18 December 2015

Martin Luther King Jr. Rhetorical Analysis

            “Letter From Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr is a powerful expression of the pain of racism and the necessity of direct action against its evils.  Written in response to eight Alabama clergymen, who wrote a criticism of King and his nonviolent protests, the letter is an expression of King’s personal convictions as well as a tool of persuasion that he utilizes to prove the righteousness of his methods.  As a result, King utilizes specific language and rhetorical devices to convey his ideas as well as convince his audience of the virtue of his methods.  The most prominently and effectively used of these devices are allusion, anaphora, and the rhetorical question.

            Allusion is employed very effectively by King to both establish credibility and defend his actions and cause.  In in defense of his actions, King argues that “Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us [that] groups tend to be more immoral than individuals” (11).  In referencing Niebuhr, a prominent Christian theologian of the day, King establishes credibility by synthesizing his beliefs with those of a highly respected person.  King also refers to Niebuhr knowing that he is someone who the clergymen to whom he is responding will respect, further establishing the veracity and credibility of his ideas.  King also makes use of allusion to generate understanding of his cause by using historical parallels.  He supports the protesters breaking of laws by arguing that “everything Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’”(70), and that the obligation to follow laws depends on whether they are morally sound.  This comparison to Hitler is intended to make people reconsider their indifference to the civil rights movement by explaining the true horror of racism.  Overall, King’s use of allusions serves to persuade his audience by generating credibility for his beliefs and convincing them of the immorality of not pursuing direct action against racism and hatred.

            King also makes use of powerful anaphora to persuade his audience of the necessity if direct action against racism and segregation.  He explains the heartbreak of “when [people] have seen vicious mobs lynch mothers and fathers at will and drown sisters and brothers at whim;… when [people] find [their] tongue twisted and speech stammering as [they] seek to explain to [their] six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park; … when [they] are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading ‘white’ and ‘colored” (22-33), which demonstrates the pain that segregation causes everyday for so many people.  The effect of the anaphora and parallel structure is an understanding of the accumulation of these things, for the clergymen whom King is addressing do not seem to understand the degree of awfulness that King and non-white people have to endure every day.  The similarity of wording serves to emphasize the compounding of all of these things into something truly horrendous and persuade King’s readers of the true necessity for immediate action against the evils of segregation.  Anaphora is used by King to explain the very real need felt by African Americans for immediate and direct action against racism.

            King draws on rhetorical questions to get his audience to question their own beliefs.  He responds to the criticism that his “actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence”(86-7) by directly questioning his audience, saying “Isn’t this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? … Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because His God-Consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to His will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion?”(87-91)  In asking these questions, King draws parallels between these injustices and the assertion that he promotes violence, which inspires his audience to rethink their own ideas about segregation and injustice.  King also utilizes rhetorical questions to refute the idea that he supports breaking the law, arguing that the law need only be followed if it is just.  He asks readers, “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust?”(50), which is intended to awaken the readers to the fallacy that even unfair laws should be followed.  King expertly employs rhetorical questions to persuade his audience to reconsider their views on segregation and open their minds to his idea of nonviolent protest.

AP English

March 2015

Letter from Birmingham Jail In Class Practice Essay

            In Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, King uses a variety of rhetorical strategies to respond to and rebut the arguments of the eight clergymen that criticized his actions towards racial equality.  These strategies are evident in paragraphs 14-23 of the letter, where King uses logos, appeals to authority, and selective word choice to eloquently voice his opinions. 

            In paragraphs 14-18, King responds the clergymen’s argument that King and his followers were more than willing to break some laws, yet wanted others enforced.  King uses logos to establish his position on this issue, and backs argument with the words of other well known scholars and religious people.  King’s approach to his argument is simple; he begins by establishing what he calls “just” and “unjust” laws, and goes on to explain the difference between the two.  His claims are backed by quotes from Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, two highly esteemed religious people that he knows the clergymen will respect.  As the letter continues, King goes on to explore and refute every possible opposition to his cause.  The phrases “just law” and “unjust law” are repeated a number of times in these paragraphs, and Kings explains many different ways to categorize laws as just or unjust, and contrasts the characteristics of an unjust law- one that “distorts the soul” and “damages the personality”- with those of a just law- one that “uplifts human personality”.  By repeating the idea many times, King is emphasizing how much of a difference between the two there is, and establishes the fact that telling a just law from an unjust one is as simple as telling right from wrong. 

            In paragraphs 20-21, King continues on with his argument and compares his ideals to those of Shadrach, Socrates, and early Christians.  By setting his beliefs on the same level as these, Kings is essentially challenging the clergymen to contradict the beliefs of philosophers and scholars.  In the opening of paragraph 21, King goes as far as to compare his civil disobedience with the actions citizens in Nazi Germany.  Here, King is justifying his argument that not all laws should be followed, and strongly states that if he were in the same situation as those in Nazi Germany, he would have done what is morally right.  By introducing the moral aspect of the laws, King is solidifying his argument and appealing to the emotions of the clergymen he is writing to.

 Towards the middle of paragraph 21, King introduces the topic of the “white moderate” and begins a discussion of how this group of people could have done more to help with King’s cause.  King words his arguments carefully in this section. Instead of attacking the clergymen and mentioning all the terrible things that have happened in the south at this time, King refers to the situation in the south as a “negative peace” that has “disappointed” him for the past few years. By wording his arguments cautiously, King is able to get  his points across, without letting his emotions overwhelm the logic of his argument.  This careful tone continues in paragraph 22, as King further describes how the “white moderate” has been detrimental to the equal rights movement.  In this paragraph, King uses extensive metaphors illustrate how these people truly have “[blocked] the flow of social progress.”

In paragraph 23, King brings his arguments together and uses ethos, pathos and logos to get his points across.  His argument is very well rounded, as he appeals to the emotions of his readers by referencing Jesus’ crucifixion, appeals to logos by asking a series of rhetorical questions, and appeals to ethos by referencing Socrates once again.