I would like to think that a speech I gave in SPCM 200 made a positive difference. During my freshman year, I spoke about conflict (blood) diamonds in front of 24 other students. I used descriptive and precise language in hopes of influencing my class. My hopes for that speech were to help create more awareness about exploitation and the terrible conditions for mine workers. Using these diamonds, warlords and other groups are able to fund civil wars in countries such as Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I wanted my fellow classmates to remember this crisis and ask the right questions when they were buying jewelry.

I chose to take on a more serious issue rather than writing a fun and easy speech. Choosing this topic was not a great sacrifice or anything extraordinary, but awareness of conflict diamonds is an affective movement: The mass awareness of this issue has had a great enough impact to cease our importation of conflict diamonds in Zimbabwe and Angola. This awareness has also forced Liberia to mine diamonds legitimately.

My speech was successful because I used descriptive language and was able to move my audience. They became sympathetic towards exploited diamond miners. My use of language caused the audience to question bad practices and a part of life (buying jewelry) they take for granted. I feel that one of the more important aspects of language and literature is influencing an audience to think and examine their lives and surroundings and I hope that achieved that with my speech.