Class 5 The Rivers of Blood

Rhetoric The Rivers of Blood

Metaphor  Meta: accross, over  Pherein: to bear, to carry  Meaning: a tranfer from one meaning to another  Definition: a word or phrase for one thing that is used to refer to another thing in order to show or suggest that they are similar ( webster.com/dictionary/metaphor)

Metaphor Analysis J. Charteris Black Three concepts to analyse a metaphor:  Source Domain > literal meaning, where the metaphor comes from, the lexical field of the literal meaning.  Target domain > metaphoric meaning, what the metaphor refers to.  Conceptual Metaphor > meaning of the metaphor.

Metaphor Analysis  Source Domain: Nature (water)  Target Domain: immigration/ integration (or lack of it)  Conceptual Metaphor: IMMIGRATION IS FLOWING/ POURING INTO THE COUNTRY

Why are metaphors so powerful? « Metaphor is effective in public communication because it draws on the unconscious emotional associations of words and assumed values that are rooted in cultural and historical knowledge » Axis of evil: fire > burn, dangerous, purifying devil > bad, beast (not human) sin > religion, offence to God When you fight the ‘axis of evil’, you are fighting dangerous non humans who have sinned against God > you are a hero! Ex.: Iron curtain, arm race, big stick diplomacy, Desert Storm  The shift in meaning strikes us and gets our attention  Images are used as symbols which activate mental representations  Images are often more telling than words

Images

The Rivers of Blood  Rivers: Big, Majestic, unstoppable, perpetual movement, drowning, wash away characteristics and identity  Blood: Violence, fight, struggle, Lineage, ‘blood of my blood’

The Rivers of Blood Immigration will flow into GB and change its identity for the worse

Rhetoric What do you think of that metaphor?  Will Commonwealth immigration wash away British identity?  Is immigration bound to be a source of violence?

Rhetoric Tainted blood: efficient or dangerous image?

Rhetoric  Enoch Powel uses three elements in his demonstration:  The average man that eveyone can relate to l3-4  Official figures so as to sound credible and to scare people l16-17  The idea of division (btw British ppl and immigrants and btw ‘good’ and ‘bad’ immigrants) l35-38

Rhetoric  Can it be seen as successful far-right tactic?  Is it any different from what other politicians do?

References The speech is filled with references.

Religion  « evils » l 1, 2, 25,  « I can already hear the chorus of execration » line 10 (parole religieuse)  “they don’t know what they do” line 10 (p2) > And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34)

Literature and History  « Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad” line 35  The Masque of Pandora, Longfellow  Prometheus  Gunpowder l9 (p2) > Gunpowder Plot 1605  “by hook or by crook” line 18 > John Wycliff, 14 th century

Latin  “per annum ad infinitum” line 41  “I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood” line 43 > Sybil (prophetess) in Virgil's Aeneid VI > "wars, terrible wars, / and the Tiber foaming with much blood."

Questions It would seem impossible today to find so many highbrow references in a political speech:  Why do you think it was important for Powel to use such references (religion/ literature/ latin)?

Today Old Elitism vs. New Populism > Levelling down politics?

The 60s and Racial Tensions  Why was there a rise in racial tension during the Sixties (UK and US)?  Was it bound to happen? What kind of answers did the politicians provide? Have things much changed nowdays?

Coming Weeks  WEEK 6, 1974 Industrial Strike, p 27  WEEK 7, EEC Entry, p 29  News  books