The essence of the politics of language is the choice of audience. This paper analyzes politics of language and choice of audience in the work of two liberatory educators, Myles Horton and Paulo Freire. Horton and Freire had much in common, each working to create educational processes to benefit the poor and each focusing on liberation for the systematically oppressed, Freire at first in Brazil, Horton in rural Appalachia. However, Myles Horton is little known among academics, while Freire is a virtual icon in the field of education. Four reasons for this relate to choice of language and audience. First, Horton saw his work as part of a collective project, typically using "we" rather than "I," while Freire was willing to be a leader and expert. Second, Horton chose primarily to speak, rather than write, while Freire wrote many academic books and articles. Third, Horton avoided involvement with the academic world, having learned that the language of the academy was ineffective in accomplishing the goals of Highlander Folk School in Appalachia, while Freire wrote and spoke often in academic language. Last, Horton defied and had contempt for governments, while Freire regularly worked with governmental institutions in several countries. Horton's success in creating a school that functioned outside the control of government and the influence of academia was based in his unwavering conviction that collectivism, localism, the lived experience of poor and working people, and the rejection of theory were the essence of truly progressive education. This approach to education could prove more fruitful than Freire's has been. (Contains 33 references.) (SV)