Martin Luther King Jr’s approach to civil rights and equality was non-violent protesting, sit-ins, and getting as much people together as possible while not using violence. However, Malcolm X’s approach to this was almost the opposite. He was against the views of whites and he was willing to do whatever was needed to achieve
Hale is worried that innocent people are being accused, but he also feels obligated to agree with the court. He then explains how “no crack in a fortress may be accounted small” (II.573-574.) after John could not remember his last commandment. Meaning that Puritans should be perfect, and any small crack in their faith makes them susceptible to going against their religion. Hale does not want to turn against his religion, so he continues to agree with the court, whereas more innocent people are being accused and hanged.
It all happened so fast that’s an example of pathos since he used a story and emotional impact. Eli Wiesel made sure he expressed his claim throughout his speech he showed that we shouldn’t divide others due to their race, religion, or political views. He also believed violence is not the answer and we should act on more peaceful solutions. Eli states that “violence is not the answer. Terrorism is the most dangerous of answers.
However, Thoreau was protesting the nature of government. He saw no difference between the state, the local and the federal government. Rosenwald points out that, while the state of Massachusetts was against slavery, their law enforcement and court system enforced the Fugitive Slaw law by not preventing the return of slaves to the southern states. This was the type of thinking that ultimately leads Northerners to the action that a Civil War was necessary to resolve the slavery issue. Thoreau’s basis for civil disobedience is not to separate oneself from the government but to influence the government to serve the better interests of society.
King shows his message by recommending, “We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.” Additionally, he believed that one should not exhaust their efforts on violence. King also made clear that it may take some time to gain equality; however, they need to stay strong as stated in the his speech, “No, no we are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” King’s speech affected his audience greatly by showing off his ardor and ability to relate to others.
He claims “If we want to make progress, we must not repeat history, but make new history”. In the past, in order for citizens to go against their government, violent acts, such as war, were sought out. For example, the civil war was a violent war that fought issues such as slavery and unions. However, Gandhi does not believe violent disobedience,
“I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation, I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors” (“Civil Disobedience”). Henry David Thoreau was a man who was marvelous at contradicting himself. He says he does not want to make himself seem superior to others, but all the man does is patronize others who do not think or act as he does. The man preaches individuality, but one cannot truly be an individual; all the ideals that someone come up with and follow, it is almost promised someone else has already thought of it. The simple act of trying to have someone follow the way another think and live, which is what Thoreau spent most of his life doing, is in fact stripping them from their own
Football players should not be punished for their opinion and issue in which they protest in the United States because it brings awareness to society issues, use social status, and even though people disagree that the protest should not happen during the National Anthem. However, it the best time to show the fans what issues they are protesting. This act of protest is nothing new to America, but it has only just become an outrage due, to the involvement of the president and many other average citizens that claim it to be an unfit way to protest. The first instance of this act dates all the way back to World War II, when the Supreme Court voted down a demand that the flag should be saluted during the Pledge of Allegiance (Sachs 1). Then time goes by until 1996 when basketball star Abdul-Rauf was suspended for the length of one game, due to him refusing to stand for the national anthem for a religious purpose.
Martin Luther King’s historic I Have a Dream speech has a similar goal to Atticus Finch’s closing argument in the book To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Both speeches use rhetorical devices along with ethos, pathos, and logos to support and defend their points of view in the situations in which they exist. Through each of their wording and literary methods, they defend racial equality for their fellow humans. Both Martin Luther King and Atticus Finch have similar styles over conveying their views. King uses logos while referencing the injustice of the unfair treatment between racial minorities in the United States.
Although Malcom X was very forceful and to the point with his speech, “Ballot or the Bullet,” the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. eloquently displayed his point of view and tone in “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Both men addressed the injustices in the social degradation, political oppression, and economic exploitation of blacks in America. Quite possibly, their life experiences and sense of morality played a role in determining their point of view, and therefore, their tone. Advocators of King believe that Martin Luther King’s tone and point of view was much more thought out and spoken better than Malcolm X’s. The success of Martin Luther King’s peaceful movement against discrimination and injustice towards African Americans owes much
Martin Luther King Martin Luther King harped on civil disobedience for any moral arguments. Treating citizens differently based on skin color was nefarious, King wished to speak out to change but insisted on non-violent acts to do so. He expressed his thoughts in the “I Have a Dream” speech publically in a passive fashion. This passionate, positive and encouraging speech flourished King’s views and changed the American government’s unjust laws. Although, King did not use destructive force to get his point across, he did break some laws.
Edward R. Murrow takes the issue of Mccarthism and we the people should not be driven by fear. Fear that causes accusations is not proof. He talks about how people let fear instill inside them. He also goes after macarthism and not actions of mccarthy himself. Andy Rooney takes his a stand on the issue of swearing on television.
Luther made it clear that he did not condone the rebellion and he was not to be faulted for the peasants misconceiving his works as an encouragement to rebel. Luther also tried to steer the reformation from violence and even took criticism for his harsh words against the
Since he is talking to an entirely different audience where his religious beliefs may not be in-line theirs, it wouldn’t be ideal to discuss their different beliefs and instead uses Kairos to infuse his argument with logos to convince the audience of the problems with segregation and the necessity to fight for equality. Malcolm X discusses how they don’t have civil rights which were pertinent in the lives of all the audience and allows them to relate to the time and logically leads to supporting his ideas against segregation. Malcolm X denounces the actions of the white population, without any attempts to appeal to them; his approach to the civil rights issue is in complete opposition to the tactics of other civil rights leaders of his time, such as MLK. Rather than trying to integrate the black community into the white, he focused on the complete reconstruction between the two populations: he didn 't want the African-Americans to integrate into the white hotels; he wanted African-Americans to own the hotels. He believed that it was entirely necessary for the black population to break the psychological, cultural, economic, and political dependency of their oppressors.
Dr. Loury speaks with no circumscription against his opponents. Therefore, he tries to influence the emotions of the reader by using an accusatory tone when referring to his critics ' ideas as "dangerous." Loury (2013) effectively uses the device of metaphor to help his readers understand his argument when he says, "One could use a color-blind instrument to pursue racial goals and color-conscious instruments to pursue goals that are not necessarily racially defined" (p. 347). Loury doesn 't believe that color-blind policies can guarantee racial equality. But, can 't they?