What are the points in cory aquino speech that you agree in? disagree?
Answers
Answer:
I have gone over her speech because it is required reading in the course Readings in Philippine History. The speech is part anti-Marcos propaganda, part seeking sympathy from listeners, part asking for help from the US from the so-called damage caused by her predecessor and part pandering to the American listeners.
As to the anti-Marcos part, she talked about Marcos being a dictator. That Marcos trampled on Philippine democracy and jailed thousands.
As to seeking sympathy from her listeners, She related her experience she returned to the Philippines to bury her husband, former Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. who was assassinated at the Manila International Airport. She was trying to appeal to her American listeners that she was an aggrieved widow. (Her husband should not have come back after being warned by Marcos. And he was supposed to return to the Philippines after he got well from his heart surgery in Texas, but instead he lingered on and stayed for two years. He even went outside of the Philippines to meet with anti-Marcos elements and took a fellowship in one of the American universities. He decided to come back when Marcos became seriously ill in 1983)
As to seeking help from the US, she talked about the gargantuan foreign debt and that she was asking for leniency from the foreign creditors especially the IMF-World Bank. (She said that the loans from foreign creditors went to crooks and corrupt officials but presented no proofs)
The next point was that the US spent a lot of treasure trying to preserve democracy but she said that the Philippines is a recovering democracy coming out of the nightmare of dictatorship. She was implying that the US should support the Philippines which was rebuilding itself as a democracy. (How was that when she fired all elected members of the legislature and the local government officials upon assuming power in 1986?)
Finally, she called the Americans to support the Philippines and that a new era has dawned (actually what happened was the restoration of the pre-1972 political elite domination of the country’s politics and economy)
But one thing I can say about her speech, it was superbly done. Perhaps this is why it is one of the required readings in the Readings in Philippine History Course. It could be the truth but it does not paint the complete picture.
A student studying Philippine history should examine which is the truth and which is propaganda as to analyze the speech as a historical document, textually and contextually (i.e. knowing its historical background)
agree.
Explanation:
please mark me as brainliest