Most of them were educated in England...illiteracy was prevalent and some folks did not know WHAT was said even after it had been said and reported to them. Afterall, they were not inviting people to polk sallet dinner, they were encouraging them to take up arms against the nation that had afforded them an extended freedom to voyage to this 'new continent' and set up homesteads. The forefathers had to use strong eloquent language in order to appeal to those with power, influence, and expendible cash flow to finance their endeavor. The tobacco farmers may not have understood the language at all that was used to preface a war; however, they did understand ... get a gun and defend your property (homestead). And, if you don't have a gun, pick up a heavy tool and weld it fiercely! I suppose that some of the speakers of today would be more inspired to speak in strong, eloquent written word if there were not so many critics able to pick and probe at each word spoken (or written) until the meaning is so diluted that the words used are of less significance and the gist of it is prominently disagreed with.
I listened to the most recent Presidential Congressional Address; and, I was pleased to hear so many different topics being covered...not just the middle east unrest. Topics of domestic interest, as well as, our strides toward helping other countries become better respected and established as independent entities. It was delightful. However, as the political arena would have it...no sooner than he had exited the room...someone was up to the podium to disagree with what he had said and to offer other suggestions as to a correct way to perceive what he said. I tuned out and changed channels. Each of us are entitled to an opinion...that is what democracy is about. Yet, it seems that it would be just as easy to be content and agreeable as it is to argue that it is different from one's own personal perspective.
I do not believe that the seat of commander in chief is a 'cushy' position. It carries a great deal of responsibility for the well-being of all of the constituents within the nation, as well as, fledgling countries abroad looking for something from us to enable them to have similar values and standards for their people, too. I was fortunate enough to study the Constitution of the United States and learn of the responsibilities and duties of the President of our nation. They lack the ability to be as powerful as their position suggests. As a matter of fact, it was sobering to learn just how few actions are within their immediate control (without an act of congress). Perhaps that's what has curbed the eloquence and strength of words...they could require congressional approval prior to uttering anything strong enough to 'move' the constituents to a philosophy that is any stronger than .. go to work, pay your taxes, obey the laws, and keep it tuned to CNBC for the latest congressional activities.
Thanks for the soapbox...it was good for me...[I] hope it is not disappreciated.
2007-02-03 18:16:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well, as for the writing itself - penmanship is not taught in our school systems anymore... There was once a time when learning how to do the nice script writing was considered essential for the students... That has not been as so for many many years!
I agree with you, the intelligence level of peoples' speech has diminished considerably.... Though we are "per-say" smarter now because of all the "modern" discoveries { germs, atoms and such } - it does seem that common sense , proper speech and proper English , has taken a back seat.
Once recently I was with several people whom mistook a rabbit for being a raccoon.... Odd to think that the smarter the public has became - just maybe the dumber we are?
Sad thing is that we cannot blame the problem all on the schools themselves - the youth attending the schools need to have a desire to learn the basics , yet that does not appear to be the case..
2007-02-03 18:10:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
That's a good question. I think it has to do with means of communication. With phones, faxes, computers, we have more opportunities and chances to communicate our ideas and modify our words as the conversation progresses. Picture colonial times with overseas telephone service available. John Hancock, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson get on a conference call with King George in England. They say, "Well King, people are pretty pissed off here about those taxes, what can you do about it? The King replies, Our founding fathers reply back. Perhaps they come to a preliminary agreement with each side giving way a little bit. But in the real world of Colonial Days, writing the Declaration of Independence was their one and only chance at communication for months. The document had to be sent via ship to England. The King, should he choose to respond favorably, had to write back. Another few months. In the meantime, people are still pissed and getting more restless. British troops are complying with the orders they received when they left England. No one can just call up the King and ask him to withdraw the troops.
They had one chance to make their point, so they put everything they had into it, Eloquence was paramount.
This theory would hold true for other correspondence as well. Also, without the modern distractions, the correspondence is their complete focus.
2007-02-03 18:06:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by PDY 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
There is so much being said by so many that it gets lost in the deluge. More and more, less that is said is ever actually read. Why take the time to write if nobody is going to read it, or if the media is only going to paraphrase what you wrote anyway?
Besides, a well delivered sound bite is understood by everybody, regardless of whether they are willing to read and even whether they CAN read what you put so much effort into crafting. Also a sound bite takes only a few seconds and delivers your message with a hammer. Why put all that effort into an eloquent and well-reasoned attempt at written persuasion when you don't have to and, moreover, is less effective than other means that are available?
2007-02-03 18:41:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jess Wundring 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I've noticed the same thing. Oration and written language just isn't the same as it was even 100 years ago. I don't know all the reasons but I believe one big one is that language skills and vocabulary just isn't taught anymore. At least not like it was then. How can someone use beautiful language in writing and speaking if they don't hear it, read it, or have any other exposure to it?
2007-02-03 17:52:50
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ellen J 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Time and attention span.
Long ago people had a long time to write and rewrite, think about it and rewrite again.
No Internet no TV no radio MTV and other distractions just work and time to get every word just right.
Also our education has changed. social training is far more important in today's schools. Self esteem rates higher than math skills. birth control vs spelling. gangs vs grammar.
When how eloquently you speak compares not to the bling on your teeth.
2007-02-03 17:58:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by DaFinger 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
Sad but true. Out of Jefferson we got the Declaaration of Independance. Today we get "my Pet Goat."
2007-02-03 18:30:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Speech writers happened. They also try to appeal to the dumbest now instead of the most intelligent.
2007-02-03 20:04:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋