My personal attitude to laurel's youth of my beloved land

An Evaluation of Laurel’s “ Youth of My Beloved Land”

Former president Jose P. Laurel delivered a very inspiring speech directed to the Filipino youth of 1944. During this time, the Philippines is still under Japanese occupation (independence from Americans was not granted until July 4, 1946). Before the Japanese invaders were the Americans who built numerous public schools in our country, which helped increased literacy among the Filipino youth. With this in mind, it could be said that the speech Laurel delivered could be within the level of the youth’s understanding. A nation in wartime could spur its youth to have open ears to all matters relating to their situation and Laurel’s speech addressed relevant matters. The former president’s speech serves as a reflection for all the Filipino minorities and a call for unity and cooperation during the trying times of war. Both of these are very much appropriate topics for the youth of the 40’s. Overall, the speech was pertinent to the situation in which the Filipino youth under Japanese occupation found themselves in.

The opening lines of Laurel’s speech were rousing the youth for it stated that the country needs them and this appeal to their patriotic sense. In the first few sentences, Laurel is already prompting the youth to reflect upon their responsibilities to the state. The structure of the speech is organized properly, as can be seen in the order which is follows. It starts with citing Rizal’s faith in the Filipino youth and from there, using our hero’s words to incite a reflection. Laurel then summons Isagani from Rizal’s Noli and makes him a model from which the Filipino youth should emulate. The last paragraphs are an invitation for the youth to do their tasks in helping our nation become peaceful and prosperous. The speech had a consistent and clear delivery of its message, and also done in a simple yet thoughtful manner. Every paragraph of this speech was like a brick which, when linked to other bricks, formed a rigid wall. This is to say that Laurel stayed within the parameters of relevance and which rendered his speech stability. The conclusion of the speech stayed true to the main idea which is “ the youth is the future of the country”. The speech itself was inspirational but the conclusion did not provide me with a sense of closure for I anticipated a stronger finale to a very moving speech but instead I found a weaker reiteration of the speech’s theme.

What I liked most about the former president’s speech is its mention of Isagani’s conversation with a lawyer. Isagani’s retort to the lawyer was both brilliant and relevant even today. What I disliked most about the speech was its conclusion, as I have previously described above. The strengths of the speech were that it was simple but striking, inspirational without being over the top. The conclusion could have been stronger so that it complements the rest of the paragraphs better. It could be a brief yet rousing reverberation of the main points of the speech. Generally, Laurel’s speech delivered the intended message to the target audience well and conveyance was brilliant but the conclusion weakened the delivery.