Over the past months, western journalists and U.S./British intelligence analysts have peppered their analyses of Osama with the shared opinion that he is a brilliant orator. As the argument goes, Osama was raised in a province of Yemen/Saudi of whose people are noted for their “flowery,” mesmerizing, almost hypnotic oratory.
I don’t doubt their collective expertise, yet I haven’t seen this brilliance or oratorical in evidence during the, um, 15-second sound bites that are broadcast here in the States. This leads me to conclude that either the translations have been stripped of their ornamentation (or dumbed down) or that perhaps his followers have a nuanced appreciation and that Osama speaks in code words/phrases that evoke strong symbolic meaning among his followers.
I would imagine that a big part of Osama’s reknown for public speaking would include his tone, stance, presentation, and charisma, few of which would survive a speech-to-text transcription.
As anyone who’s ever been with Toastmasters will tell you, how you say something can be even more important than what you say.
We’re obviously not his audience so it’s difficult to see the context/comparison. I guess a lot of his supporters don’t read, relying on Mullah’s, dodgy third-world radio and teevee presenters. Plus, there are probable cultural differences to which we’re not attuned.
I suppose there’s also what he says (presumably finding a resonance with his audience) and the fact that it’s not just empty rhetoric – whatever else you think of him, he’s not been idle. That must make him stand out from the crowd.
There’s also a kind of calmness about him (IMHO), which some might interpret as ‘destiny’. Maybe that hits a note with his ‘people’.
It’s a natural enough assumption to make, since the alternative is more unpleasant. What do you prefer: that all Arabs are calm toward Americans except when a “brilliant orator” whips up a small percentage of them into a suicidal frenzy, or that a small percentage of Arabs hate America and will seek to destroy it, orator or not.
Anti-American sentiment is pretty ingrained in the social structure of some Arab circles, but trying to address it is messy and complicated and risks offending the vast majority of Arabs who are not extremists, as well as antagonizing dictatorial leaders who profess friendship with the U.S. (and whose strategic and economic alliances are needed or wanted) while using easy-to-make anti-U.S. propaganda to distract their own oppressed populations.
So what’s easier to deal with: a charismatic leader who builds up a cult of followers, or a nation with teachers and holy men preaching antiWestern messages to millions of children with the full support and encouragement from their government? The same sort of question was raised by Daniel J. Goldhagen in his book Hitler’s Willing Executioners. While it’s comforting to assume that Germany was pushed into savagery by Hitler’s “brilliant oration” and came to its senses immediately after he died, Hitler’s rise was partly due to the fact that some segments of German society wanted and welcomed him and some quite ordinary German citizens were willing to help the Holocaust along. Even now, some element of neo-fascism remains unquenchable in Germany because the fringe social structure that supports it didn’t sart with Hitler and certainly didn’t end with him.
Osama is not a self-contined entity. He could only achieve power if he lived and worked in a culture that would tolerate him. The question shouldn’t be if Osama is a brilliant orator. Rather, the question (and ultimate solution) should be: what kind of society produces people eager to embrace his message?
The only way to judge oratory’s effectiveness is by its effects. Osama’s approach may raise eyebrows at an Oxford debating club, but there’s no denying it has convinced his target audience.
(d) Good use of ‘support’ – knows how to weave hadith and the like to his liking. Not a religious scholars liking perhaps, but when speaking he sounds like knows his shit.
You can not judge his rhetoric in translation. You have to known the language, the rhetorical style of that language and at least something about the culture.
It would be a mistake, I note, to attribute his attraction to illiteracy, a grave and fundamental mistake. Many allusions he makes go over my head, but are quite literary or rather poetical – in a certain tradition.
I don’t really see a great debate here, there’s no question he’s a good orator.
As Collunsbury said, he doesn’t speak like a Pat Buchanan/Jesse Ventura/Jesse Jackson type. In fact, he seems to avoid almost all flamboyancy and excessive gestculation while talking, which would be a welcome respite from other speakers in conservative Arab world. The lack of ornamentation helps give substance (to the intended audience) to what he says.
The Heaven’s Gate cult was spearheaded by one who, by many accounts, was pretty low-key in his approach to persuade some of the most brilliant young minds at the time.
Yes, there’s an interesting contrast in styles between Osama and other great orators of past and present, among them: Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Churchill, JFK, etc.
My impression is that a transcript of Osama’s speeches would not be immediately impressive to Western audiences, as the nuances, religious allegories, allusions, historical references, etc. would be lost in the translation. I also agree with London Calling. He speaks as though he is guided by the hand of God. Can’t hurt that he is a multimillionaire, comes from a powerful family, purportedly lives an “authentic” life, helped defeat the Soviets, and has instilled fear in the world’s only superpower in ways that the Middle East has never witnessed.
P.S. I said “brilliant,” not merely, as you say, “good” orator.
There are interesting lessons to be learned in re different modes of communication in different cultures. My professional non-failure has been built, in my own perception, around my understanding of the differences.
The rich Gulfie family is actually a negative in general. Even though his family is of poor Yemanite origin. (Dad)
However, one can’t underestimate the influence of his rhetorical training. Now, on one hand wealth, as our current president shows, does not insure any mean rhetorical skill. On the other, it does allow access to the liesure time, when combined with native ability and drive, to develop real capacity.
Well it is always hard for a non-native speaker to judge skills in oration.
Let me put it this way: I’ve fairly substantive experience in the region. I was pretty fucking impressed right off the hat when I heard ObL for the first time. Really. He has, IMO, a Hitlerian command of the language, the right buttons to push in the present political context.
i’d call that brilliance. Negative brilliance, but brilliance.
Certainly there is more to the org than him. Even if dead the real operational command I am sure has passed on to JI or HwT folks.
Still it does highlight how rhetoric can help spin. It would be nice if we invested some $$ into this. Nothing I have heard - and I should hear such things - suggests that we have in a meaningful way.
Winning the rhetorical war is 2/3 the battle in this case.
Nevertheless, Osama’s skill as an orator does not lift responsibility for his rise to power from the societies that supported him, directly or indirectly, particularly Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Each of these have created or supported the conditions which not only make Al-Qaida possible, but supplied it with willing recruits. Unless you want to claim Osama is a hypnotist, sending men out to kill against their will, I’m not sure why his skill at oration is particularly relevant.
Brian Ekers - A seemingly trivial nitpick, but I’m not sure I would necessarily include Palestine in the list of societies that have nurtured al-Qaida. Until recently ( last several years ) I don’t believe ObL gave the Palestinian issue more than the usual low-level lip-service required of all “good” radical Islamists. Now of course, he has jumped on the bandwagon for political and propagandistic reasons. But It hasn’t been a priority of his and most of the professional expertise of al-Qaida came via Algeria and Egypt, rather than Palestine. The one real connection I can note is that ObL has quoted from a Hamas-aligned cleric ( among a number of others ), Ahmad Yassin, when ennunciating his religious reasoning. But al-Qaida does not seem to be/have been involved in a significant way with the Palestinian situation.
As to your point in general - ObL’s rhetorical skill is relevant insomuch as he can help focus and channel the unguided rage and frustration of some of the deprived in the Muslim world ( and I don’t necessarily mean just the poor ), who might otherwise just stew in their juices or find some more contructive way to vent their disappointments. Propaganda is important. It shapes attitudes and philosophy, which shapes action. Ruhollah Khomeini wasn’t some passive observer who was swept into power on the basis of a spontaneous revolution just because he was pious. He was an active ideologue who through writings and oration over many years helped shape the religious-based Iranian opposition and gave impetus to its most aggressive and well-organized factions.
IMO individuals are important, often pivotal, in the shaping of history. I think that if there had been no ObL, while some organization similar to his might have arisen, it also might not of. Or taken a much different and probably less effective form. Extremist groups like the Posse Commitatus or KKK ( to get away from the Islamic examples for a second ) might arise because of any of a number cultural reasons, but it is usually individual leaders that provide the leadership and charisma necessary for these groups to coalesce and cohere. At least in the initial stages.
Also ObL’s skill at rhetoric ( if he’s still alive ) are dangerous, because he may have the ability to argue covincingly ( or seemingly so ) against the positions of the U.S. and its allies, affecting regional opinion and making the anti-terroriosm campaign that much more difficult. Even to as little things as people not cooperating with terrorist hunting authorities as much as they could.
And I’m not sure why you’re trying to steer this discussion away from my original intent, though I can see how you might have misconstrued my reference to “mesmerizing” in the OP.
FTR, I am interested in Osama’s gift of oratory–nothing more, nothing less. Nowhere was I implying that he has hypnotic control over his followers, nor that they are blind, mindless, sycophantic followers.
I’ve read short excerpts of Osama’s speeches and seen his delivery on television. His rhetorical style differs so markedly from what the Western world usually embraces. On the other hand, I recall that millions of Iranians regarded Ayatollah Khomenei as a brilliant speaker, yet his rhetorical style was decidedly subdued, as well. I think part of Osama’s “brilliance,” other than the points Collie has pointed out, is that he stands up to the West and does not flinch. Rather, he speaks with such assurance and certitude and conviction and control that it might lend the impression to some that he is guided by a higher power–or by destiny itself.
I don’t know German, but I have heard that Adolf Hitler’s command of it was actually poor for a native speaker. FOr instance, the underground “White Rose” made fun of his ‘bad grammar’ in their pamphlets. And in translation, his writings (especially Mein Kampf) and written speeches don’t look all that impressive either.
Anyway, I think bin Laden does not try to portray himself as a “politician”, but a religious figure - and so I think his speaking style is better compared to the imams not the dictators.
I remember seeing Ayatollah Khomeini on television quite often. He didn’t seem to speak loudly, but he hade this gaze that was hypnotic - or demonic. Crowds went into a frezy when he just lifted his hand. Also I believe that in the years up until the revolution, when the Shah banished him from the media, “underground” recordings of the Ayatollah made him very popular with many people in Iran. Even though bin Laden and Khomeini come from different traditions in Islam, and of course, Iranians and Arabs are really quite different, could bin Laden’s oratorical appeal be compared to Khomeini’s?
Okay. Good luck. I’m sure there are a few people here who here speak Arabic well enough to venture an opinion on Osama’s skills, though the net result of such a limited inquiry would be a poll better suited to IMHO than GD.
I read somewhere. “Never judge the intelligence of a man speaking in a language foreign to him”. I would think some crossover might apply, something like, “You can’t judge the impact of a statement through a translation”.
Speakers of the same language tend to share more than just the verbiage, IMHO. They share a broad set of cultural assumptions that have BUILT the language.
And if you don’t speak whatever language Osama uses (I assume Arabic, but I’m not sure of that), you have two problems to overcome, the acccuarcy of the translation, and the possible bias of the translator.