After reading King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," I was able to gain a deeper perspective on the basic principles of civil disobedience and the founding ideas of the nonviolence movement led by Martin Luther King, Jr. His words of a just law versus an unjust law clearly supports the invalidity of the segregation laws in Alabama. He explains that "an unjust law is a code that a numerical or
power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding
on itself." King gives a different example that pertains more to the state of the African Americans in the 1960s and writes that "a law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority
that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or
devising the law." Because African Americans were for the most part prevented from registering to vote, they had no way to partake in devising such a law. He argues the irrationality of the segregation law in a legal standpoint by stating that the people who are the most affected by it had no say in the "democratic" process. King further supports his argument using the words of St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all" and the theory of the natural law proposed by St. Thomas Aquinas, which is of the moral standpoint.
Throughout the letter, King's persona is shown to be gracious yet strong and understanding yet indignant. He writes that "I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too
optimistic; perhaps I expected too much." King sees the urgency of the equality of rights for colored people and how the exhausting wait of 340 years for their rights has left the people at a stage of internal degradation. He staunchly states "I
have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling
block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the
Ku Klux Klanner, but the white
moderate, who is
more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace
which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of
justice..." King laments over the fact that even among those who believe in equality and integration, many are refusing to step out of the crowd and stand up for the rights of all due to the perseverance of peace and avoidance of violence. However King does not convey contempt or hatred towards any group of people but towards the institutions of racism, segregation, and inequality.
He shows grace even towards the white church that has failed to assist and support the rights of the colored people. He writes "I came to Birmingham with the hope that the
white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause
and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just
grievances could reach the power structure." However, even after seeing otherwise, King testifies "In
deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured
that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment
where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church."
Similar to Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, the "Letter" contains religious diction and biblical references that is a testament to his background as a reverend. He writes about the struggle of early Christians and their persecution for their beliefs in Jesus Christ who was an "extremist for love". King addresses civil disobedience that was practiced by Shadrach,
Meshach and Abednego. They refused to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar due to a higher moral law they desired to obey, which was of the God of the Israelites in the Old Testament of the Bible.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
A Few More Thoughts on King
I have a few comments and observations from my reading of the "Letter from Birmingham Jail" this afternoon.
Martin Luther King was a brilliant man, and a brilliant strategist. He was also ruthless, in his own way, and was more than willing to use any means at his disposal to ensure that justice was achieved. While he was an outspoken opponent of violence, that didn't stop him from using the violent factions of the civil rights movement as a tool of persuasion and negotiation. For example, in the "Letter," he writes that "I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare." [Emphasis is mine.] That man knew how to make a point.
In this way, King was able to use the extremism of the Black Nationalist movement to gain the cooperation and support of more moderate groups. King successfully painted a picture of even greater tensions and conflict if the establishment failed to act. By doing so, he managed to generate the very sense of urgency that clergymen such as those who composed "A Call for Unity" otherwise lacked.
King was also a great orator. He was skilled in the art of persuasion, and this too is on display in the "Letter." For example, several elements of King's classical education are apparent in his writing. In several places throughout the letter, he borrows techniques from great orators of the past. For example, during his trial, Socrates used a rhetorical technique known as apophasis (also called praeteritio, in which the speaker makes a point by denying that he or she is making that point) when he said that he wouldn't attempt to use his family to gain pity, while at the same time subtly describing in some detail his young sons. Apophasis was also a technique favored by the great orator Cicero, who during his indictment of Catiline said "shortly after you had made room for a new bride by murdering your former wife, did you not compound this deed with yet another crime that defies belief? I do not dwell on this and readily allow it to be glossed over in silence".
In his letter, King uses a sort of modified form of apophasis when he says that "The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history." Functionally, Martin Luther King told moderate whites "it's not a threat, it's a promise," while at the same time denying that he was making a threat at all.
As another example of King's rhetorical skill, when he discusses the label of "extremist" he takes a term which would otherwise be used to dismiss the civil rights movement as unreasonable, even dangerous, and turns it into a positive, saying "though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: [...] Was not Amos an extremist for justice: [...] Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: [...] Was not Martin Luther an extremist: [...] And Abraham Lincoln: [...] And Thomas Jefferson: [...] ."
By the way, the technique of using anaphora (through the repetition of the phrasing "was not ___ an extremist for ___") to systematically validate a label or opinion is fairly iconic. The TV show "The West Wing," for example, strongly recalls King when fictional presidential candidate Matt Santos uses almost the exact same technique to respond to being labeled a liberal (see http://www.whysanity.net/monos/westwing6.html for the quotation and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVdz985HTJk for the video).
Martin Luther King was a brilliant man, and a brilliant strategist. He was also ruthless, in his own way, and was more than willing to use any means at his disposal to ensure that justice was achieved. While he was an outspoken opponent of violence, that didn't stop him from using the violent factions of the civil rights movement as a tool of persuasion and negotiation. For example, in the "Letter," he writes that "I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare." [Emphasis is mine.] That man knew how to make a point.
In this way, King was able to use the extremism of the Black Nationalist movement to gain the cooperation and support of more moderate groups. King successfully painted a picture of even greater tensions and conflict if the establishment failed to act. By doing so, he managed to generate the very sense of urgency that clergymen such as those who composed "A Call for Unity" otherwise lacked.
King was also a great orator. He was skilled in the art of persuasion, and this too is on display in the "Letter." For example, several elements of King's classical education are apparent in his writing. In several places throughout the letter, he borrows techniques from great orators of the past. For example, during his trial, Socrates used a rhetorical technique known as apophasis (also called praeteritio, in which the speaker makes a point by denying that he or she is making that point) when he said that he wouldn't attempt to use his family to gain pity, while at the same time subtly describing in some detail his young sons. Apophasis was also a technique favored by the great orator Cicero, who during his indictment of Catiline said "shortly after you had made room for a new bride by murdering your former wife, did you not compound this deed with yet another crime that defies belief? I do not dwell on this and readily allow it to be glossed over in silence".
In his letter, King uses a sort of modified form of apophasis when he says that "The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history." Functionally, Martin Luther King told moderate whites "it's not a threat, it's a promise," while at the same time denying that he was making a threat at all.
As another example of King's rhetorical skill, when he discusses the label of "extremist" he takes a term which would otherwise be used to dismiss the civil rights movement as unreasonable, even dangerous, and turns it into a positive, saying "though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: [...] Was not Amos an extremist for justice: [...] Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: [...] Was not Martin Luther an extremist: [...] And Abraham Lincoln: [...] And Thomas Jefferson: [...] ."
By the way, the technique of using anaphora (through the repetition of the phrasing "was not ___ an extremist for ___") to systematically validate a label or opinion is fairly iconic. The TV show "The West Wing," for example, strongly recalls King when fictional presidential candidate Matt Santos uses almost the exact same technique to respond to being labeled a liberal (see http://www.whysanity.net/monos/westwing6.html for the quotation and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVdz985HTJk for the video).
King's Dream Today
First, I ought to give a bit of relevant background on myself. As a student growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, one of the most constant aspects of my education has been the civil rights movement. Given the defining role that Birmingham played in the civil rights struggle, our educational system spends a lot of time on the events of the 1960's. Furthermore, because I live in Birmingham, I have met, heard from, and spoken to a number of the men and women who led the civil rights movement in Birmingham and the country at large.
In class today (Wednesday) someone asked about whether Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream has been achieved. I think Professor Pitney's response was spot on: the answer is both yes and no. As someone who grew up in a city famous primarily for being one of the most historically racist places in America, and perhaps the world, I can see clearly tremendous progress, as well as shameful failure, in both Alabama and the nation as a whole. Indeed, I believe that many of King's observations in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" are just as relevant to a discussion of modern race relations as they were when he first began scribbling them in the margins of the newspaper containing the "Call for Unity" of eight white Alabama clergymen.
In the "Letter," Martin Luther King Jr. condemns the inaction of what he refers to as "the white moderates" in the face of injustice, saying that "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate," and that "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." I believe that much of the difficulty in fighting racism today stems from modern "white moderates" who are not themselves actively engaging in racist or discriminatory actions against minorities, but who still impede progress because they (wrongly) are under the impression that racism is either nearly or completely solved. Indeed, in many matters of rights, it seems that "We will have to repent [...] not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people."
This summer, the Daily Show actually had an interesting segment about this very phenomenon, which I think helps to demonstrate the disconnect which makes not just discussions of race, but also attempts to combat racism, more difficult. Here's the link to that segment:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12st63_the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-r-word_fun
In class today (Wednesday) someone asked about whether Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream has been achieved. I think Professor Pitney's response was spot on: the answer is both yes and no. As someone who grew up in a city famous primarily for being one of the most historically racist places in America, and perhaps the world, I can see clearly tremendous progress, as well as shameful failure, in both Alabama and the nation as a whole. Indeed, I believe that many of King's observations in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" are just as relevant to a discussion of modern race relations as they were when he first began scribbling them in the margins of the newspaper containing the "Call for Unity" of eight white Alabama clergymen.
In the "Letter," Martin Luther King Jr. condemns the inaction of what he refers to as "the white moderates" in the face of injustice, saying that "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate," and that "Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." I believe that much of the difficulty in fighting racism today stems from modern "white moderates" who are not themselves actively engaging in racist or discriminatory actions against minorities, but who still impede progress because they (wrongly) are under the impression that racism is either nearly or completely solved. Indeed, in many matters of rights, it seems that "We will have to repent [...] not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people."
This summer, the Daily Show actually had an interesting segment about this very phenomenon, which I think helps to demonstrate the disconnect which makes not just discussions of race, but also attempts to combat racism, more difficult. Here's the link to that segment:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x12st63_the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-r-word_fun
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Lincoln Had a Dream Too: The Role of Lincoln in MLK’s “I Have a Dream” Speech
At first glance, the most striking
aspect of King’s famous speech is his use of tools of rhetoric commonly used by
preachers, particularly in traditional African-American churches. I am referring
to the moments in the speech when King appeals to the listener’s emotions by using
vivid imagery and metaphor. For example, “This is no time to engage in the
luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism” and
“[your] quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and
staggered by the winds of police brutality.” But upon further examination, a
more significant aspect of the speech became apparent to me. Within the first
paragraph of King’s remarks he makes a reference to Lincoln’s Gettysburg
address saying, “Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic
shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation.” This part is
meant to echo Lincoln’s famous quotation, “Four score and seven years ago our
fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” but it
serves a greater purpose than just a stylistic detail.
The first is to establish
significance. By echoing Lincoln’s words, King elevates his own. The audience
is meant to consider King’s speech to be of the same historic and cultural significance
as Lincoln’s. Next, the reference to Lincoln’s speech is meant to embolden a
sense of national allegiance in the audience. In the context of history,
Lincoln’s Gettysburg address is not only inextricably linked to his fight to
preserve the Union but also his fight to establish equality for all citizens.
After the secession crisis in 1860 (in which South Carolina, Mississippi,
Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas seceded) Lincoln made clear that
the goal of the Civil War was not solely the preservation of the Union. So when
Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation he did so with two goals in mind:
the end of slavery and the reunion of the Union.
Why is this important? By
relating his own words to Lincoln’s King allowed his speech to serve as a
historical checkpoint for the nation. The public was forced to recall Lincoln’s words,
ideals and motives behind the Civil War and his signing of the Emancipation
Proclamation. By referencing Lincoln’s speech, it is made clear the progress that had been made
at this point toward Lincoln’s original goal: to establish indisputable
equality for all citizens.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
To everyone who wrote final papers about the elections...
Did any of you predict something like this?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/politics/electoral-college-tie/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/26/politics/electoral-college-tie/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)