared to "defeat" them, aiming at showing his bold determination as a commander-in-chief. On the other hand, he hinted that he is ready to talk to anti-American nations, such as Iran, if they changed their stubborn rhetoric, although he pointed out that they are on the wrong side. And this is characteristic of Obama diplomacy.
David Brooks of the New York Times told the US PBS TV, "I remember an image of Mr. Obama and emotions of the surrounding crowd more clearly than each word in his speech."
What stood out in his speech was his attitude in pointing out the reality of the crisis, the history, and how the country should change from now on, while he minimized the use of vocabulary that could bring cheers from the huge crowd. In terms of the historic moment of the first African-American president, he talked emotionally of the meaning of his presidency given the fact his Kenyan father would not have been greeted in a restaurant under Jim Crow nearly 60 years ago. Nonetheless, he did not expand on the topic, hinting at his attitude to overcome the race issue.
Since he is well known for his excellent speechs, media expected that a historic line would come from his mouth. But he must have thought that he should express his determination rather than congratulate a position that shoulders real responsibilities to rule a nation.
Looking at the vocabulary he used in the speech, he never used "dream," which would remind one of Dr. King, and both "hope" and "ideals" appeared only three times. On the other hand, he used "new" eleven times, "generations" eight times, and "spirit" five times and explained his views on ideals clearly. The names of countries mentioned in the speech besides the U.S. were Iraq, Afghanistan, and past battlefields in the U.S. history. This highlights the beginnings of a war-time administration.
He also mentioned, if not named, Islamic fundamentalists such as Al-Qaeda and declared to "defeat" them, aiming at showing his bold determination as a commander-in-chief. On the other hand, he hinted that he is ready to talk to anti-American nations, such as Iran, if they changed their stubborn rhetoric, although he pointed out that they are on the wrong side. And this is characteristic of Obama diplomacy.
David Brooks of the New York Times told the US PBS TV, "I remember an image of Mr. Obama and emotions of the surrounding crowd more clearly than each word in his speech."
Next article![]( "Friends and Neighbors")