Faith Bandler Speech Analysis Essay

An inherent tension between the actual and the possible is revealed through the development of ideas in a speech.
To what extent does your interpretation of Bandler’s Faith, Hope and Reconciliation and at least one other speech align with this view? In your response, make detailed reference to Faith, Hope and Reconciliation and at least ONE other speech set for study.

Faith Bandler’s address ‘Faith Hope and Reconciliation’ and Anwar Sadat’s speech to the Israeli Knesset both strongly address the prevalent conflict within their contexts to create a sense of urgency towards a possible future that embraces pacifism and harmony. They identify the barrier that act as the inherent tensions to achieving the much idealised universal human desires for peace and undermines them to encourage a union based on tolerance and acceptance. Bandler specifically alludes to the discrimination that permeates across a large portion aspect of the Australian community and, through her effective use of ethos and pathos, encourages the future generation of change makers to break down the tensions between the actual animosity and possible harmony. Similarly, Sadat speaks to the Israeli wartime enemy and through his effective use of logos, he accentuates a need to overlook personal animus and turn the actual tragedy into lasting cohesion. As such, it is undeniable that through a successful employment of Aristotle’s 3 modes of persuasion, both orators explores universal human desires for peace and thus, possess textual integrity and creates an enduring speech which reflects upon the inherent tensions between the actual tragic reality and possible harmonious future.

Faith Bandler’s oration closely effectively examines the elements in society which have fuelled the injustices and struggles faced by the Aboriginal communities and provides alternative pathways that incorporate the indigenous community’s universal desire for peace. Bandler speaks from the authoritative position of a renowned Aboriginal activist who is speaking to an audience that is well aware of the injustices faced by Aborigines as a result of the ‘Bringing Them Home’ reports which were published in 1997. She highlights how ‘reconciliation has slowed since 1967’ and expresses frustration through her use of anacoenesis as she questions ‘why is it so hard to find commonalities?’. As such, she alludes to an ethical responsibility that encourages a shift away from the context’s reality of mistreatment. The most effective manner in which she calls for the possible peace is through her use of irony as she undermines the quality of free speech. ‘Those who sponsored racism excused some of their terrible utterances in the name of free speech.’ This directly appeals the audiences sense of pathos as the stark and disappointed tone emphasizes the attitudes of society to be a primary cause of inherent tensions. As such, she positions the audience to agree with her need for peace as they observe how such an equal characteristic can propagate such an unequal consequence. Bandler continues to build on the free speech motif as she furthers her call for pacifism through the imagery ‘they are chained in their stubbornness..but we are free to go forward without them’ to undermine effects of free speech. The metaphor of chain alludes to a history of injustice as well as symbolically suggesting the primitive nature of racism and discrimination. As such, she suggests that the ‘free’ individuals challenge the current reality and embrace a possible future of unity and pacifism. Such a call is undeniably relevant even today as mining companies continue to displace Aboriginal communities from their homeland. Bandler’s oration proves to be highly effective today as, today, groups like ‘Reconciliation Australia’ and ‘Racism No Way’ seek to educate encourage society to challenge the actual discrimination and adopt a considerate that will allow for the possible peace. Hence, it is undeniable that Bandler delivers an enduring and timeless oration that examines the inherent tensions between the actual and possible through her exploration of the universal desire for peace.

Similarly, Anwar Sadat also acknowledges the universal desire of the citizens of the Middle East for a possibly lasting peace based on justice and religious inclusion. The genuine nature of his call for peace and desire to end the actual sectarian conflict is accentuated by his actions as, being the PM of the leading Arab State, he risked his life to acknowledge the Israelites and initiate peace negotiations. Unlike Bandler, who relies on pathos, Sadat employs logos using an ongoing allusion to religious duty. He begins his speech by effectively by highlighting the unity of God, ‘We all, on this land, the land of God, we all; Muslims, Christians, Jews, worship God and no one but God.’ The repetition of God and the inclusive pronoun reaffirms the oneness of God and provides Sadat with a legitimate that effectively appeals to logos and is hard to contradict. As such, this allows Sadat to ironically use this oneness of God to undermine the ongoing conflict and further the possibility of peace. Sadat promotes a sense of responsibility, and creates an urgency for political action through the use of pathos as he emphasizes the actual horror both their nations are suffering from and questions ‘Why should we bequeath to the coming generations the plight of bloodshed, death, orphans, widowhood, family disintegration and the wailing of victims?’ The effective imagery of war created by Sadat alludes to a need for ceasefire whilst his use of anacoenesis evokes a sense of guilt and alludes to the fact that the delegates in the Knesset are one of the causes of inherent tensions between the actual and the possible as they hold the capability to end the reign of terror. Thus, in a tone of sincerity and affirmation, Sadat proposes, ‘Why don’t we…together…destroy this barrier?’ Sadat’s use of the inclusive pronoun and caesura appeals to the audiences’ pathos and accentuates a need for peaceful delegations. Such a proposition proves to be an effective and universal desire in the Middle East as there is still an ongoing conflict within the nations. October 6th 2013 celebrated the 40th anniversary of the war with Israel and several citizens responded with violence and animosity. Thus, it is undeniable that, even today, the Middle East needs individuals like Sadat who are willing to risk their lives in a quest to promote a possible peace and harmony. by emphasizing the commonalities amongst the enemies. Thus, it is clear that Sadat’s oration embodies a timeless nature and reveals an underlying and continuous tension between ending conflict and seeking peace.

Therefore, it is undeniable that speeches utilize the effectiveness of alluding to ones ethos, pathos and logos to reinstate the existence of tensions and barriers between realities and desire possibilities. Both Bandler and Sadat’s speeches explore the universal human desire for peace and as such, create effective orations which remain timeless and enduring themselves.

Like this:



Faith Bandler

One of the Speeches covered under Advanced English – Module B: Critical Study of Texts, the speech “Faith, Hope and Reconciliation” by Faith Bandler in 1999 is new to the English syllabus. So there isn’t much existing information or analysis on the speech.

The good thing about it is that it is short, and not overly complex. It is a good speech to compare/contrast with Noel Pearson’s “An Australian history for us all”, because both address the issues of Indigenous Australians.

The question to consider is: how do they differ in style and purpose?


  • Bandler is a well known an Aboriginal activist for indigenous rights.
  • She is best known for being a lead campaigner in the 1967 Referendum.


  • Talkin’ up Reconciliation Convention, Wollongong in August 1999
  • Included 700 delegates across NSW – to discuss future reconciliation


  • The Convention was very successful. In December 1999, blue prints of reconciliation actions were drawn up based upon the speeches at the Convention.
  • 1967 Referendum: 90% “yes” vote to include Indigenous Australians in the nation’s population count and to allow Parliament to make laws to specifically benefit Indigenous Australians. The 90% showed the strong support for indigenous rights.

Techniques by Paragraph

I won’t do your analysis for you, but here is a general guideline:

  1. Identify where the listed techniques are in the speech.
  2. Explain their effect/purpose.

Para 2:

  • Personalisation
  • Gently critical tone
  • Allusion to the 1967 Referendum

Para 4:

Para 6:

  • Personalisation
  • Climatic repetition
  • Rhetorical question

Para 7:

  • Alliteration
  • Juxtaposition

Para 8:

  • 2nd person – direct to audience
  • Metaphor
  • Colloquialism

Para 9:

Para 10:

Para 12:

  • Inclusive language
  • 2nd person

Para 15:

Para 17:

Para 18:

  • Short sentence
  • Imagery of personal experience

Para 19:

Para 21:

Para 22:

  • Personal address
  • Repetition

Para 23:

Para 23 (last paragraph):

  • Gentle tone
  • Rhetorical questions


  • Rampart – a large raised mound of earth
  • Homogeneous – uniform, same, one type
  • Blinkered – narrowminded
  • Blemish – a mark, scar


Like this:


Tags: faith bandlerindigenousreconciliationSpeeches

0 Thoughts to “Faith Bandler Speech Analysis Essay

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *