Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X were both powerful African American figures in history who spoke on the issue of discrimination against blacks and equal rights. While Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X were both advocates for African Americans and had similar goals, they preached opposing methods, ideas and beliefs. Martin Luther King, a christian man, passionately upheld the idea of seeking freedom through nonviolent actions, depicted in his speech ‘I have a Dream’. Malcolm X practiced ideas which were inspired by the Muslim teachings and condoned fighting back and ‘playing fire with fire’ which he portrays in “The Ballot or the Bullet” speech. Despite their disagreements, ultimately, Martin and Malcolm both aimed for freedom and equal rights in America but their beliefs, methods, and deliveries were different.
Civil Disobedience Compare and Contrast Henry Thoreau and Martin Luther King both wrote persuasive discussions that oppose many ideals and make a justification of their cause, being both central to their argument. While the similarity is obvious, the two essays, Civil Disobedience by Thoreau and Letter from a Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr. do have some similarities. King tries persuading white, southern clergymen that segregation is an evil, unfair law that ought to defeat by use of agitation of direct protesting. Thoreau, on the other hand, writes to a broader, non-addressed audience, and focuses more on the state itself. He further accepts it at its current state, in regard to the battle with Mexico and the institution of slavery.
One of the most influential figures during the height of the 1960’s civil rights movement was Malcolm X. In contrast to the pacifist political approach of Martin Luther King Jr., X advocated for protest by means of violence. On April 3, 1964 in Cleveland, Ohio, X delivered his powerful and compelling speech The Ballot or the Bullet, in which he explains to black Americans the necessity of using violence to gain basic rights. X supports this assertion with false choice to narrow the audience’s choice of action to two things, the use of various forms of repetition to place emphasis on details of his argument, specific pronouns and pronoun shifts to connect with and involve the audience, rhetorical questions to force the audience to examine the
In a society where one’s country has the ability to enforce the seclusion of the “equal and unalienable rights” of its people based on the color of their skin is one in which change has to be demanded. Having to be constantly petrified of the idea of walking down the street due to the possibility of being lynched by the Ku Klux Klan and the constant stigmatism of the “Jim Crow Laws” provoked Martin Luther King Jr. to fight for this change. Consequently, Martin Luther King Jr., an American Baptist minister and leader of the civil rights movement, impressively delivered his prominent “I Have a Dream” speech. His passion was not only noticeably demonstrated on the day he delivered his ideas, but also on the written words that can be seen today. In this work, Dr. King effectively uses the rhetorical appeal, Pathos, with his implementation of anaphora, parallelism and metaphors.
The people of America have been grappling with the problem of racism since the colonial times. With the development of the Civil Rights Movement, many leaders and figureheads have taken upon themselves the idea of unifying the black race and helping them gain equality in their own personal ways. Recently, the country is witnessing the rise of Malcolm X while as he works with a rather aggressive approach to get the black community their well-deserved rights. In ‘Not just an American problem, but a world problem’, a recently given speech by Malcolm X, he has openly accused the colored communities of manipulating the media with their tactics of ‘image making’ and hence, playing a very significant role in undermining the position of the black race.
Many people listen to him and use him as a source of hope to fight against racial issues. He is a symbol to African Americans as Wapshott stated, "Africans found a particularly poignant message in King’s plea for racial tolerance and his declaration that “the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination.” " His speech put forth the harsh realities African Americans face and wants to fight against them. King realizes that his people are wrongly treated and that they should not be put into separate schools and bathrooms just because of the color of one's skin. The beauty of King's speech is that he did not incite violence to fight against the horrible treatment of African Americans as he explained, "Since being in India, I am more convinced than ever before that the method of nonviolent resistance is the most potent weapon available to
with protest, organizing, and together (unity) will bring about social change and justice. The two (2) speeches of Malcolm X and Savio were delivered to different types of audiences and both speeches dissimilar in pretexts and meaning. Malcolm X articulated how essential it was for African Americans to demand a resolve for the racial and discriminatory laws and social injustices in America. Government and its operatives were malevolence in its intent and obligations: they must exit to uphold racism and unfair practices.
In the reading Just Walk on By by Brent Staples, the topic of racial stereotypes surfaces from the man who gets racially profiled quite often as he explains his personal experiences. The author bluntly tries to pass the message that racially judging people is wrong and explaining how it makes the other party ,african americans, feel. When analyzing Staples’ message his rhetorical strategies play a huge role into how his message is perceived. He uses influential diction allowing each word to give an impact unmatched by any white man who tried to convey a black man’s thought process. Staples also appeals to his credibility with the obvious observation that he is a black man talking about his real life experiences.
His “check” metaphor is an accurate representation of the false promises made to the American people. The check in his metaphor is the promise of inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness made by the Constitution. The American people turned in this “check” and had it returned marked “insufficient funds.” This represents the equality denied to black individuals by the US. This metaphor was empowered to even greater heights by Dr. King making it relatable to his audience.
From his bragging in the ring, to his adopted religion and criticism of the war and government, Ali challenged the status quo. Ali additionally served as an inspiration for other black people to challenge the establishment. Despite his relentless nature in the ring, Ali sustained peace in the world. In 1990, during the Gulf War, Ali met with then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to negotiate for the release of American hostages.
He talks about the history of the civil rights movement and how it had changed in the mid-1960s after the with the quote “The 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 voting rights act were, on one level, admission of guilt by American society.” (Steele 455)And mentioning the Rodney King verdict to give the effect of why and how the diversity changed. The quote is a good persuasive mechanism because it is an example of the history Steele employed to also gain his credibility with his audience and persuades them in particular because it is about the minority and the change thereof. The quote is used in his article because both groups knew they had wronged and been wronged with the admittance of and the laws passed because of it, and stating that the past is why the programs are the way they are today. Steele’s reasoning behind the use of these historical facts are to show to the people currently under the collective entitlements of how and why they were formed giving him credibility as an author, and to persuade them since he is credible to move away from the collective entitlements and to change the programs to be fair for all .
Former U.S Congressman, Robert H. Clancy, in his article, An “Un-American Bill”, establishes his opinion on the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924. Clancy’s purpose is to persuade that the Immigration Act is racist and Un-American. He creates a passionate tone in order to show his readers the ugly truth behind what the Johnson-Reed Act is doing. Clancy supports his argument of the injustice and racial discrimination of the Johnson-Reed Act , by appealing to the readers emotions with his personal anecdotes and by providing facts of all the good things that immigrants do for society and America as a whole.
Uniquely, they ask questions, and then provide strong evidence to support their opinions on the matter or the claim. The tone of this book is mainly critical, the author introduces possible arguments to answer the questions at hand, and continues by refuting them and explaining why they are incorrect. In chapter 3, “How Is the Ku Klux Klan like a Giant Group Of Real-Estate Agents?” Levitt and Dubner mainly use the rhetorical strategy, pathos, when talking about the Ku Klux Klan because what person can disagree with someone proving how terrible a multi-state terrorist organization who’s purpose was to frighten and kill black people in the United States was? The answer is simple, no one, because most people have morals and are disgusted by what the Ku Klux Klan did.
The four basic steps in campaign nonviolence by Martin Luther King are negotiation, self-purification, direct action and perception of the facts to determine if injustice is alive. On the Selma movie it is beautiful, the injustice abuse of those times found in African races loss of their human rights family love!! But being a little more accurate this film from my analytical point presents the struggle for civil rights as a political game calculated to the millimeter. No lack of ideological and strategic discussions that enhance the speech of social change Martin Luther King, whose pragmatic dye is manifested not only in scenes discussion with his colleagues and opponents (the talks with President Lyndon Johnson are remarkable for the intelligence
Colin Kaepernick who stayed seated during the play of “The Star Spangled Banner,” because he didn’t want to stand up and show pride for a country that oppresses black and colored people. Which caused a lot of political and ethical controversy if he was wrong or right. Did he enter in the right time? What I believe is that Kaepernick did the right thing at the right time because he had the right intension as to why he refused to stand up during the national anthem.