Category: Martin Luther King

An analysis of the required passage from “A Letter from a Birmingham City Jail by Martin Luther King Jr.” proposes two distinct arguments: that segregation is lawfully unjust and that segregation is morally unjust. He presents his argument against following the concept of segregation on the basis that it both lawfully and morally unjust and thus does not possess the needed justification to actually be followed.

The argument and the evidence supporting them thus follow the following format:

1st argument:

P: “Segregation lawfully wrong and unjust” (King Jr., 1).

C: “A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God” (King Jr., 1).

C: “An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (King Jr., 1).

C: “An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law” (King Jr., 1).

C: “Segregation is an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness” (King Jr., 1).

C: “Any law that uplifts human personality is just” (King Jr., 1).

C: “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust” (King Jr., 1).

C: “All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality” (King Jr., 1).

P: “Segregation is morally wrong and unjust “(King Jr., 1).

C: “It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority” (King Jr., 1).

C: “Segregation ends up relegating persons to the status of things “(King Jr., 1).

C: “Segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful” (King Jr., 1).

Examining the Arguments presented by Martin Luther King Jr.

It must first be noted that the arguments and their basis are actually a form of ethos; the concept of ethos can be described as a form of guiding beliefs that are an inherent part of a community or nation’s character. It is used as a guide that influences a person’s behavior to such an extent that by examining the ethos behind a culture you can determine how they will react based on a given situation. In this particular case, the ethos behind the actions of Martin Luther King Jr. is that advocated by the African American civil rights movement whose ethos is the end of racial segregation, equal treatment in society as well as equality in all other forms of business, education, other forms of benefits accorded to Caucasians.

It is on the basis of this particular ethos that Martin Luther King Jr. presents the argument against segregation due to its unlawful nature and immoral effects on the African American population. As can be seen in the contents of the passage such an argument is clearly embedded in the advocated ethos of the African American civil rights movement and as such follows the same pattern in demanding the freedoms believed in to be a God-given right as indicated by the ethos he stands by.

What must first be understood is that laws were created to maintain the structure of society yet not all social structures are inherently good. For example, the society of Sparta had a law that required Spartan men to be trained in the art of combat from an early age and be part of the Spartan army. It also had an inherent social law that dictated that marriages between Spartans had to be arranged before birth and that Spartan women on the night of their “wedding” have to wait in their home bald and wrestle the Spartan male who came to claim her, after which she was forcefully taken from her home and summarily raped in accordance with ancient customs. While in the modern era such laws are considered morally unjust and irreprehensible they were in fact a necessity at the time in order to help maintain the Spartan state and considered morally and legally just.

The basis of King’s argument is one that advocates moral code, natural law, eternal law, and the sinfulness of segregation; in no part does he actually mention the previous need to maintain segregation in order to ensure the continued existence of American society. Racial segregation, epitomized by the “Jimmy Crow laws, was actually put into practice under the assumption of ensuring the continued survival of the state. The fact remains that all laws created by the state are in one way or another created to ensure its continued existence. Without inherent laws in places, any country would rapidly descend into anarchy.

Basing an argument against a particular law on its “wrongness” or being unjust is slightly fallacious since all laws created by the state can one way or another be interpreted as being unjust yet are there in order to ensure that the state’s current existence. Thus it can even be said that no set of laws created by a state can be considered completely free from certain aspects considered to be morally wrong or unjust however it can be stated as a fact that they were created in order to ensure stability and thus are accomplishing their purpose despite objections regarding their unjustness.

In the second argument, it can clearly be seen that King is basing the moral unjustness represented by segregation on the ethos of the African American Civil rights movement. It must be noted that ethos can also refer to the way in which a person portrays themselves in an argument, in a sense that it is a method in which persuaders present an “image” to people that they are attempting to persuade. This particular “image” refers to a persuader’s “character” in the sense that a person is attempting to persuade another person of the righteousness of their statements based on their inherent character.

In these particular cases King presents the argument that on the basis of the African American people being human, the same as the Caucasian, they are entitled to the same rights that the whites do. Thus the image being presented is one of humanity wherein it can be seen that the “character” being referred to here is a person’s inherent humanity and the right to be treated equally on basis of being human.

What must be understood though is that through the examination of the historical nature of ethos it can be seen that in one way or another despite the apparent ethical appearance of a certain type of ethos there is always an underlying reason behind its creation which does in fact create a beneficial effect for the individuals that created it. Ethos is not something that is inherent but rather something that has been created and manufactured with a surface image in order to fulfill a particular purpose. It is often utilized as a method of convincing people or justifying a particular set of actions and as such, it is crafted in such a way so as to be convincing, believable, and thus adaptable.

While in the second argument King justifies his actions on the basis of ethics and immorality the fact remains that the ethos he abides by was in fact created for a specific purpose that is not inherently ethical but rather beneficial. As seen by the evidence presented by history, the ethos of the African American civil rights movement did, in fact, benefit the black population within the U.S. Thus it can be seen that the basis of Martin Luther King Jr’s arguments is not one coming from a place of pure ethical consideration but rather one aimed at benefitting a specific segment of the population.

Works Cited

King Jr, Martin Luther. ” “Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]”.” AFRICAN STUDIES CENTER. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, 1963. Web.

The aspect of social contract theory can be stated as an orientation. Here it is has been observed that people will respect the fact that other may have different perspective and opinions. In this stage, the choices made by each individual are not judged as correct or wrong. Here the rules and regulations, as well as the law, are social guidelines rather than strict dictums. Here is what is called democracy. Rousseau and King worked on this principle but under different circumstances.

Jean Jacques Rousseau, who believed that a man has a passionate and emotional side, was born in Geneva, Switzerland on June 18, 1712. This philosopher wrote different books and concepts about man as an individual and man as part of society. His “Social Contract” is one of the most intriguing writings of Rousseau because he defends man, though being part of the society has its own right in terms of privacy. One of the most famous lines of Rousseau was “Never exceed your rights, and they will soon become unlimited” (Rousseau, p.1).

He said these in relation to his “Social Contract”. His point in this statement is that everyone must take their steps one at a time. Everything should be done carefully at the right time and in the right places so that it will be meaningful and productive. His writings made a divergence in different parts of the world. He became popular and famous with the help of these writings. One of his writings or stories was entitled Confessions. This story is about the life of a man. He confessed everything about his life. It can also be a form of a biography of the narrator or maybe the author himself. He pointed different things in this story – his life, journey, and beliefs. It is sometimes said that the sword wears out the scabbard. That is my history. My passions have made me live, and my passions have killed me (Lawall, p. 676). Rationality in life is the most important aspect of living for Rousseau. After all, logic and rationality was not the only answer to living a better life. There is something better from thinking and reasoning. “This is what I have done, what I have thought, what I was. I have told the good and bad with equal frankness. I have neither have omitted anything bad nor interpolated anything good. If I have occasionally made use of some immaterial embellishments, this has only been in order to fill a gap caused by lack of memory” (Lawall, p. 664).With these lines, there is a realization about the effects of his situation. The narrator witnessed his own journey and this journey made him believed that living is not always a form of reasoning and logic. Sometimes, as humans, we need to rest our minds for more important things to think of.

On the other hand, Martin Luther King Jr. was to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s what Jean Jacques Rousseau was to the French Revolution in the 18th century. He was a charismatic, dedicated intelligent, and religious human being. He had immensely inspired the confidence of the American public in the last century. He invoked the basic morals of the Americans and led civil rights activities in a non-violent manner. He helped to unify the people of the USA in troubled times, guiding them at every step in time.

He also took part in the student sit-in movement in 1960 and was later arrested for it. He had to stay for some time in the prison after which he was released. He constantly took part in various non-violent protests and was awarded the Noble Peace Prize in 1964. This was a very important year as the civil rights movement had gained widespread support and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was finally passed (Bostdorff, pp. 661-67).

Rousseau, similarly, had noticed a lot of fundamental differences between human nature and society. He believed that humans were better when an individual is in a state of nature. It is the common state of all the other animals and is the condition humans were in long before the beginning of society and civilization itself. The idea of his has often been led to assigning the use of noble savage to him. He, however never used this expression himself and it does not properly present his thinking for the natural goodness of all humankind. His idea concerning natural goodness is complicated and thus, very easily misunderstood.

An informal reading of his work suggests that his ideas do not simply mean that humans in this state of nature always act morally. On the contrary, terms, like wickedness or justice, are merely not applicable to pre-political societies. Humans, there can behave like a ferocious animals. They are nice since they are self-contained and are, thus, are not the focal point to the frailties of the political society. Rousseau viewed society as an artificial entity and thought that the growth of any society, mainly the development of public interdependence, is unfavorable for the welfare of humans (Rousseau, pp. 133-5).

In 1695, the African Americans started to withdraw their support from Martin Luther King Jr. as they were becoming more and more impatient with his ways of non-violent resistance. In 1965, during the Alabama march for voting rights of the people, opposition towards him became more widespread when the state troopers confronted the marchers, led by him, and they only kneeled down to pray and then left. The radical group of African Americans alleged that Martin Luther King Jr. should have behaved differently. As the Black Power movement became stronger, he started to become a controversial figure.

Martin Luther King Jr. immensely cared about the people of the USA and thus, wholeheartedly opposed the Vietnam War, which spoiled his relations with the administration. His focus was on the poor, of the various races in the USA, and had worked out a plan to organize the Poor People’s March on Washington in 1968. During the time of the civil rights movement, he had captivated the nation with his powerful philosophy and his commitment to the methods of non-violence. He also proved that only by non-violence, racial segregation can be forever be terminated from society. Martin Luther King’s ideas about non-violence were similar to that of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s ideas given in The Social contract. He realizes that although the power of human love is a driving force, it was not enough to resolve the various social problems and ills. The power of human love could be applied to stop conflicts between individuals but not for the whole nation or the racial groups. He was also motivated by Mahatma Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha, which means both truth-force and love force.

Similarly, the goodness of humankind is like the goodness of the animals and not of their virtue, which has been clearly mentioned in The Social Contract. A very extraordinary change in man is produced in the passage, which is from the state of nature to the civil state. Here justice has been substituted for instinct in man’s conduct and his actions have been given morality, which they formally lacked. He also instead of listening only to his inclinations consults his reasoning power. Even though being in this state man is deprived of certain advantages he had earlier got from nature, he gains a lot, more which develops and stimulates his faculties. His ideas are extended, his feelings are dignified and his entire soul is lifted up. Rousseau believed that only in the context of corruption of the society and the individual of the society there is a chance of failure of the social contract. On the other hand, amour proper is not natural, but artificial. It pushes man to judge himself against others creating unnecessary fear and allowing humans to enjoy while others are in pain and are suffering (Rousseau, pp. 137-8).

He said that the advancements in the various fields of knowledge have made the governments more and more powerful letting them squash a person’s liberty. In his The Social Contract, Rousseau creates concepts of equality and personal liberty. He believed, in order to obey the natural state of man and for the total survival of a state, we continuously need to change our ideas of equality. Poor representation of some citizens, in the interest of the state, is clearly shown as an exit way for leaving the society. This was Rousseau’s political way to stabilize the inconsistent relations in the self-interest of the people and for the expansion of political freedom. When the minorities leave a state, its survival and the various reasons for creating conflict forever remain unchecked.

In The Social Contract, he also pays a lot of attention to shifting individual rights onto the formation of the state. When the state has been created, it should be due to the realization that the different elements humans cannot handle on their own can be handled better by an added centralized power, which is the state. However, Rousseau also believed that the state could fail humans at certain times and it should never enjoy an unequal share of power in comparison to the humans in the previous state of nature. If humans gave up their liberty then it would mean that they are giving up their ability to negotiate with other members of the state. This would be like slavery (Noone, pp. 68-70).

King believed that the Christian principles of love together with the method of non-violence were the only effective weapon that was available to the demoralized people in their fight for freedom. At this time, this earlier logical realization regarding the power of love was also put into use. Non-violent resistance slowly but steadily became the ultimate force behind the boycott movement and he realized that non-violence was the only powerful solution to all of society’s problems (Bostdorff, pp. 661-690).

Martin Luther King Jr. realized that there are six important aspects of non-violent resistance. He said that although non-violence may be viewed as a person’s cowardliness, it certainly is not so. According to him, a non-violent activist has the same amount of passion as a violent one. Although he is not physically aggressive, his emotions and mind are continuously active, and is relentlessly trying to inform his opponent of his mistakes. He believed that non-violence was meant to create moral shame, as it does not intend to humiliate the opponent but rather gain his trust, understanding, and finally friendship. The use of non-cooperation and boycotts were only ways to arouse a sense of honesty and moral shame in a person. Violent resistances created chaos and a lot of bitterness among the people but non-violence brought about settlement and redemption. Non-violent resistance did bring about suffering and it required the people’s eagerness to suffer. More than safety, people needed to aim for the end of the struggle, and retaliating with violence would only distract people from the actual fight (Kirk, p. 143).

In conclusion, it should be mentioned that both Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Martin Luther King Jr. believed that if people accepted suffering, it would create a number of transforming and educational possibilities. There is also a realization of the fact that life is what we make it. There is no such thing as a deeper explanation of how man lived and survived during his lifetime. There mere fact of living is that you must live your life to the fullest. All of us needs our mind to decide on how our future will be. However, there are certain things in life that sometimes don’t need any logician, mathematician, or reasoning aspect of our minds – we just need to take the risk and try to take all the opportunities no matter how hard or risky it will be. The most important thing that we should remember was faith. Faith will bring us to our final destination no matter how good or bad it will be, it will always be our destiny. This would become a strong force in changing the way of thinking of the people. King, particularly, had the opinion that a non-violent protestor was on the side of justice. In addition, since God himself favors those who are true, the non-violent protestors had faith that justice would be served in the near future.

References

1. Rousseau, Jean Jacques; Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News Editorial; 2001. Web.
2. Lawall, Sarah. Norton Anthology of world literature. New York: Norton. 2002
3. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques; The Social Contract: & Discourses; J.M. Dent & sons, ltd., 1920
4. Noone, John B; Rousseau’s Social Contract: A Conceptual Analysis; University of Georgia Press, 1981
5. Bostdorff, Denise M & Steven R. Goldzwig; History, Collective Memory, and the Appropriation of Martin Luther King, Jr; Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35, 4, 661-690; The College of Wooster; Marquette University; 2005
6. Kirk, John A; Martin Luther King Jr; Pearson Longman, 2004

Martin Luther King Junior and Malcolm X were key figures who went down in history of the United States due to their unprecedented efforts in fighting for civil rights and elimination of racism in America. Each of them had a different method and view of struggling against the social injustices against the blacks. Martin Luther King was a Christian, while Malcolm X was a Muslim, that is why their views were based on their religious backgrounds, and the way they had been brought up by their parents.

Martin Luther King originated from a bourgeois class family, thus he was an educated person, while Malcolm X had been brought up from a humble background, which made him drop out of school and engage in drugs. Martin Luther King Jr. had a peaceful approach towards fighting against social injustices as he believed that they could be eradicated through a dialogue. On the contrary, Malcolm X had a different view, which could be traced back to his upbringing.

He acquired a bitter attitude towards the whites who he believed were the source of his problems. While Martin Luther King insisted on nonviolent resistance or integrationist philosophy, Malcolm X had a strong believe in nationalist and separatist doctrines. Their philosophies resulted in forming contrasting views in the people’s minds in terms of sensibility. Martin Luther King’s philosophy of nonviolence appealed to Americans of the 1960’s the most.

Martin Luther King’s philosophy of handling the social injustices was aimed at bringing together blacks and whites as a union. This doctrine had six underlying principles, which guided it. One of them stated that nonviolent protestors should not discredit the opponents but instead look for their understanding and friendship.

He had a strong believe that the only way to overcome a devil was by befriending him. Fighting, according to his view, could not solve the problem but would intensify hatred between the two parties. Violence might murder the murderer, but it would not murder the murder itself; it could kill the liar, but it would not eliminate lie, and violence may murder the dishonest person, but not dishonesty (King, “I Have a Dream Speech”).

Violence will never be a way out as it will only intensify the problem. Malcolm X believed in the doctrine of separation as a solution to social injustices. In his speech, he said that by working separately, the sincere white people and sincere black people would actually be working together. He proclaimed, “Let the sincere whites go and teach nonviolence to white people” (Malcolm X “The Homecoming Rally of the OAAU”).

He further put more emphasis on the doctrine of separation by saying that when money was taken out of the neighborhood in which one lived, the neighborhood in which a person invested his/her money became wealthier and wealthier (Malcolm X “The Homecoming Rally of the OAAU”).

Therefore, in order for the blacks to control their economy, money should be spent within the neighborhood. Furthermore, according to Malcolm X, dialogue was not the solution to the injustices because the enemy would not hear what you were saying.

He said that, ‘You know you can’t communicate if one man is speaking French and the other is speaking German, his language is brutality’ (Malcolm X “The Homecoming Rally of the OAAU”). He even advocated for different institutions for the Afro-Americans (Malcolm X “The Homecoming Rally of the OAAU”). He saw the only way to know the enemy’s language was by studying his history.

Philosophy of nonviolence advocated by Martin Luther King Junior relied on another principle stating that nonviolent resistance was disposition to undertake suffering without revenging. He believed that one day he would see blacks and whites together. “Let us march on segregated schools until every vestige of segregation and inferior education becomes a thing of the past and Negroes and whites study side by side in the socially healing of the classroom” (King, “Our God is Marching On”).

In his speech “I Have a Dream” he said that, “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by their character’ (King). He also had a strong faith in achievement of freedom without violence.

Although Malcolm X did not favor violence, he had a strong objection on the subject of nonviolence philosophy on the blacks. In his “Interview with Young Socialist Alliance Leaders”, he said that, “nonviolence is only preached to black Americans and I don’t go along with anyone who wants to teach our people nonviolence until someone at the same time is teaching our enemy to be nonviolent” (Malcolm). According to him, this could only work if it was done by both parties.

The philosophy of nonviolence by Martin Luther King Junior was the most sensible for this case. His method of addressing social problems was not biased. He looked at both sides equally, and he knew that even if they resorted to violence, the blacks would be outnumbered by the whites. ”

The Negro would face the same unchanged conditions, the same squalor and deprivation – the only difference being that bitterness would be more intense” (King “Our God is Marching On”). In comparison to Malcolm’s separatist philosophy, the King’s one would be most effective because it advocated for bringing the warring parties together.

Malcolm X presented his arguments in favor of the Negros (Malcolm X “Twenty Million Black People in Political, Economic and Mental Prison”). As a result, the gap between them became even wider. Martin Luther King produced an impression that he was peaceful and idealistic while most of his speeches encouraged the spirit of togetherness between blacks and whites.

Works Cited

King, Martin Luther. “I Have a Dream Speech“, the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C. 28 Aug. 1963. Web.

King, Martin Luther. “Our God is Marching On.” Montgomery, Alabama. 21 Mar. 1965. Web.

Malcolm X. “Interview with Young Socialist Alliance Leaders.” 18 Jan. 1965. Web.

Malcolm X. “The Homecoming Rally of the OAAU.” New York. 29 Nov. 1964. Keynote Address.

Malcolm X. “Twenty Million Black People in Political, Economic and Mental Prison.” Michigan State University, 23 Jan. 1963. Keynote Speech.

On August 28, 1963, Dr. Martin Luther King delivered a speech “I Have a Dream” to over 200, 000 civil rights supporters in Washington following a protest march for freedom and jobs. In his speech that lasted 17 minutes, Luther called for racial equality and halt to all manner discrimination.

The speech came at a time when black people in America were facing serious challenges that stretched from racial segregation to slavery to bigotry. At this time, the civil-rights movement in America was expanding rapidly and it came to pas that the speech meant to galvanize the movement. The speech left an indelible imprint in the hearts of many Americans who wanted justice to be their shield and defender.

In fact, as days went by, the speech “I Have a Dream” by Martin Luther has become one of the most high-ranking and rousing pieces of oratory in American history. Amazingly, when Luther reached midway reading the scripted text, he posed and then abandoned it. Instead, Luther improvised the sections of the speech leading to its making it decipherable—the itinerary through which the words “I have a dream” fervently replicate.

This essay will examine and analyze Martin Luther’s speech “I have a dream” with am emphasis on speech for voice and rhetoric. Notably, it is imperative to note that Luther argued and supported his clause. Thus, it is also imperative to make out the language he used and the directed audience (Doug 1).

To start with, Luther starts by saying that all men irrespective of their color, race, age or sex are equal. In his speech, Luther repeatedly mentioned the mistreatment of black Americans over a long period. For instance, Luther starts by saying, “One hundred year later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination” (The Junto Society 1).

He goes on repeatedly calling for equality among all American citizens. Luther goes ahead to state how he visions his four children living in a nation devoid of racism, and the one in which the content of character of a person matters. In his speech, Luther finds historical documents so imperative in defending his argument.

For example, the Emancipation Proclamation set the pace to end slavery in America. The document, which was an executive order and fully enjoying the support of President Lincoln, earmarked a new era in United States by advocating the freeing of slaves in the accomplice states.

In other words, this was the beginning of a new chapter in America, the chapter of equality for African-American. The second historical document stated by Luther was of course, the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. In particular, this document promises liberty and the quest of contentment for all Americans, both black and white (The Junto Society 1).

The entire speech is a masterpiece of rhetoric characterized by a sophisticated voice. In addition, Luther employs numerous descriptive words, instead of unswerving words. Noticeably, the speech is full of metaphors for example, “America has given the Negro a bad check, which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds’”. All this meant to awaken America to the reality of justice and equality, onto the realization that all Americans are equal—whether black or white.

Luther also employs anaphora, that is, the repetition of certain phrases such as “Let freedom ring”, “I have a dream”, and ‘With this faith” to emphasize on the prevailing circumstances. It is also imperative to note that Luther is addressing all Americans, both white and black, and hence the use of words “we” and “our”. In conclusion, Luther urges both black and white Americans to coexist as they have a common destiny (Keith 1).

Works Cited

Doug, DuBrin. “I Have a Dream” as a Work of Literature. 2011. Web.

Keith, Miller. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968). (n.d.). Web.

The Junto Society. Martin, Luther King Jr. I Have a Dream. August 28, 1963. 2002. Web.

The significance of Martin Luther’s letter from his Birmingham state jail was not an ordinary address over the state of affairs or writing to indicate the state of wellbeing in custody. He was quick to emphasize confidently that the reason for writing the letter was not in response to criticism but to the injustice, which was persistent in Birmingham. The reason Martin Luther as the leader of Southern Christian Conference found himself in jail was due to participating in a non-violent direct action involvement.

The letter is a strong response in support of the role of activists in delivering freedom for the people. He also brings out the importance of recognizing need for interrelated states and societies, by presenting the mission of enhancing justice, as a request from affiliated religious groups in Birmingham.

The writer strongly points out that existence of injustice at a certain place is an indirect threat of existing justice in other places. Martin Luther was concern with interrelation of state and justice for all. One clear indication is that people are in a mutually connected system focusing on a single destiny and there is no escape other than focusing on the anticipatable destiny.

The letter clearly indicates how the states disapprove demonstrations but administration lacks concern thus fails to substantiate the required actions against the injustices. Injustice causes people to consider demonstrations such as those by the religious activists at Birmingham. The writing also brings out another side of the situations. Martin Luther’s letter is a response to alterations by fellow clergymen (Jackson, p.97).

He strongly points how the state authorities tongue-tie those in authority or religious leaders who are supposed to fight for other’s rights. They consequently end up failing to react accordingly. He robustly condemns the clergymen for accusations based on the effects of peaceful demonstrations rather than focusing and standing by the reasons that lead to such public reactions.

Comprehensible signals in support of non-violent actions such as the occurrences at Birmingham must first involve compilation of viable facts that clearly indicate existence of injustice, negotiation for change, personal purity on the matter and then direct action eventually if every action fails.

If the clergymen sat together and decided on the procedures as stated in the letter, then they were reacting unreasonably by segregating and allowing racial injustice in Birmingham. The writer also apparently outlines the negligence or unfairness of the courts due to the unjust treatment accorded to members of a certain race particularly the Black Americans (Jackson, p.87).

Just like the contemporary situation, most cases remain unsolved due to injustice or corruption. Segregation against some communities, ethnical or religious groups may persist due to lack of harmony between the leaders from the extreme ends. A good example in Martin Luther’s letter is the high rates of attacks on homes and churches of the Black American in Birmingham. The leaders of the blacks were willing to talk through the situation and solve the issues out of good faith, but faced repulsion (Jackson, p.87).

In relation to Jackson’s writing (p.88), Martin Luther’s letter from the Birmingham jail is a true reflection of current phenomenon where the minority suffer from uncared for requests and broken or empty promises by their leaders. He indicates in the letter how they pressed for elimination of the racial-segregating stores at Birmingham, but influents places a legal postponement of the fulfilments and obligations and eventually the implementation was evaded (Jackson, p.88).

Rules are often a clear legal agreement, but the authorities remain reluctant to react or implement the accord, therefore the same authorities partially implement and abandon the rules later or disregard the proposed rules without consultations.

Just as indicated, in the letter people react or demand through direct action due to shattered hopes and disappointments by their leaders (Jackson, p.88). Direct action means that demonstrators have only one option, that of physically presenting themselves to the authorities to trigger their cognisant that rules require implementation and application.

In the modern United States, one would expect that negotiations exist as the only procedures, thus no need for mass action. The peaceful direct action is an option for seeking or forcing unsuccessful negotiation or demands for the poorly implemented agreements. The action triggers need for negotiations through creation of tension or crisis. Activists plan for direct involvement by strategically finding the colluding instances, where crisis would arise and dramatise the situation for quick responses.

Like today’s activists, Martin Luther is in support of constructive non-violent form of tension that causes neutralization of racism and prejudice thus promoting brotherliness (Jackson, p.90). Tensions due to a crisis-packed situation often brings rise to negotiations and solutions. It is a wake-up call for the leaders to live in dialogue.

The clergy inquire why the action had to occur very soon, but from the letter, today people are able to apply similar form of reasoning whereby new administration need to act in a similar manner as the outgoing if not better. The tension created on a past regime must be consistent and thus incumbent administration must correspond similarly to the good administration of the past.

This is for the reason that most leaders are segregationists who aim at maintaining the status quo instead of administering change (Jackson, p.91). According to Jackson (p.91), the letter indicated that the privileged government personas rarely give up their privileges voluntarily.

The required freedom is achievable through demands from the oppressed not freewill of the oppressor. The leaders are fond of the word “Wait”, and the subsequent waits easily translate to different meaning primarily “Never.” In the contemporary administrative setting, justice delayed is justice denied. While other countries such as developing countries are speedily implementing new rules, the developed countries such as the U.S. have faced poor growth of political independence (Jackson, p.91).

In response to the allegations that activists who fight segregation are anxious and willing to break laws, the letter clarifies some effects of segregation such as fear. Prejudiced people live in fear of not knowing the probable outcome and live by intimidation. Such persons have inner apprehensions and outer bitterness in fight of ever-degenerating senses.

These situations compromise endurance and causes people to plummet into the abyss of despair, thus failure to practice patience when pleaded to wait. An aspect of waiting fails to resonate in such minds (Jackson, p.93).

The accused activists are actually protesting for adherence to the law by their leaders as opposed to breaking the law. According to Jackson (p.91), it is paradoxical for one to break a law while advocating for another. Today’s leaders must realize the existence of just and unjust regulations, and they are obligated to moral practices in support for justice for all and as a responsibly to disobey the unreasonable and unjustifiable rules.

In vindicating justice, Martin Luther puts a clear difference between just and unjust laws. Just is the human composed law that have a connection to the moral law, while the unjust codes or laws that are out of harmony and often fail to relate to the moral or God’s expectations, which is the natural form of law.

Justifiable form of rule has to uplift the soul and personality, thus giving any form of segregation inferiority effects and false senses. In accordance with Martin Luther’s letter, segregation is not only a political matter, but also a social wrong and an immoral act (Jackson, p.94).

As frequently evident in our current political systems, injustice occurs due to existence of code supported by majority but for the minority group to obey. This makes injustice different as an illegal act while just law is one, which majority compel to but minority follow through personal will. In this case, equality becomes legal (Jackson, p.95).

Leaders are implementing just laws on the outside while the same laws are unjust in the inside. Laws permit approved form of peaceful parades but they uphold segregation, by denying members of a certain group right to peacefully assemble and hold demonstrations.

The article is a clear indication that activists are people who break the unjust laws willingly, openly and are ready to accept any penalty that may arise because the aim is to arouse conscience of the community leaders over need to respect and practice justice.

Like the earlier religious faithful and political activists, peaceful demonstration is a common form of civil disobedience in modern U.S., where the protesters fight whenever moral law is at stake.

Socrates defied compliance to stipulated civil law because his conscience point out that the terms were against the divine law, which was more superior. The political laws are often contradicting moral principles and compromising human freedom. If the political principals compromise human faith, then it is fine to have an open advocacy for antireligious laws.

In comparison to the dated social settings, people currently still face more frustration from poor or superficial understanding by freewill as opposed to the absolute misunderstanding by those of ill will. Mere acceptance is thus more painful than clear rejection (Jackson, p.97).

In his letter, Martin Luther emphasized on the use and existence of the law for establishing justice. Failure to implement justice blocks flow of social progress. People have to accept the dignity and worthiness of human personality by un-hiding tension for justifiable action to take place.

The act of barring individuals from gaining basic constitutional rights for the reason that this would precipitate violence is punishing the dishonoured. The act of racial injustice is a solid block to social context of human dignity. The article shows support of excellent technique of non-violence procedures of protesting against injustice, which is practical and integral in today’s struggle for human rights (Jackson, p.101).

According to Jackson (p.110), oppression leads to segregation but it rarely remains that way forever. Currently, it is evident that non-violent actions for justice create the required tension when dialogue fails. It gives power to the activists to accept the label of extremists for the need to achieve good and preserve justice for all.

In line with Jackson’s text, (p.105), the main cause of despair involve pretending activists, for instance the religious groups who made up in support of the non-violent free actions but end up supporting the unjust form of governances or awkward forms of worldly practices. They pretend in support of religious rules but end up supporting secular or government policies.

Works Cited

Jackson, Jesse. “Why We Can’t Wait: By Martin Luther King (Jr.)”. New York, NY: New American Library-Penguin Group. 2000. Print.

Below, you may read MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” rhetorical analysis. It looks at different techniques, appeals, and methods used by the author in his work.

Introduction

On April 19, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr (MLK) wrote a detailed letter from Birmingham Jail in reply to some public releases which were directed at undermining his fight for civil equality. Most of the Martin Luther statements were very rhetorical, whereby he employed Aristotle’s kinds of persuasion to convince his audience. He made use of ethos, pathos, and logos, which are directed towards his own reputation and wisdom, to have the attention of the audience and to have the logic of influential thinkers, respectively. This “Letter from Birmingham Jail” Rhetorical Analysis Essay aims at defining a list of rhetorical devices used in the letter with examples.

“Letter from Birmingham Jail” Rhetorical Analysis of the First Paragraphs

Rhetorical devices are present from the first paragraph. In his efforts to promote civil rights on behalf of the American community, he starts by explaining his state of confinement in the jail, which is a clear indication of how the poor are suffering in the hands of an unjust society. He further states that he would wish to respond to their recent statements that his activities are unwise and untimely. This is meant to let the clergymen understand that Martin Luther King Jr. was well aware of their mind.

He proceeds to say that if he decided to look at each criticism that comes through his office, he would have no time for his work. In this statement, Luther King wants to let his critics know that his civil rights work is far much significant than the criticism they have been directing towards him and that they would rather concentrate on their work since he has no time to direct towards their attacks. He also terms their criticism as genuine and set forth as a way of showing them that he can understand the reason behind their criticism.

He further indicates in the second paragraph the fact that the clergymen have an issue with outsiders coming into the city, whereby he intends to let them know that though they are against him, many are on his side since he states that it was an invitation.

This again appears in the fourth paragraph, where he says that as long as a person is within the United States, no one should claim that he is an outsider. He also states that “I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian leadership conference” (King 1) to show them he equally holds a religious leadership position as they do, and he has the right to exercise his faith.

What Type of Appeal Is Martin Luther King, Jr. Using from the Third to Fifth Paragraphs?

In the third paragraph, he likens himself with Paul to make it clear that he is a prophet of freedom and liberation, just like Paul. Claiming that he has been sent by Jesus shows that he has a very high authority in the religious field, and though people may be against him, God is on his side. Just as Jesus sent his disciples all over the world to take the gospel, Martin Luther makes it clear that he came to Birmingham due to the injustice that was prevailing.

In the fourth paragraph, Martin Luther says that “moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states” (King 2). He wanted to have his audience understand that he belonged to the congregation of the elites, and he has sufficient wisdom to put his opinions across. When he mentions the city’s white power structure, he wanted to trigger the mind of his critics who were only concerned with the demonstrations that were taking place rather than the reason behind these demonstrations.

In the fifth paragraph, he proceeds to mention that “the ugly records of brutality” (King 2) in Birmingham are widely known. This further insisted that his critics were less concerned with the more critical issues such as injustice that Negroes were facing in the city by trying to hinder those who were fighting for this justice. It is evident since even after he had taken the legal steps towards all his activities, he was still being discriminated against.

“Letter from Birmingham Jail” Rhetorical Analysis from the Seventh to Fourteenth Paragraphs

In the seventh paragraph, he states that ‘we were victims of a broken promise’ to show that regardless of the agreement they had made earlier on to remove any sign of racial discrimination, the rest were not concerned apart from his assembly. In paragraph eight, he says that “our hopes had been blasted and the shadows of deep disappointment settled upon us” (King 4).

This shows that the King would recognize the faults but does not wish to blame anyone. The phrase “that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood” (King 4) was meant to unite all people in the fight against racism.

Rhetorical Analysis of the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” shows that In the fourteenth paragraph, King uses his logical, non-threatening appeal to show the urgency of his civil right actions in the city. He puts it clear that people have endured long enough and that there are now becoming impatient with the way events are unfolding every day. He supports his argument in the next paragraph, where he puts it across that they have been governed by a combination of unjust and just law whereby there is a need to separate the two.

Conclusion

The above discussion is just but a few of King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” rhetorical appeals representations. Throughout his letter, King uses strong, almost unquestionable logic that makes his piece of writing very outstanding due to its unique method of development.

Work Cited

King Luther. Letter from Birmingham Jail. Stanford University, 1964. Web.

The major conclusion of the part of Martin Luther King’s speech touching upon the issue of Ho Chi Min’s land reform is that this reform was benevolent for the peasants, and can be categorized as “one of the most important needs in their lives” (King “A Time to Break Silence”). The assessment of the reliability of this assertion requires a thorough analysis of the deductive process as well as the provided evidence and fallacies in it if any.

The reasoning used by King for evaluating the effects of Ho Chi Min’s land reform is deductive because it moves from general to specific. King’s major premise is that all peasants are interested in land. The minor premise is that Ho Chi Min’s reform was aimed at the redistribution of the land among the peasants.

The conclusion which King forces from these premises is that Ho Chi Min’s land reform was beneficial for the people of Vietnam. Still, this conclusion cannot be regarded as a valid one because there are particular fallacies in the deductive reasoning which provides only partial support for the conclusion.

The main sources of the invalid deductive conclusion include Argumentum ad Hominem, all or nothing and cultural fallacies. King criticizes Diem, Chi Min’s opponent, defining him as one of the most vicious modern dictators, thus, attacking him as an individual rather than as a political figure, without describing any Diem’s significant actions and their consequences for the nation.

The all or nothing fallacy of King’s deductive reasoning is based upon the opposition of the two political leaders and assuming that if one of them is bad, another is supposed to be good and his reforms are hypothesized to be benevolent for the population.

The two above-mentioned fallacies are complimented with the cultural error, the presentation of the information from the culturally-limited perspective, assuming that the US views and system of beliefs are superior to Vietnamese inner policies. This assumption enables the author of the speech to make judgments as to the benefits and the primer needs of Vietnamese people in general and peasants in particular.

In general, King’s reasoning lacks evidence because it consists of the speaker’s personal judgments which are not supported with the historically accurate details and relevant information. The evaluation of the land reform without describing it in details is inadmissible. Thus, King categorizes the Vietnamese dictators as bad and good, using his personal opinion and not supporting his assumptions with any weighty arguments.

The lack of information on the character, details and consequences of Chi Min’s reform is the major drawback of King’s argumentation. “Reliability is the degree of confidence that is placed in the truth of a proposition” (Swensson “Logic and the Essay”). Taking into account the described fallacies of the argumentation along with the lack of evidence, the reliability of King’s proposition concerning the benevolence of the land reform is rather low.

Though the major premise of the deductive reasoning is true and generalization concerning land as one of the primer interests of peasants is relevant, the minor premise concerning the redistribution of land by Chi Min without specifying the terms of the reform is insufficient for supporting the proposition concerning the benefits of this reform for the population.

The analysis of the deductive process, premises, and the evidence used by King in his speech A Time to Break Silence shows that they were insufficient for supporting the conclusion concerning the benevolence of Chi Min’s land reform because of the fallacies in the reasoning as well as the lack of evidence.

Works Cited

King, Martin Luther. “A Time to Break Silence”. Deanza College Website. n.d. Web.

Swensson, John. “Logic and the Essay”. Deanza College Website. n.d. Web.

Introduction

The present day America is definitely not the America which Dr. King had dreamt about with no divide between the blacks and whites or the poor and the rich. The class divide still continues to exist in America even today and “some people in America were to have privileges and rights which were not accorded to others” (Sullivan, 2005; pg. 390). There has never been a “level” playing field for the blacks and reality in America differs from the lofty ideals and speeches held by the top policymakers of the nation.

Discussion

To begin with, the Sullivan (2005) asserts that “America was not established as a democracy” (pg. 390). The constitution was drafted by the framers in such a manner that only White men who owned acres of land and property would be given the right to voice their opinion and decide the functioning of the government “including the right to vote” (pg. 390), while the working classes, the poor, the blacks were not allowed to take part in these all important decision making processes of the country.

The author makes a crucial point here that if the “dream” to provide all Americans the same legal rights, irrespective of their race, color, or financial status, why would the makers of the constitution with great ‘dreams” have begun in the most divisive manner? If the dreams were true then why were equal rights not granted to the people in the original draft of the constitution? Sullivan points that even today the class divide continues to exist in America by the many laws which are framed to benefit only the whites.

The author mentions one of the many such laws like the bankruptcy law for private citizens, which makes it difficult for them to declare bankruptcy. While on the other hand, it is no big deal for “corporations to declare bankruptcy, wipe clean the financial slate and get a fresh start” (pg. 390). Sullivan also reflects concern and anger over the fact that due to the rising inflation, American wages “have been on a serious decline” so that workers who are entirely responsible for the production continue to earn less whereas “corporate profits and CEO salaries continue to soar” (pg. 390).

Additionally, the facts revealed by Sullivan (2005) affirm that companies like Wal-Mart pay extremely low salaries to their workers, “around seven dollars per hour” and do not provide them any additional benefits. Workers have no rights and are “brutally overworked and underpaid” and have the constant fear of being “terminated any time for any reason” looming over their heads (pg. 390).

All these facts anger me and I certainly think that this is obviously not the America which people would want to live in and would want their children to grow up in.

Voicing similar concerns Meyers states that politics actually refers to the instant “when people get together to influence government, change their own lives, and change society” (Moyers, 2007; pg. 411). Moyers points to the growing divide in the American society between the rich and the poor and how this divide is widening day by day. Citing examples from real life Moyers talks about the two families, one black and the other white, and relates their sorry tale which turned their “personal tragedy into a political travesty” because they had lost their belief in the political system and felt that “they no longer matter to the people who run the country” (Moyers, 2007; pg. 413).

Moyers (2007) states that the notion of “any American child” reaching the top is changing with the increasing economic divide between the rich and the poor. This divide due to inequality of income between the American is so severe that Moyers fears that “the united states risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.” The stratification of the education system in accordance with the social class is resulting in lesser resources at schools for poor children as compared to the schools to which the richer children go. Moyers state that the situation has been deeply aggravated by “America’s great companies” in which it is extremely difficult for people to rise up the hierarchal ladder from the bottom to the top, on the basis of their hard work and determination.

Conclusion

Thus, there is enough evidence which proves that the dreams of Dr. King are clearly far away from accomplishment. It angers me that the political system of America is more in favor of the rich than the poor. It also saddens me that my children do not have the facility of going to a good school with better resources simply because as parents we cannot afford such schools. I feel deeply hurt that basic amenities like school and education are divided on the basis of income and if this is how our children begin their education, I wonder how they will grow up to realize that as Americans, we are all equals!

References

Moyers Bill (2005). A Time for Anger, A Call to Action.

Sullivan Charles, (2005). Rich vs. Poor. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

During his lifetime, Martin Luther King Junior had the privilege of giving several speeches whose main theme in almost all was on the freedom of the black Americans. ‘I have a dream’ was among the many speeches that emphasized the freedom of the black Americans. Martin Luther King Junior gave this speech during the leadership of the then president of America, Jeff Kennedy in 1963. Surprisingly, this speech has gained the most fame all over the world because of its content.

In the ‘I have a dream’ speech, Martin Luther incorporates different styles of literature among them rhetoric, figurative speech, pathos, ethos and similes just to mention a few. These are used to emphasize the message that he wishes to express to the world. In this paper, only one literature style (use of pathos) used in the speech will be discussed.

Pathos is a style of literature in which the author of a certain piece of work incorporates his or her life experiences in a bid to evoke emotion from the audience. The emotion evoked could be that of compassion, sorry or pity. Martin Luther King Junior has effectively used this literature style in the ‘I have a dream’ speech leading to the achievement of its objectives. There are several instances in the speech that reveal the use of pathos, some of which include the following.

At one point during the speech, Martin Luther King Junior confesses of his “dream that [his] four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character” (Hansen 176). In this, Martin Luther King Junior uses pathos by divulging the speech to his own life in order for the audience to understand what he talks about. It is clear that in this statement Martin Luther King Junior does not only refer to his own children but to the entire children of the Americans.

The audience is not only compassionate on this statement but they gain more respect for Martin Luther King Junior who takes the position of a father. Martin Luther King Junior goes further to indicate that he has faith that his children will not be worried when they find signs written “No Whites Allowed” (Hansen 180).

He notes that he has the hope that his children will have the strength to bear this discrimination and still hopes that at one point in time the children of the black Americans will be able to walk hand in hand with those of the whites just as sisters and brothers do.

In another instance during his speech, Martin Luther King Junior says, “some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality” (Hansen 178).

In this statement, Martin Luther King Junior appeals for emotion from the people by revealing to them the brutality of the police to the black Americans and especially those who have fallen victim of this kind of brutality. The audience feels sad and sorry for themselves when Martin Luther King Junior tells of this brutality. As such, he effectively achieves pathos in this statement.

It can thus be concluded that Martin Luther King Junior uses pathos in several instances of the speech in a bid to gain the emotion of the audience. This is depicted when he talks of police brutality, discrimination and spraying of fire horses on the black Americans, all of which bring about torture.

Works Cited

Hansen, Daniel. The Dream: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Speech that Inspired a Nation. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2003. Print.

Introduction

In 1963, Martin Luther King Jr (MLK), one of the United States’ most famous civil rights activists in Birmingham, was imprisoned for his participation in a civil rights demonstration in the city. While in prison, Dr. King wrote a letter seeking to address some criticism brought against him by the clergy. This letter from Birmingham Jail analysis essay shall highlight some of the issues discussed in the historic letter including King’s reason for being in Birmingham and why he felt compelled to break the law.

Reasons for Being in Birmingham

The analysis of “Letter from Birmingham Jail” will help to answer the first question that Dr. King addresses in the letter which is the reason why he is in Birmingham city. This was in light of the fact that he was from Atlanta, and some of his critics, therefore, considered him an outsider to Birmingham. Dr. King asserts that his presence in Birmingham is as a result of a direct invitation by some affiliated organizations across the South.

As the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Dr. King feels that it is his duty to work together with his organization’s affiliates. King further states that his presence in the city is due to the injustices and tension that exist therein. He is compelled to be there to offer aid to those who he feels have been wronged by the system for as he declares, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Reason for Breaking Laws

Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” analysis will also help to define the reasons for breaking laws. Dr. King comes under attack for violating the laws of the land. His critics condemn the demonstration that King is involved in since they violate Birmingham’s laws and cause unrest. Dr. King admonishes his critics for failing to consider the social realities that have necessitated the demonstrations by the Negro community.

While acknowledging that negotiations are more suitable, King illustrates that past negotiations have failed to yield any fruitful results. Direct action is, therefore, seen as the only way through which the nation’s conscience to the racial realities of America can be awakened. Dr. King also points out that most of the laws in place, such as segregation and denial of rights to votes for some groups, are unjust.

These laws are immoral, and King affirms that he can, with a clean conscience, urge people to disobey such requirements. As such, King’s main point advocates for the obedience of the law as he acknowledges that lack of law would lead to anarchy. However, he encourages the public breaking of unjust laws to arouse the conscience of the community over the particular injustices.

“Letter from a Birmingham Jail”: Analysis of Historical Figures

In order to analyze “Letter from Birmingham Jail” substantially, historical figures should be reviewed. Dr. King mentions a number of historical figures to support his line of action. In the letter, King points to Jesus, who was branded as an “extremist for love” and subsequently crucified for the same. Paul, an avid follower of Jesus who is credited with the early spreading of the Christian gospel, is also mentioned in the letter. Martin Luther, the German priest who played the main role in standing up against the ancient Roman Catholic Church practices, is also referenced.

Mr. King also refers to John Bunyan, who was imprisoned for his beliefs and willingly stayed in jail other than perverting his conscience. The United States president Abraham Lincoln, whose administration led to the abolishment of slavery, is also referenced in King’s letter. The letter also cites Thomas Jefferson, whose words in the declaration of independence asserted that all men are created equal.

The summary of the letter shows that all of the historical figures that Dr. King refers to were branded as extremists in their time, but as history demonstrates, they were all men of integrity, and their “extremism” brought about necessary change and inspiration to the people.

“Letter from Birmingham Jail”: Conclusion

This paper is set out to analyze the letter to highlight some of significant issues that Dr. King sets out to address. This essay has explained the reasons why King was in Birmingham city, his reasons for advocating the breaking of the law, and the various historical figures with whom Dr. King related. From the critical analysis of Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” provided in this paper, a better understanding of Dr. King’s motives and his reasoning can be reached.