Well, She Got My Attention! Kamala Harris Talked about Climate for Earth Day

Kamala Harris speaking at the 2021 Leaders' Summit

Wildfires, heatwaves, cluttered islands, and hurricanes! If that doesn’t get your attention, nothing will. On Earth Day, April 22, 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris spoke at the Leaders’ Summit on Climate, a virtual meeting of dozens of world leaders.

No part of a speech is more important than its beginning and end. Public speaking textbooks tell students to begin their speeches with an attention-getter. A stirring quotation, a story, a clever analogy, or, better yet, a startling fact can draw the audience’s attention to the speaker and her message. Harris began her brief speech with a series of startling, if not horrifying, facts about climate change’s terrifying progress:

“Here in the United States, the storms hitting our Gulf Coast are worse every year. The wildfires in my home state of California have grown in intensity. And of course, no nation or region is immune. Whether it is Western Europe, where heatwaves have made it very difficult to stay indoors while risking a health risk, or the Pacific Islands, where rising sea levels threaten to encroach on the land and homes of lifelong residents, or in Central America, where last year, two major hurricanes devastated entire communities.” [italics added]

Earth from a million miles away

The startling facts that Harris cited were not only horrifying, but specific. She did not begin her speech with some boring, tedious generality like “climate change is hurting us.” To secure her audience’s attention, to drive home the Summit’s worldwide importance, she emphasized a series of growing climate problems. As a resident of the Gulf Coast, I found her first startling fact, the Gulf Coast storms, especially incisive. I lived through some of those storms.

Also, Harris cleverly mentioned climate hazards from across the world. Yes, she began with climate hazards in her own nation, but her brief paragraph traveled across the world. This was, after all, an international summit.

Kamala Harris: "Investing in the Potential and the Greatness”

Harrison Ford's September 2018 Climate Speech

Stevie Wonder's Hurricane Harvey Speech: Music and Speech Together

Speech professor Alan Monroe based his famous Motivated Sequence on the ideas of psychologists William James and John Dewey. The Motivated Sequence points out that audiences act according to what gets their attention. A speaker talking about climate change, on Earth Day or any other day, must begin by focusing people’s attention. As she launched the climate summit on Earth Day in 2021, Harris’ startling, even horrifying facts directed the audience to the crises that faced us. Those crises still face us today, three years later, on Earth Day, April 22, 2024.

How a speaker can get people's attention 

_________________

P.S.: Enter "climate" in the search box on the right for other posts about climate change speeches. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image of Earth: NASA
Image of Kamala Harris: White House YouTube channel

Bill Clinton's Speech about the Columbine Massacre Asked Us to Reflect

Bill Clinton

“We know somehow that what happened to you has pierced the soul of America.”

Those were President Bill Clinton’s words in his speech to survivors of the Columbine High School massacre. A month earlier, on April 20, 1999 (25 years ago today) two Columbine High School students had killed twelve of their fellow students and a teacher. After an hours-long standoff with a tepid police response, the two shooters committed suicide.

A Speech About Values

Many subsequent post-massacre speeches and angry statements for and against gun control have filled the news. In contrast, Clinton focused on the United States of America’s moral focus. Maybe that is where we needed to focus all along. He asked his audience (his audience was not just the students and parents in front of him, but also the entire nation) to think about what is right and what is wrong, to look for ways to overcome darkness, to find ways to reconcile differences, to overcome grievances and to do the things that are right to do. Clinton talked about the future:

“… a future where what we have in common is far more important than what divides us.”

Clinton’s message speaks to us in 2024. In no other nation on earth, rich or poor, big or small, democratic, communist, or fascist, do mass school shootings occur with the horrible ferocity that has become commonplace in the United States. The satirical website The Onion comments after almost every school shooting that there is “‘No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens.”

Maybe, as liberal speakers have often said, the problem is too many guns. In response, conservative speakers ask whether we need more good guys with guns. Neither approach will solve the problem, though, until we recognize what is right and what is wrong.

. What is right and wrong is not just a matter of how one acts, but of what moral values a person holds dear. That was President Clinton’s message.


Joe Biden's Emotional Gun Control Plea: "Enough!"

Wayne LaPierre's Speech Opposes Gun Control with a Dark Vision

That is why, in this brief speech’s key passage, Clinton talked about overcoming the “dark forces” that make people into murderers, as well as the forces in human society that prevent us from working together:

“These dark forces that take over people and make them murder are the extreme manifestation of fear and rage with which every human being has to do combat. The older you get, the more you’ll know that a great deal of life is the struggle against every person’s own smallness and fear and anger and a continuing effort not to blame other people for our own shortcomings or our fears.”

All human beings, as Clinton reminded us, struggle with dark forces. Can we overcome the “smallness” of our thinking? Can we not recognize that fear leads to anger, but we can control our fear and anger?

Yes, Clinton briefly mentioned that the nation needs to keep firearms out of dangerous peoples’ hands. That, however, was not his main point. His main point was for us to examine our morals.

Clinton’s larger, moral context persuaded few people at the time, and would probably persuade fewer today. We cannot move forward with reasonable gun control until we understand our fear and anger. We cannot resolve school violence until we view education as something greater than getting good scores on computer-graded multiple-choice tests. A few generations ago, schools knew that part of their job was moral education: to teach tolerance, to make people aware of their history and culture, and to instill such all-American values as freedom of expression and religion. My intermediate school principal called our school campus “a plant,” as if the school were an industrial operation, rather than a cultural institution. I have not heard that bizarre term recently, but our nation has still not figured out what functions it wants schools to serve.

Anywhere Could Become Columbine

Clinton’s Columbine speech was not, however, just about one school in Colorado. Clinton reminded his audience that:

“We know if this can happen here, it can happen anywhere.”

Indeed, Clinton remarked about the “fundamentally strong values and character” of the people of Jefferson County, Colorado. He was right about that! Yet, for that solid community, “Columbine” is forever engraved on American memory as a symbol of violence, social disorganization, and moral failure. Indeed, school massacres have become a nationwide affliction, as fear and anger continue to tear apart many of the United States’ seemingly most stable neighborhoods. When they happen, we say that they are “another Columbine.”

Any number of policies might help. Should we control gun ownership by people who are known to be dangerous? We might ask, how do teenagers build bombs in their parents’ garage, and no one notices? What about school bullying? Can we recognize mental health issues before they lead to disaster? Do we need better trained, more organized police? Progress on all those fronts continues to be slow, if not nil, twenty-five long years later.

Emma González at the "March for Our Lives" Rally

Clinton’s Larger Purpose

Public speaking’s highest purpose is to awaken our moral sensibilities.

So, Clinton pointed out that before we can solve the detailed issues of policy, we must settle a more fundamental point. Clinton’s Columbine speech cried out for us to reflect. Clinton was right that the United States needs to determine what it stands for. Unfortunately, we seem to have wandered even farther from that determination than we were 25 years ago. Do we stand for each other, or do we want to destroy one another? Heaven help us.

by William D. Harpine

______________

Research note: Ceremonial speeches (the old term is epideictic speech) often talk about values, while subtly encouraging the audience to think of actions that fulfill their values. I have written about epideictic rhetoric a number of times; here is a free preprint of one of my papers on the topic. For more, click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” at the link above. 

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image: National Archives, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Pope Francis Talks about the Stones that “Block the Hopes of Humanity”

In his 2024 Easter blessing today, Pope Francis asked a troubling question:

“Like the women disciples of Jesus, we ask one another: ‘Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?’ (cf. Mk 16:3).”

Francis was referring to the huge stone that blocked the entrance to Jesus’ tomb, which women were visiting to perform a final ritual. In despair, the women saw no way to move the stone, and yet the stone moved (or was already rolled away). For Pope Francis, the stone that blocked Jesus’ tomb thousands of years ago was a metaphor for the terrible stones of war and suffering that, in Francis’ words, “block the hopes of humanity.” The metaphor of the stone reminds us never to give up hope, never to give up on love, compassion, and forgiveness. As Francis said:

“The Church relives the amazement of the women who went to the tomb at dawn on the first day of the week. The tomb of Jesus had been sealed with a great stone. Today too, great stones, heavy stones, block the hopes of humanity: the stone of war, the stone of humanitarian crises, the stone of human rights violations, the stone of human trafficking, and other stones as well.”

As Pope Francis acutely noted, horrible wars and suffering wrack the world, from the Middle East and Ukraine, and on to, central Africa, Kivu, and elsewhere. Francis reminded the 60,000 worshipers gathered at St. Peter’s Square that Syria suffers from a decades-long civil war. He appealed for humanitarian aid, the release of hostages, and cease-fires. He still came back to his metaphor of stones, asking, how will we ever roll these terrible stones away? He recognized that desperate people, who see no hope, who think themselves helpless, all face – metaphorically – the same dilemma:

“Without the forgiveness of sins, there is no overcoming the barriers of prejudice, mutual recrimination, the presumption that we are always right and others wrong.”

On the one hand, Francis assured the worshipers that only Jesus can roll away the stones of war and hatred. Francis did not, on the other hand, omit that human beings today need to act. Instead, to follow Jesus—means, according to the Pope’s blessing, for us to reach out with love and compassion to one another:

“Let us not yield to the logic of weapons and rearming. Peace is never made with arms, but with outstretched hands and open hearts.”

Sojourner Truth and Her Metaphors

Metaphors carry great power. Metaphors—like equating a tombstone with today’s terrible moral failings—force us to see connections that our narrow-mindedness leads us to deny. Francis’ metaphor had two prongs. First, yes, the massive stones that block us seem overpowering and we feel helpless to move them. Second, however, in the biblical accounts, the enormous stone was, indeed, moved. The moving of the stone added hope to the Pope’s metaphor. To move today’s stones, Pope Francis said, we must reach out with our hearts and faith, to forgive one another, to show compassion, to move the stones, not with anger or violence, but with love.

A powerful Easter message. Will the world listen?

by William D. Harpinw

_____________

Earlier Posts:

Pope Francis Asked the Catholic Church to Listen

Pope Francis' Sermon for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees

  

_____________

The English text of Pope Francis’ blessing is taken from the Catholic News Agency.

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image: Pope Francis, edited from a historical White House photo

Sojourner Truth in 1867: Keep the Thing Stirring!

Sojourner Truth

“I feel,” said Sojourner Truth, “that if I have to answer for the deeds done in my body just as much as a man, I have a right to have just as much as a man.”

On May 9, 1867, Sojourner Truth, a former slave and famous abolitionist speaker, pressed for women’s economic rights in a metaphor-filled speech. She was speaking at the First Annual Meeting of the American Equal Rights Association, held at the Church of the Puritans in New York City. She spoke in metaphors to accentuate women's rights.

As she spoke, such metaphors as weeding the garden, riding horses, and healing a knife wound expressed the path toward economic equality. Metaphors, which link seemingly unrelated concepts, strike to our deepest feelings. Sojourner Truth’s speech about justice for women surely seemed radical in 1867. Yet, the problems of justice and freedom that she described in 1867 still plague the United States, indeed the world, even to this day. Indeed, just last year, the Pew Foundation found that, “even as women have continued to outpace men in educational attainment, the pay gap has been stuck in a holding pattern since 2002, ranging from 80 to 85 cents to the dollar.”

As she began, standing to applause, Sojourner Truth compared the oppression of women to the recent abolition of slavery:

“My friends, I am rejoiced that you are glad, but I don’t know how you will feel when I get through. I come from another field—the country of the slave. They have got their liberty—so much good luck to have slavery partly destroyed; not entirely. I want it root and branch destroyed.”

That was a metaphor.  Any gardener, then or now, knows that it is never enough to pull the leaves. Only when the weed has been destroyed, as Sojourner Truth said, “root and branch,” do we know that it will never grow back. Now that chattel slavery had been abolished, Sojourner Truth argued that it was time to push for women’s rights. She made her next point with a metaphor about ice fishing. A New Yorker, she knew that ice fishing requires one not only to break the ice, but to keep stirring to prevent the pond from freezing over again:

“I suppose I am about the only colored woman that goes about to speak for the rights of the colored women. I want to keep the thing stirring, now that the ice is cracked.”

Church of the Pilgrims

The speaker had already warned that the audience might not be happy about everything he had to say. The end of the Civil War and the destruction of legalized slavery was a massive blow for freedom. It was, she said, not enough: not until women achieved the same rights as men. 

And, she said, it was not enough to talk about men’s rights:

“There is a great stir about colored men getting their rights, but not a word about the colored women,” Sojourner Truth stated as she pushed for women’s rights. 

“Stir” continued the idea of “stirring” the ice. As a true agitator, Sojourner Truth sought to continue agitation until women, including freed women, had the same rights as men. Otherwise, she pointed out, women’s lot will not have improved at all:

“… and if colored men get their rights, and not colored women theirs, you see the colored men will be masters over the women, and it will be just as bad as it was before.”

Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Progressive Traditionalist. Will We Live up to Our Values?

Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right

A master, of course, demands work without pay. That is not only a moral fault, but also an economic incentive. That is why it made sense when Sojourner Truth recounted the metaphorical chains that still held women to unequal pay for equal work:

“I suppose I am kept here because something remains for me to do, I suppose I am yet to help to break the chain. I have done a great deal of work; as much as a man, but did not get so much pay. I used to work in the field and bind grain, keeping up with the cradler; but men doing no more, got twice as much pay; so with the German women.”

That is, just like a modern feminist, Sojourner Truth pointed out that women “did not get as much pay.” The problem that she alleged was that while, people viewed the end of slavery as a great triumph, they felt content—too content—to rest without fighting all injustice. Still comparing the oppression of women to slavery, she said:

“You [presumably speaking to men in the audience] have been having our rights so long, that you think, like a slave-holder, that you own us. I know that it is hard for one who has held the reins for so long to give up; it cuts like a knife. It will feel all the better when it closes up again.”

It will feel all the better? Sojourner Truth harshly told the nation to get over their pain, to understand that everything would be better if the nation could heal: again, the speaker’s metaphor drove home a deeper reality. Yes, it hurts to give up power, but, yes again, a nation that heals will be better off. “It will feel all the better,” she said.

Finally, noting that nobody at the conference had been singing, Sojourner Truth said:

“I am going to talk several times while I am here; so now I will do a little singing. I have not heard any singing since I came here.”

After singing the old standard, “We Are Going Home,” she reminded the audience that, before they get to heaven, “first do all we have to do here.”

As the audience listened to her sing, Sojourner Truth had already compared the unequal treatment of women to chattel slavery, spoken against the bonds that unjustly restrict women, and propounded metaphors about everyday life: cracking the ice, breaking chains, turning loose of the reins of injustice, and healing the cuts. She reduced the problem to basic economics: equal pay for equal work. Anything less was trickle-down slavery. And she sang.

The ultimate evil of slavery, of course, is that masters force enslaved Americans to work under conditions of unfathomable cruelty, with no control over their destiny, and without compensation. The institution of slavery continued for centuries because masters gained such a huge economic advantage from unpaid labor. Slavery’s wickedness was a moral failing, but economic gain was its obvious cause. 

In her 1867 speech, Sojourner Truth pointed out the continuing injustice that occurred when women are oppressed economically. Her metaphors brought the injustice to life.

____________________

Research note:

1. It is often surprisingly hard to get accurate texts of even the most famous speeches. Sojourner Truth’s 1851 Akron, Ohio speech, “Aren’t I a Woman?” is more famous. However, communication scholars have known for many years that the published text of “Aren’t I a Woman?” is not accurate. Sojourner Truth’s 1867 speech, which I discuss in this blog post, was recorded by a shorthand reporter, and so the text probably comes reasonably close to what she said and gives us a better idea of her actual speaking style.

2. Scholars have given many excellent discussions of the role of metaphors in rhetoric. In his ground-breaking book, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, I. A. Richards argues that all language is basically metaphorical. For example, when we talk about “the leg of the table,” we know perfectly well that tables don’t really have legs. It’s a metaphor. Richards showed that metaphors can carry literal and emotional meaning. Anyway, for people who want to learn more about metaphors and rhetoric, Richards’ book is probably a good place to start. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image of Sojourner Truth, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of the The Church of the Pilgrims, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

July 10, 2009: The Day When Hecklers Destroyed the Old Republican Party

Mike Castle

The Republican Party of old died on July 10, 2009, when Republican Congressional Representative Mike Castle made a routine campaign stop to speak to a group of elderly voters in Delaware. Castle was running for the United States Senate in a special election. A perfectly standard, old-school Republican, Castle came to discuss his usual platitudes. He then offered to answer questions. A woman in red raised her hand to ask Castle about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. She shouted:

“I want to know. I have a birth certificate here from the United States of America saying I’m an American citizen, with a seal on it, signed by doctor, with the hospital administrator’s name, my parents, my date of birth, the time and date. I’m gonna get back to January 20th and I want to know, why are you people ignoring his birth certificate?”

A heckler yelled, “Yeah!” The crowd clapped and cheered. A heckler screamed, “he was born in Kenya.”

The woman in red said that her father was a World War II veteran, a member of “the greatest generation.” She shrieked, “I want my country back.” More cheers and applause.

Looking as if his eyes were glazed over by car lights, Castle calmly commented:

“He is a citizen of the United States. You’re referring to the president there, he is a...”

Well, that was the end of that. The crowd stood, almost as a body, and loudly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Castle checked his watch and tried to move on to another questioner.

Someone soon posted a grainy cell phone video of the event on the Internet. The video went viral. Castle subsequently lost the Republican primary to an ill-equipped opponent, who in turn lost the general election.

Evidently, various Barack Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories had been circulating on talk radio, conservative television, and the Internet for weeks before Castle’s speech. The elderly, apparently all-white crowd had obviously absorbed the conspiracy theory’s every bizarre detail. In contrast, Castle had, as far as I can tell, never heard of the nonsense. In more general terms, Castle discovered that day that rational discourse has no standing in a speech community that is ruled by unreason.

The birth certificate conspiracy theory did not prevent Barack Obama from being reelected in 2012. Nevertheless, Mike Castle’s explosive experience demonstrated the stunning extent to which unfounded beliefs, many of them conspiratorial and racist, have come to dominate the Republican Party. Donald Trump’s 2016 election was driven largely by denying that Obama was born in the United States. Since then, conspiracy theorists have defeated basic public health measures, called climate change a myth, and warned of the supposed Great Replacement of white people. The unfounded belief that Democrats stole the 2020 election was a predictable outgrowth. The nation’s real problems are increasingly ignored as millions of voters drown themselves in a sea of absurdity.

Never Humiliate Your Opponent: Obama Ridiculed Trump's Conspiracy Theory

Castle never had a chance. The crowd drowned out his response. They interrupted him by shouting, clapping, and bellowing the Pledge of Allegiance. Political discourse gave way to rude, boorish heckling. Castle’s timid attempt to introduce reality into his campaign appearance met, not only denial, but derision and disrespect. His crowd listened to only one perspective: a perspective founded entirely on lies. 

Castle’s appearance before what should have been a friendly crowd at a seemingly innocuous event marked a pivotal rhetorical shift. On that sad day, the Republican Party’s discussion of genuine issues gave way to conspiracy theories. The party shows no sign of recovery. Mike Castle’s political destruction at the hands of conspiracy theorists taught Republican politicians a lesson that they have not forgotten: reality no longer wins conservative hearts. After all, politicians are simple creatures who only want to win elections. Furthermore, the birth certificate conspiracy theory, the origin of all present-day conservative conspiracy theories, did not represent just one political smear. On July 10, 2009, Republican politicians learned to bow down to their party’s most despicable elements. Since that day, they face a harsh choice: support the conspiracy theorists, or face absolutely certain electoral defeat. Mike Castle’s disastrous campaign appearance ended Republican politicians’ willingness to embrace the truth. Heaven help us.

Speeches about Conspiracies: How Can We Tell Whether a Conspiracy Is Real?

"OK, Boomer:" Chlöe Swarbrick Teaches Us How to Put a Heckler Down Flat

_________________

P.S. The origin of the birth certificate conspiracy theory is that Hawaii, like many other states, has computerized its vital records to improve efficiency and security. FactCheck.org examined Obama’s birth certificate in August 2008. They concluded:

“FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as ‘supporting documents’ to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.”

Hawaii’s Director of Public Health and Governor both personally inspected Obama’s birth records and found that they were correct. Hawaiian newspapers had published a report of Barack Obama’s birth the next day. The birth certificate conspiracy theory lacks even the remotest merit. 

All the same, while truth desperately grasps for a tenuous foothold, birth certificate conspiracy theories continued to circulate as late as 2023.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image: U.S. House of Representatives, via Wikipedia

Rotary Club Speech "Four Way Test" Speech Contest

With all the bad public speaking that politicians foist on us every day, let’s celebrate the five Coronado High School students who participated in their local Rotary Club’s Four Way Test speech contest. Two of them advanced to the next level, while all five are to be praised.

Each student gave a brief, prepared speech. They applied the Rotary Club’s Four Way Test to assorted contemporary topics. The students chose to talk about such varied subjects as artificial intelligence, suicide among autistic teens, and climate change. Each speech applied the Rotary Club’s Four Way Test. 

First, it is wonderful to see students learn to use public speaking to talk about the important subjects and controversies that face us today.

Second, in a world where people often laugh about ethics, all five speakers proudly focused on the Rotary Club's moral principles, exemplified by the Four Way Test. Business executive and Rotarian Herbert J. Taylor developed the Four Way Test to encourage honest business practices. After much deliberation, he settled on these four principles: 

1. Is it the TRUTH?
2. Is it FAIR to all Concerned?
3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?

Rotarians today adopt the Four Way Test as their ethical guide. The speech contest encourages young people to apply those simple ethical principles to public issues. What better use can public speaking serve?

 Congratulations to all five students—and to the many, many other students who participate in Rotary Club speech contests across the land. Well done!

_______________

Congratulations to the Lincoln East High School Speech Team

School Speech Contests

_______________

P.S. For several years, I served as a judge for Rotary Club Four Way Test speech contests in northern Ohio. It was an inspiring duty.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

 

Biden's 2024 State of the Union Warned of Impending Calamity

Joe Biden, 2024 State of the Union

A good introduction sets a speech’s tone. In his March 7, 2024 State of the Union Address to Congress, President Joe Biden warned the members—and the nation—that our way of life was under assault:

“… freedom and democracy are under attack at both at home and overseas at the very same time.”

Biden painted a dark, dark picture: forces, domestic and foreign alike, threaten our way of life. Yes, a good introduction sets a speech’s tone. Beginning this speech, Biden laid out two historical analogies of times that the United States was attacked from without, and within. 

As they begin their presentations, good speakers want to gain the audience’s attention while pressing home their key point. Starting the speech, Biden first linked the United States of America’s current political crises with the onset of World War II:

“… in January 1941, Franklin Roosevelt came to this chamber to speak to the nation and he said, ‘I address you at a moment unprecedented in the history of the Union.’”

Biden’s startling historical analogy set the speech’s central message. In January 1941, Roosevelt had worried that neither Congress nor the nation understood the growing threat of totalitarian governments abroad. Like Roosevelt before him, Biden wanted to alert the nation of the growing catastrophe. Biden continued:

“Hitler was on the march, war was raging in Europe, President Roosevelt’s purpose was to wake up Congress and alert the American people that this was no ordinary time. Freedom and democracy were under assault in the world.” [italics added]

Pushing for aid to Ukraine, Biden then carried his analogy to the present day:

“Overseas, Putin of Russia is on the march, invading Ukraine and sowing chaos throughout Europe and beyond. If anybody in this room thinks Putin will stop at Ukraine, I assure you he will not.”

The war in Europe is not, Biden insisted, not our only threat. Making a second historical analogy, Biden warned:

“Not since President Lincoln in the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault at home as they are today. What makes our moment rare is that freedom and democracy are under attack both at home and overseas at the very same time.”

After all, January 2021 represented the first time in United States history that we failed to have a peaceful transfer of power.

Biden’s goal was to “wake up Congress and alert the American people.” A mild, mealy-mouthed introduction would wake up no one.

Did Congress wake up that night? Given the amount of heckling and cat- calling from the republican side, well, probably not. Maybe, however, Biden’s introduction may have been the opening salvo to break the United States out of its complacency and to remind us that we live in perilous times. I only wish that Biden had said these things a year ago. As the speech continued, Biden laid out the importance of aiding Ukraine, addressing the southern border, protecting women’s rights, and other key themes. 

Two historical analogies established Biden’s theme. Those starting analogies gave the speech a powerful framework. Biden referred to President Franklin Roosevelt and the onset of World War II, making a second reference to Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War. Both of those times plagued the United States with terrible danger. Biden alerted Congress and the nation alike that we face great dangers today. Are we listening? No one wants to think about oncoming calamity. Yet, if we face calamity unprepared, do we not choose to become lifeless victims?

Did Biden overstate his introductory analogies? I don’t think so. If we forget history, we will relive history. World War II, the worst disaster in human history, did not break out in one gigantic attack. In fact, the long gap between the September 1939 invasion of Poland and Germany’s June 1940 assault on France was called “the phony war.” Yes, today, Ukraine seems a long way away. All the same, today, while Russia brutalizes Ukraine, does the United States confront growing danger? ­Do we need to wake up?

by William D. Harpine

________________

Earlier Posts:

Heckling and Anti-Heckling in Joe Biden’s February 7, 2023 State of the Union Address

Trump's Speech of January 6, 2021: A "Firehose of Falsehood"

Franklin Roosevelt’s Pearl Harbor Speech: A Lesson for Our Own Time

Dr. Margaret Chan Organized Her Public Health Speech for Success

Copyright © 2024 William D. Harpine

Image: Official White House photo, via Wikimedia Commons

A Nice, Quiet Heckle

James Lankford

A gentle heckle is worth a thousand shouts! Senator James Lankford whispered a heckle and shook up the United States’ border controversy.


Biden Lashed Out at Republicans

Making one of the first points in his March 7, 2024 State of the Union speech, President Joe Biden lashed out at the Republicans in Congress for defeating what appeared to be an extremely conservative border control bill. The bill was drafted by Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Republican James Lankford, and Democrat Chris Murphy. Murphy agreed to a conservative border bill as a compromise to increase aid to Ukraine. Biden called the bill:

“…a bipartisan bill with the toughest set of border security reforms we’ve ever seen.”

Joe Biden, 2024 State of the Union

The Republicans howled as if one body. (In fact, they heckled loudly throughout the speech.) Biden quickly ad-libbed:

“Oh, you don’t think so? Oh, you don’t like that bill, huh, that conservatives got together and said was a good bill? I’ll be darned. That’s amazing.”

Biden detailed the bill’s provisions:

“1,500 more security agents and officers, 100 more immigration judges to help tackle a backload of 2 million cases, 4,300 more asylum officers, and new policies so they can resolve cases in 6 months instead of 6 years now.”

Anyway, Biden pounded on and on in that vein. In the midst of Biden’s broadside attack, Lankford quietly mouthed:

“That’s true.”

Reportedly, former president Donald Trump had told Republicans to oppose the bill, presumably because he wanted to whine about the border during the presidential campaign.
__________

Heckling and Anti-Heckling in Joe Biden’s February 7, 2023 State of the Union Address

"Read It," Says Mike Pence. Serious Anti-Heckling

__________

Poor Lankford

Republicans had, for weeks, been turning against Lankford for helping to write the bill. Back in February, after the bill was roundly defeated, losing votes even from its strongest erstwhile supporters, Lankford commented:

“I’m disappointed we didn’t get it done, ... I don’t know if I feel betrayed, because the issue is still there. It’s not solved.”

Burned by his own party’s flip-flopping, Lankford’s pretty much inaudible heckle (it required lip reading) gave his understandable reaction to the betrayal. He and his colleagues had worked hard to write a strict border control bill, and to see his work upended so casually would plague even the most cynical politician.

__________

The Lost Art of Heckling: How to Heckle and Not Sound Like an Idiot

__________

 
Trying to salvage his evidently wrecked political career, Lankford promptly issued a lengthy statement criticizing every part of Biden’s speech. Too little, too late. The Republicans have abandoned him, and he has become a pariah—for the unforgivable crime of momentary integrity. His brave, honest, whispered heckle expressed, however, an unusual, though achingly brief, display of spine and conscience in the United States of America’s increasingly polarized and dishonest political environment.

And he didn’t need to shout.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Images:  U.S. Congress, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain; 

White House Facebook page, public domain

Singapore’s Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean Spoke for Cultural Unity and Cooperation

Teo Chee Hean

“We see all the conflicts around the world, many of which are ignited by people who seek to
find divisions and differences arising out of race, language and religion.”

On the March 3, 2024, at the Pergas Gema Kesyukuran, Singapore’s Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean gave a speech about values. He spoke about the value of religious diversity and freedom at the Pergas Gema Kesyukuran, which is a major Muslim celebration in Singapore. It is a time of unity and gratitude.

Teo’s speech supported the premises of unity, identification, and mutual acceptance. Unlike what we often hear in the United States of America, he supported religion in public life without placing any one religion in pre-eminence. Harmony, he insisted, is the opposite of seeking “divisions and differences.” Strength comes from mutual respect. Teo explained how such values underlie the nation’s success:

“We are really blessed in Singapore where all our communities have pledged to work together.”

Unity in Diversity

Teo began by greeting the attendees in the Bahasa Melayu language, which is spoken by many Singaporean Muslims. He then stated his basic value, the value of tolerance and diversity:

“In Singapore, we live in a multi-racial, multi-religious, and multi-cultural society. There is no religion which is the dominant or majority religion; so every religion is in the minority. This is a rather unique situation and makes us one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world.”

Continuing, Teo told his audience about the continuing value of cooperation. Indeed, as Teo explained throughout his speech, Singaporeans have learned to work and serve together instead of seeking to divide. Teo claimed that this has led to a sense of national unity. He set forth how Singaporeans have learned to work and serve together, leading the public toward a sense of national unity:

“Our pioneer leaders have worked hard, with the support of our religious and community leaders, to promote unity among all communities and faiths. Singaporeans of all races and faiths now live together in HDB precincts, study together in national schools, perform National Service together, and work together.”

Tragic Events around the World

As he spoke, the ongoing battle between Hamas and Israel was much on Teo’s mind. The suffering of Palestinian civilians in that conflict surely troubled his Muslim audience. So, while continuing to reject internal conflict, Teo reiterated that Singapore’s many ethnic and religious groups must continue to work in harmony:

“Not only must we be united as a nation, each of our communities must be united and make sure that the different parts work together.”

Teo’s comments celebrated and praised Singapore’s Muslim leaders. At the same time, perhaps those same leaders recognized that Teo was guiding them toward a particular attitude. Teo may have been warning them, ever so gently, not to let the horrible Middle Eastern war drive Singaporeans apart. 

The Israeli-Gaza war has let to world-wide dissent. People throughout the world are shocked and horrified by the ongoing bloodshed of civilians. Given Singapore’s historical friendship with Israel, Teo needed to handle the issue with delicacy. Teo reaffirmed Singapore’s commitment to a ceasefire, with the disagreements to be settled by negotiation rather than violence. Teo carefully avoided taking sides in the Israel-Hamas war, and instead urged Muslim leaders to continue to support unity. Indeed, Teo insisted that the war’s solution lay in negotiating a settlement under international law. He hinted that his audience members were, first and foremost, Singaporeans:

“We must not let disagreements and conflicts elsewhere in the world become sources of tension and division in our society. We act on principle, supporting what is right under international law and international humanitarian law, urging a ceasefire and for issues to be resolved in a fair and just way through negotiations.” [italics added]

Teo then wished the attendees a peaceful and rewarding Ramadan.


Why Does Singapore Support Diversity?

No doubt, Teo gave an idealized view. At the same time, one cannot overlook how sharply Teo’s rhetoric of diversity and unity clashes with comparable rhetoric in the United States. Donald Trump is literally campaigning on a platform of division, and the January 6, 2021 riots threatened our constitutional system. Simply contrast Teo’s public celebration of Muslims with the vicious reception that Muslims sometimes receive in the United States.

Donald Trump's "Send Her Back" Speech Made Ilhan Omar a Flag Individual

Bennie Thompson, Chair of the January 6, 2021, Committee, Spoke from Tradition

Teo largely based his argument on history and culture. He argued that Singapore’s diversity—no one religion dominates the nation—protects it from religious tyranny or conflict. Perhaps the nation’s tremendous prosperity also helps. Still, values make a difference. Teo’s speech urged Singaporeans to continue to work together in harmony, to work for peace, and to cooperate for mutual success.

All the same, Singapore’s harmony may come at a social price. For my part, I would not choose to live under Singapore’s one-party rule or its questionable human rights record.

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”

Compared with the United States, Singapore is a tiny nation, and it is entirely urban. Nevertheless, Teo based his values, not on asserting authoritarian leadership, but on a culture that seeks to work together. If nothing else, this should give us something to consider. So, Teo left his audience with an inspiring thought, that working together, sharing strengths, gives everyone a better future:

“… we can have a strong, progressive, modern Muslim community in Singapore, that thrive[s] for a better, brighter future with all our strengths combined. That is the target that we should achieve.”

___________

P.S. The Economist Intelligence Group’s Democracy Index ranks both Singapore and the United States as “flawed democracies,” with the United States’ score a bit better than Singapore’s. Article 12 of Singapore's constitution specifically prohibits discrimination. Sadly, the world’s overall performance in the Democracy Index is declining, as corruption and powerful interest groups give people less of a feeling that they control their own governments. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image: People’s Action Party of Singapore, via Wikimedia Commons, used by permission

Words Make a Difference: Barbara Jordan Asked about "We the People"

Barbara Jordan with the House Judiciary Committee

Texas Congressional Representative Barbara Jordan mused that, when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, she (a Black woman), was not included in “we the people.”

Jordan, one of the first African American women in Congress, began her speech by establishing her identity as a citizen of the United States. Jordan spoke on July 25, 1974, during the impeachment hearings of the House Judiciary Committee. The committee was reviewing evidence that President Richard Nixon had, among other offenses, committed obstruction of justice during his re-election campaign—a felony under federal law. As the evidence became overwhelming, Nixon eventually resigned in disgrace to avoid certain removal from office.

The issue with which Jordan began was, who is included in the Constitution’s phrase, “we the people?” Who belongs to “the people” of the United States? Yet, today, United States citizens still ask who counts as “we the people. “The answer should be obvious. Unfortunately, it is not always obvious.

To understand Jordan’s answer, the Constitution of the United States expresses a value: government arises from the people. The right to govern does not come from aristocrats or the rich and powerful, but from the people themselves. Sadly, however, our nation has always struggled to ask, “who are the people?” Do Black people count as people? Japanese Americans? Mexican Americans? Native Americans? Immigrants?

By the Constitution’s stated values, Jordan should have been included all along among “we, the people.” Sadly, we all know otherwise.

So, Jordan began by quoting the Preamble:

“Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: ‘We, the people.’ It’s a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that ‘We, the people.’ I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in ‘We, the people.’”

Jordan’s wry humor—“just left me out by mistake”—reminded everyone how easily values and practice can function separately. She reminded the committee, in fact, reminded the nation, of the long struggle for freedom. All the same, on that day in 1974, Jordan (who was once omitted from “we, the people”) now sat in judgment of the nation’s wayward president. She supported the Constitution that once excluded her. She spoke against any assault against the Constitution’s protections:

“Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.”

Thus, Jordan established her credibility, her bona fides, to investigate the conduct of the President of the United States.

As rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke points out, our sense of identity, the question of who and what we identify ourselves with, underlies all persuasion. Jordan's stark humor and statement of utter loyalty establish, first and foremost, her identification. She was one of “we, the people,” fully committed to the Constitution, and ready to investigate and pass judgment on a president who threatened constitutional government.

Jordan then recited Nixon’s crimes, his offenses against constitutional government. What mattered most, however, is that she began by defining who she, Barbara Jordan, was. Her question, however, remains: do we still include everyone in “we, the people?”

by William D. Harpine

_______________

Earlier Posts

Adam Schiff's Opening Statement on Impeachment Laid Out a Case and Pre-Empted Republican Arguments

“What, They Demand, Is Your Christianity?" Rev. Theodore S. Wright’s 1837 Speech against Racial Prejudice

_______________

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image: U. S. House of Representatives, via Wikimedia Commons

Joe Biden Told the Governors that American Can Accomplish Anything: A Look at Audience Adaptation

Joe Biden, White House Photo

“I’m more optimistic about this nation’s future than I’ve ever been.”

So said United States President Joe Biden in a brief speech to the National Governor’s Association Winter Meeting, delivered in the White House East Room on February 23, 2024. He offered a message of pride and optimism. He adapted to his audience to seek unity, encourage joint effort, overcome disagreements, and solve problems.


Biden Reached Out to His Audience

Biden’s audience was an assemblage of state governors. Many of them were Republicans, while Biden is a Democrat. Unlike Congress, however, governors actually need to get things done. They are, after all, responsible for the administration of their own state governments. The cycle of “no, no, no” that often dominates legislatures doesn’t work for governors, because the public looks to them to administer their states’ affairs. That feature of governorship can make them more amenable to a productive message.

So, Biden said:

“Governors know the measure of success isn’t how many partisan points we score. It’s: Did we fix the problem? Did we fix the problem?”

Biden pointed out that, although people can argue about policies, they can still agree on common goals:

“We disagree on how to fix the problem many times. We’re all here for one reason: to fix the problems — to get things done for families, for communities, for the country.’”

The United States Has Great Capacity for Good

Can the nation fix those problems? In a political atmosphere of negativity, Biden stressed that the nation can, indeed, accomplish its goals:

“I mean this sincerely, from the bottom of my heart. We’re the United States of America, for God’s sake. Nothing, nothing, nothing is beyond our capacity.

“When have we ever set a national goal we failed? When? When have we ever come out of a — not come out of a crisis stronger than we went into the crisis?”

Biden had a point. Indeed, we all learned in high school that President Franklin Roosevelt made the United States of America the “arsenal of democracy” in World War II. The Federal Reserve points out that “the dollar remains by far the dominant reserve currency. The United States’ dollar is the world’s reserve currency.” As our nation sinks into rancor, helplessness, and anxiety, Biden offered confidence and hope. He emphasized that the United States of America, a nation of boundless ability, is still the world’s leader. 

Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” Speech, a Lesson in Positive Justice


Are We Working Together?

Joe Biden Speaking to Governors Association

We might never all agree: the United States is a huge, diverse nation. Can we nevertheless find common cause? Biden reminded us that success requires joint effort:

“Nothing is beyond our capacity if we work together. So, let’s keep working together. Because you’re the best hope we have — the governors.”

That is a big if: “if we work together.” Biden reminded us that we can never accomplish our goals if we are constantly tearing each other apart. As I look around, I still see most Republicans denying something so simple and obvious as the 2020 election results. The Republicans can’t even manage to vote in favor of their own border control bill. Biden did not ask the governors to agree with him; he asked them to work together toward common goals.


Getting People to Listen?

This all leads me to wonder why Americans rarely listen to Biden’s simple, obvious lesson—the need to work together? In part, probably, old ethnic and economic disparities rise against us, again and again. In part, some members of Congress seem more beholden to narrow interests than to the nation’s good.

What is to be done? First, Biden wisely chose an audience of governors. Public speaking is all about the audience. Temporarily bypassing Congress, Biden reached out to an audience that needs to accomplish things. He focused on the governors’ shared need to get things done.

Biden's Speech at the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center: Working Together for Progress

 
Second, however, Biden and his surrogates simply need to get the message out more often. An audience of governors is great—vital—central—but not enough. Many people too easily shrug off a message of cooperation and goodwill, welcome though it is. Still, Biden sits in what President Theodore Roosevelt called “the bully pulpit.” Part of sitting in the bully pulpit is just to climb out of the background and address the public, over and over, to send the welcome message far and wide. That is, as I wrote earlier, how President William McKinley persuaded the public to adopt the peace treaty that ended the Spanish American War. If President Biden has a good message, and I think he does, he needs to pound it into the nation’s thoughts.

Overall, Biden suggested simple attitudes: working together. Seeking common cause. Negotiating differences. Working for the whole nation, not just a tiny piece of it. Adopt those simple attitudes, President Biden implied, and no one can stop us.

Was he right? Or is it too late? Post your thoughts in the comments.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright ©  2024, William D. Harpine

Images: Official White House photo; White House YouTube page

Harry Belafonte: Art and the Human Soul

“Some who’ve controlled institutions of culture and commentary have at times used their power to not only distort truth but to punish the truth-seekers…. And on occasion, I have been one of its targets.”

So said actor and singer Harry Belafonte in a November 8, 2014 speech in Hollywood, California while accepting the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. He spoke at the sixth Governors Awards ceremony. Belafonte spoke of art’s ongoing struggle, for and against racism. He reminded us that art has power, and that art can direct its power either to good or ill. He reminded us of the resolution needed to challenge injustice. Using the basic organizational method of comparison and contrast, Belafonte showed that art changes lives, and that artists make a choice when they use that power. As Black History Month continues in February 2024, let us remember Belafonte’s courageous insight.


The Birth of a Nation: Art for Evil Power

So, Belafonte began by talking about the powerful 1915 film, The Birth of a Nation. Belafonte began by noting the film’s astonishing creativity:

“By all measure this cinematic work was considered the greatest film ever made.”

Of course, we all know that The Birth of a Nation offered a radically conservative view of the American Civil War and celebrated the rise of the murderous Ku Klux Klan.

To Belafonte, The Birth of a Nation treated art’s awesome power to affect human behavior. After Americans watched the movie’s stunningly inaccurate and immoral version of Confederate history, violent anti-Black race riots swept across the United States of America:

“The power of moving pictures to impact on human behavior was never more powerfully evidenced than when, after the release of this film, American citizens went on a murderous rampage. Races were set one against the other. Fire and violence erupted. Baseball bats and billy clubs bashed heads. Blood flowed in streets of our cities; and lives were lost.”

Belafonte pointed out that President Woodrow Wilson was one of The Birth of a Nation’s biggest fans. Wilson’s powerful endorsement made The Birth of a Nation, with all of its racist tropes, even more persuasive to a gullible public:

“The film also gained the distinction of being the first film ever screened at the White House. The then-presiding President Woodrow Wilson openly praised the film, and with the power of this presidential anointing, validated the film’s brutality and its grossly distorted view of history.”

Tarzan, the "Porcelain Adonis"

The Birth of a Nation was not the only racist film in the United States’ history. Belafonte remarked on his 1935 viewing of a Tarzan movie. He was stunned by Tarzan’s supposed racial superiority:

“Tarzan was a sight to see. This porcelain Adonis, this white liberator, who could speak no language, swinging from tree to tree, saving Africa from the tragedy of destruction by a black indigenous population.”

Recognizing movies’ power to alter racial attitudes, Belafonte remarked on the brazen, anti-African racism that Tarzan conveyed:

“Through this film, the virus of racial inferiority, of never wanting to be identified with anything African, swept into the psyche of its youthful observers. And for the years that followed, Hollywood brought abundant opportunity for black children in their Harlem theaters to cheer Tarzan and boo Africans.”

To broaden things out, Belafonte noted the broad racism of American filmmaking:

“Native American[s], our Indian brothers and sisters, fared no better. And at the moment, Arabs ain’t lookin’ so good.”

Young Harry Belafonte Singing

Art and the Moral Encounter

Films like The Birth of a Nation and Tarzan the Fearless inspired too many viewers toward racism and evil. However, to Belafonte, they were springboards (reactions, maybe) to moral rebellion:

“It was an early stimulus to the beginning of my rebellion, rebellion against injustice and human distortion, and hate. How fortunate for me that the performing arts became the catalyst that fueled my desire for social change.”

Belafonte cited his mentor, Paul Robeson, and authors Langston Hughes, Maya Angelou, and James Baldwin, among others, as artists who “inspired me” and became his “moral compass.

This led Belafonte to quote Robeson that "Artists are the gatekeepers of truth. They are civilization’s radical voice."


Is Art Now Speaking in a More Inspiring Voice?

Belafonte expressed his gratitude that he had lived long enough to see more positive filmmaking. Talking about recent films, he explained that:

“…today’s cultural harvest yields a sweeter fruit: Defiant Ones, Schindler’s List, Brokeback Mountain, 12 Years a Slave, and many more.”

Belafonte emphasized the power that art has to help us understand human nature:

“… all of this [is] happening at the dawning of technological creations that would give artists boundless regions of possibilities to give us deeper insights into human existence.”

So, overall, Belafonte condemned the harsh racism of past filmmaking, while praising the deeper, more discerning films that have appeared recently.


A Call to Moral Action

Concluding, Belafonte urged artists of every genre to become “visionaries” to uplift people’s souls and to influence the world to do what is good, to see the better side of human nature:

“Perhaps we, as artists and as visionaries for what’s better in the human heart and the human soul, could you influence citizens everywhere in the world to see the better side of who and what we are as a speci[es].”

What lessons can we learn from Belafonte’s speech? Yes, we learn brilliant artists can speak either for evil or for good, according to their preferences. Belafonte’s opening example, The Birth of a Nation, reminded us that art can shape reality and human behavior, equally for evil or for good. How will artists exercise their passions? That is a moral choice.

How can we understand Belafonte’s rhetorical approach? Belafonte made his point by contrasting the wickedness of two powerful movies against the hopefulness of a coterie of great artists. We can see the good most clearly only after evil's persuasive power has shocked us to the core. 

Was Belafonte too optimistic? He rightly pointed out newer films that take a broader, more humane perspective. Nevertheless, Tarzan has not disappeared from the screen, while female white goddesses like Sheena, Queen of the Jungle sometimes arise to rescue central Africa. I also wonder about 2005's Lord of War. Although that film places the onus on white Americans and Europeans, it continues the view that Black Africans live amidst unrelieved ignorance and corruption. So, I have not become totally optimistic. 

In this speech, Belafonte commissioned the nation’s—the world’s—artists to use their power to bring out the best that humanity has to offer. He documented a problem, and a promising solution followed. He warned us about the evil that art can produce, and yet he balanced that warning with hope. 

by William D. Harpine

________________

Remembering Black History Month, here are a few of my previous posts about historical African American Speakers: 

Frederick Douglass’ 1852 Fourth of July Speech and the Christian Right

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech about Mountains

Fannie Lou Hamer, "Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired," Gave a Voting Rights Speech in Narrative Style

Stokely Carmichael in 1966: Civil Rights Laws Enforce Rights that Already Exist

Tyler Perry at the 2019 BET Awards: "Helping Someone Cross" as a Metaphor for Reaching Out to Help

________________


P.S. Harry Belafonte and Petula Clark caused a brief dustup in 1968 when they rendered a powerful duet of Clark's antiwar song "Path of Glory" on television; Clark touched Belafonte on the arm. This interracial touching aroused great offense in some quarters. Clark refused to delete the scene. 

Thanks to AmericanRhetoric.com for publishing a transcript of this great speech.

How racist was The Birth of a Nation? Well, in one series of scenes, the audience sees the Reconstruction-era South Carolina legislature dominated by African American lawmakers who drink moonshine on the legislative floor, stand up to speak while chewing on a chicken leg, and intimidate white women in the gallery. Is that racist enough?

The Tarzan movie that Belafonte viewed in 1933 was presumably Tarzan the Fearless, maybe Tarzan the Ape Man. Both films depict outrageously stereotypical views of Africans. 

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: Library of Congress, Carl Van Vechten collection,

 public domain, not to be altered in any way