优秀的英语演讲稿

优秀的英语演讲稿

　　演讲稿以发表意见，表达观点为主，是为演讲而事先准备好的文稿。在不断进步的社会中，接触并使用演讲稿的人越来越多，还是对演讲稿一筹莫展吗？下面是小编为大家收集的优秀的英语演讲稿，仅供参考，希望能够帮助到大家。

优秀的英语演讲稿1

尊敬的各位领导、老师：

　　大家下午好!

　　我叫**，原来在**小学工作，近几年来一直从事小学英语的教学，今年因工作调动，调整到我们**小学工作，我感到非常的高兴，同时，也非常感谢我们学校领导能给我这样一次展示自我、成就自我的机会。我今天我竞聘的岗位是四年级的英语教学。首先我说一下自己的基本情况和工作业绩：我****年毕业于****英语系，后分配到召口中学从事英语教学至今，被评为中学一级教师。自工作以来，我一直兢兢业业，勤奋工作，所教科目成绩一直据全镇前列，特别是近几年来从事小学英语教学，所教班级多次获得全镇第一名，个人也多次被评为镇教育先进工作者、优秀教师，区优秀教师，个人年考核优秀等次的荣誉称号，并有多篇论文在市级报纸发表。

　　下面我谈一下，我竞聘英语教师的几个优势和条件：

　　1. 有良好的师德我为人处事的原则是：老老实实做人，认认真真工作，开开心心生活。自己一贯注重个人品德素质的培养，努力做到尊重领导，团结同志，工作负责，办事公道，不计较个人得失，对工作对同志有公心，爱心，平常心和宽容心。自从参加工作以来，我首先在师德上严格要求自己，要做一个合格的人民教师!认真学习和领会上级教育主管部门的文件精神，与时俱进，爱岗敬业，为人师表，热爱学生，尊重学生，争取让每个学生都能享受到最好的教育，都能有不同程度的发展。

　　2. 有较高的'专业水平，我从****毕业后曾到山东师范大学进修英语教学培训，系统而又牢固地掌握了英语教学的专业知识。多年来始终在教学第一线致力于小学英语教学及研究，使自己的专业知识得到进一步充实、更新和扩展。

　　3. 有较强的教学能力从选择教师这门职业的第一天起，我最大的心愿就是做一名受学生欢迎的好老师，为了这个心愿，我一直在不懈努力着。要求自己做到牢固掌握本学科的基本理论知识，熟悉相关学科的文化知识，不断更新知识结构，精通业务，精心施教，把握好教学的难点重点，认真探索教学规律，钻研教学艺术，努力形成自己的教学特色。我的教学风格和教学效果普遍受到学生的认可和欢迎。

　　以上所述情况，是我竞聘英语教师的优势条件，假如我有幸竞聘上岗，这些优势条件将有助于我更好的开展英语教学工作。

　　如果我有幸竞聘成功，能担任四年级英语教师的话，我将从以下方面开展工作。

　　一是认真贯彻执行党的教育路线、方针、政策和学校的各项决定，加强学习，积极进取，求真务实，开拓创新，不断提高自己的综合素质、创新能力，用自己的勤奋加智慧，完成好教学任务。使我校的英语教学上一个大的台阶。

　　二是做一个科研型的教师。教师的从教之日，正是重新学习之时。新时代要求教师具备的不只是操作技巧，还要有直面新情况、分析新问题、解决新矛盾的本领。进行目标明确、有针对性解决我校的英语教学难题。

　　三、做一个理念新的教师目前，新一轮的基础教育改革早已在我市全面推开，做为新课改的实践者，要在认真学习新课程理念的基础上，结合自己所教的学科，积极探索有效的教学方法。大力改革教学，积极探索实施创新教学模式。把英语知识与学生的生活相结合，为学生创设一个富有生活气息的真实的学习情境，同时注重学生的探究发现，引导学生在学习中学会合作交流，提高学习能力。相关新闻：大学生选举班委会竞聘演讲稿范文四、做一个富有爱心的老师“不爱学生就教不好学生”，“爱学生就要爱每一个学生”。作为一名教师，要无私地奉献爱。

优秀的英语演讲稿2

尊敬的老师、亲爱的同学们：

　　大家好！

　　今天，我很荣幸地走上讲台，我要竞聘的职位是英语课代表。那我为什么会竞聘这个职位呢？原因有以下几点：

　　1、我非常喜欢英语，成绩也不错。我想：只要我从小就学好英语，长大后肯定会有用的。

　　2、我是一个活泼开朗的人，如果我胜任了这个职位，会尽可能地为大家服务，让大家的英语成绩共同提高。

　　3、每堂英语课，我都仔细地听讲，下课后认真复习。回家后我会认真完成英语回家作业，不会的'难题还能请教我那教英语的妈妈。教学水平高的妈妈总会耐心地给我讲解为什么要这么写。

　　班委的责任是重大的，但请大家相信我，我一定不会辜负老师和同学们对我的期望，全心全意为同学们服务。

　　希望老师和各位同学信任我、支持我，投上你宝贵的一票吧！

　　我的演讲完了，谢谢大家！

优秀的英语演讲稿3

　　They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1954 -- in 1945 rather -- after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China -- for whom the Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

　　For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

　　After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States' influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

　　The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

　　So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

　　What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

　　We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.

　　Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.

　　Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies. What of the National Liberation Front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC" or "communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.

　　How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of new violence?

　　Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

　　So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

　　Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

　　Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than eight hundred, or rather, eight thousand miles away from its shores.

　　At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

　　Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

　　This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:

　　Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism .

　　If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.