The book is simply translated excerpts from the court transcripts of her trial and it is one of the most remarkable books I have ever read.

How could a teenage girl stand up and speak like that? Her armies were gone and the French King had deserted her.

To be sure, Joan of Arc, Gandhi, MLK Romero, and Suu Kyi did more than just speak, but they started out as individuals with nothing remarkable going for them other than the sheer conviction of their word. That was how they attracted their followers.

I would also draw particular attention to Joan of Arc’s performance in the court that sentenced her to death. It was stacked with the best legal and eccleasiastical minds the prosecution could find to match wits with a teenage girl, who was alone and slept in chains at night. Joan stood her ground so magnificently that they had to remove the proceedings from public view. I find that aspect of her story as astonishing her leading the armies of France to victory against the English and Burgundians.

Joan of Arc spoke truth to power.

Three of the four people HG cited not only “Spoke” Truth to Power, but Met Power with Power. Joan of Arc was a warrior, leading armies in battle. MLK’s moral authority comes not as much from his speeches as his actions-going to jail, organizing marches, and making it impossible for America to turn a blind eye to the plight of blacks in the South. Gandhi, similarly, organized peaceful protests, and hunger strikes. Romero is perhaps a true case of “Speaking Truth to Power” because the powerful saw him as a threat and so he was killed before he could organize a movement similar to King’s or Gandhi’s.

Churchill “Spoke Truth to Power” (the British government) until he was blue in the face prior to WWII. He was a lot more effective once he became Power.

One case where I would agree that Truth Spoke to Power was the fall of the Berlin Wall. The people of East Germany announced to the world unequivocally, and in dramatic fashion, that Communism had failed.

Marty

I wrote a bit about this on my blog, a few days ago. I’m afraid I wasn’t quite as polite as you were.

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

Maybe you could draw some parallels between “truth to power” phrasiology with Nietzche’s “will to power” ideology.

And sweeping equivocations are but one form of sweeping, nonsensical generalizations; they can also reflect a feel-good, “moral superiority” obtained at cheapjack prices. The applied ability to be self-critical – in a healthy, probative and cogent sense – is a large part of what separates the presumptive, highly fevered ideologue from one who understands what a hard-won tolerance is and who engages in sincere and productive forms of exchanges and debate.

So I can’t write this phrase off entirely, but it is a very tall order to live up to–certainly Cindy Sheehan has failed this test–and the problem the Left faces these days is that it seems to mistake any “mouthing off to authority” as “speaking truth to power.”

So has Islamicfascism, Allahu Akbar.

Slogans are power, never underestimate the power of slogans.

They’re like a quick velocity, quick firing, propaganda weapon. Not powerful, but has a lot of ammo and rate of fire.

And if you say it enough, Speaking Truth to Power, you can self-hypnotize yourself the same way you can do with I will wake up fresh, ready, and alert for the God given challenges of tomorrow before you sleep.

Try it, if you don’t believe me.

OTOH perhaps we can get Dan to go to Teheran to speak truth to power. I hear they like killing and jailing reporters.