From the Birmingham jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a letter in response to a public statement of concern and caution issued by the South. He argues that change can occur through reasonable and nonviolent action. In presenting his argument, he maintains a calm and practical tone, completely invalidating his critics’ point of him causing corruption. I believe that Dr. King utterly disproves his attackers’ argument by addressing each one of their points and demonstrating how they are entirely invalid.
In Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” he explains that, although he rarely responds to criticism, he decided to answer because he found the issuers “men of genuine good will.” He explains that he has been imprisoned for carrying gospel beyond his hometown and describes the four basic steps of any nonviolent action: collection of facts, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action. Birmingham was probably the most segregated city of the United States and the city was engulfed by racial injustice. His work in Birmingham began with negotiating sessions with merchants, who promised to remove humiliating racial signs from store windows. Despite these efforts, King realized that these promises had been broken and the signs were never removed. As a result, there was no alternative but to prepare for direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to establish creative tension in a community that refuses to confront an issue so that the problem will no longer be ignored. Constructive nonviolence is necessary for growth. To achieve justice, there must be tension.
King then goes on to describe the concept of “waiting” that has been associated with African-American civil rights: “‘…justice too long delayed is justice denied.' We have waited for more than three hundred and forty years for our God-given and constitutional rights.” Those who have never suffered the humiliation and anguish of segregation can easily tell those who do to “wait.” However, without action, this “wait” will become “never.” Thus, there is a misconception of time. It is assumed that African Americans will one day receive equal rights, so there is no sense of urgency. However, without that sense of urgency, equality can never be achieved: “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” If African Americans never revolted the unjust laws of American society, segregation would still be alive today. Therefore, direct action is necessary to change society.
King then describes that there are two types of laws: just and unjust: “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law… All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority… An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself.” Segregation, therefore, is an unjust law because only white Americans were allowed to vote. Thus, a majority has inflicted a law upon a minority that had no say in the matter. King closes his argument by illustrating his disappointment with the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice. He also explains his disappointment with the white church. King thought leaders of the white church would be allies; however, they have become outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement.
Dr. King’s rhetorical style paired with his rational and reasoned tone help to convey his main point: that change can occur in a sensible, nonviolent fashion. Throughout the letter, he embraces a calm and logical quality while also expressing a passionate and well-constructed argument. Throughout his letter, King directly responds to questions and statements that the clergymen pose in their criticism. He makes clear, concise points that explain his reasons for each decision he makes: “You spoke of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist… Was not Jesus an extremist in love? -- ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.’ Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?… Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist? -- ‘This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.’ Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist? -- ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’” King directly addresses the clergymen and turns their argument on its head by arguing that the greatest men in history were extremists who positively changed our society. His diction is very convincing and the examples he uses are very successful in presenting his argument. When describing the concept of “waiting,” he includes specific examples of how white Americans can not understand the struggles of segregation: “…when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she cannot go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television…when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son asking in agonizing pathos, ‘Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?’” These examples explicitly convey why segregation should not be voted upon by those who do not have to suffer the consequences. Including examples of innocent African American children who must endure segregation, King successfully conveys the cruelty and injustice of the time. King closes his argument by mentioning that if he has said anything that is an “understatement of the trust” or of “unreasonable patience,” he begs for forgiveness. He includes this statement in his closing remarks because he is well aware that he has presented his argument in a reasonable and logical disposition. It also enforces that Dr. King is the furthest thing from aggressive or violent, even when addressing a topic that he has dedicated his life to.
I believe that Dr. King completely discredits his opposers’ arguments. He rationally and directly addresses their complaints and negative remarks and proves that they are utterly inaccurate. He does so without condemning or reprimanding these men but even maturely agrees with some of their arguments and offers another way of looking at the facts. His tone throughout the entirety of the letter, although passionate, remains composed and non confrontational. I believe that Martin Luther King Jr. is very successful in proving that his work is completely justifiable, and he effectively disproves his critics without harsh remarks or losing his rational and reasoned tone.
No comments:
Post a Comment