The violence shown in the film Mississippi Burning displays one of the most inhumane images. It shows the unconditional hatred by the Caucasian Americans toward the African American people living in Jessup County. Throughout the film, it is suggested by Agent Anderson (a fictional FBI agent) that those involved in the investigation of three missing children needed to use more guttural tactics. This is often referred to as a “do whatever it takes” philosophy. In the film however, Agent Ward is particularly against using such tactics and avidly tries to avoid using them. Agent Anderson finally wins the argument between them and the more aggressive technique eventually prevails. The question that looms however is whether or not it is justifiable to use such hostile tactics. Can one say that because of the violence that culminated against the Black Americans it is okay to deploy the same amount of violence against the aggressors? Philosophers such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry Thoreau have written about such ideas and their concepts can be directly applied to the example presented in Mississippi Burning. Dr. King echoed nonviolent protest even through his greatest struggles. In his “Letter From Birmingham Jail”, King still evoked the want for nonviolence against those who committed acts of injustice. Even though he deplored the actions that the members of the white community were doing, he still stressed the need for a peaceful campaign. “It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.” (King) Dr. King was probably the most outspoken critic of the conditions in the South, mainly be... ... middle of paper ... ...if all peaceful means of solving the crisis at hand are unsuccessful and the resolution of this crisis is of utmost importance, than it is acceptable to use the means necessary to achieve that end. Works Cited Barnett, Horace. Interview by Henry Rask. Personal interview. 20 Nov. 1964. Hornsby Jr., Alton. "Martin Luther King, Jr. "Letter From a Birmingham Jail"." The Journal of Negro History Vol. 71.No. 1/4 (1986): 38-44. Print. King, Wayne. "FILM; Fact vs. Fiction in Mississippi." The New York Times [New York City] 4 Dec. 1988, sec. Movies. The New York Times. Web. 4 Nov. 2013. Thoreau, Henry. "Civil Disobedience." A Yankee in Canada, with Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers (1866): 123-151. Print. ""You Shall Love Your Neighbor As Yourself"." Catechism of the Catholic Church. Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2006. Paragraph 2309. Print.
In “Letter from Birmingham Jail” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. proves that he is well knowledgeable in the happenings in Birmingham. By providing a surplus of examples of events and details which he finds alarming, King was able to persuade the clergymen to like at the way the Negro community is being treated in the south using the appeal to logos, pathos and ethos. He displays his willingness to continue with respect and dignity, but because of the emotional ties that he has towards this cause, he will not remain inactive.
King reminds the reader that racial injustices engulf the community by stating, “Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the united states. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatments in the courts. There have been many bombings of Negro homes and Churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are hard, brutal facts.”
After being arrested in downtown Birmingham on a Good Friday, Reverend Martian Luther King Jr. wrote his famous letter, “A Letter From Birmingham Jail” responding to the criticism demonstrated by eight prominent white clergymen. This letter has been found important through out history because it expresses King’s feelings towards the un-just event and it is an example of a well-written argument.
King, Martin L., Jr. "Letter from Birmingham Jail." Letter to My Dear Fellow Clergymen. 16 Apr. 1963. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the leader of a peaceful movement to end segregation in the United States this mission led him in 1963 to Birmingham, Alabama where officials and leaders in the community actively fought against desegregation. While performing sit-ins, marches and other nonviolent protests, King was imprisoned by authorities for violating the strict segregation laws. While imprisoned King wrote a letter entitled “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, in which he expresses his disappointment in the clergy, officials, and people of Birmingham. This letter employed pathos to argue that the leaders and ‘heroes’ in Birmingham during the struggle were at fault or went against their beliefs.
King and his pro-black organization group presented the essay to argue non-violent actions against the racial discrimination and hatred among the black community residing in Birmingham. The letter was also aimed towards the freedom and equality to not just the black community but also to the white community, to the social, religious and political community. King wanted to address the stress of everyone having freedom and equality. King’s main thesis in writing the Birmingham Letter is that racial discrimination and hatred to the black community is due to the optimism of the white community.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” while most appropriately described as a response to criticism, is not written from a defensive position. While his letter more than aptly provides a functional defense of his actions at Birmingham, it serves more so as a counter-critical rebuttal that both repudiates criticisms of his deeds, and criticizes the reasoning behind said criticisms. Dr. King uses the very denunciative tools used against him, such as assertions of premature action and aggressiveness, as both defense and offense, effectively dismissing any wrong on his part, and elucidating the myopic nature of the white moderates’ reticence. What makes his criticism particularly powerful, besides its solid reasoning, and open publication, is the medium between his logic and the receptivity of his audience: his rhetoric. In his letter, King addresses the accusations of civil disobedience and extremism, and his being encouraged to submit to quietism, but the manner in which these facets are presented by the opposition, distort King’s actual position, proving to be the greatest threat to King’s efforts. King’s ability to overcome these obstacles was not through the use of logic alone, but through the use of rhetorical delivery.
King's main thesis in writing the Birmingham letter is that, racial segregation, or injustice to the black American society, is due to the continuous encouragement of the white American society, particularly the powerful communities in politics and religions. King defends his primary thesis all throughout the length of his letter, and the arguments that he has made to prove that his thesis is true and valid will be the focus of this rhetorical analysis.
When MLK was taken in to custody, he was charged with “parading without a permit”(King), which really means he was doing wrong because it was a parade against segregation. He was holding a peaceful protest on behalf of the people who did not have a voice for themselves, and he was going to stop at nothing to be heard. MLK, while in jail, was receiving criticizing letters from all over about his protest, he never responded to them until he came across one. Eight Alabama clergymen entitled, “A Call For Unity”, which explained that he should be fighting in courts only and not on the street, wrote the letter. When King writes back that taking direct action is the only way to achieve the true civil rights even if it goes against what is morally right.
King, Martin L. "Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]." Letter to Fellow Clergymen. 16
King, Martin Luther Jr. “Letter from the Birmingham jail.” Why We Can't Wait 1963: 77-100.
King, Dr. Martin Luther, Jr. "Letter From A Birmingham Jail." Letter to The Clergymen. 16 Apr. 1963. American Identities. N.p.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005. N. pag. Print
The tone set by Dr. King in the part of the letter where he describes “pent-up resentments and latent frustrations,” and where he recognizes the “vital urge” being suppressed, is very passionate. His passion shines through loud and clear. The way Dr. King feels is, in fact, quite clear throughout the entire letter, yet the overriding sense of reason and logic that anyone can relate to is ever apparent. As he describes the unrest he finds in his community, the community as a whole really; he explains that he did not encourage them to “get rid of your [their] discontent” he instead encouraged them to, “make prayer pilgrimages to city hall;… go on freedom rides,… and try to understand why he [they] must do so”; these quotes from the letter point out the ways Dr....
The demonstrations resulted in the arrest of protesters, including Martin Luther King. After King was arrested in Birmingham for taking part in a peaceful march to draw attention to the way that African-Americans were being treated there, their lack of voter rights, and the extreme injustice they faced in Alabama, he wrote his now famous “Letter from Birmingham.” In order to gain an understanding of King’s purpose for the letter, it is important to begin by explaining “A Call of Unity”, a letter written by a group of white clergymen urging the end to the demonstrations. The letter was published in the Birmingham Post Herald with a copy given to King. The letter made many claims including that the demonstrations were led by outsiders, they were unwise and untimely, and urged the black community to withdraw their support (Carpenter, Durick, Grafman, Hardin, Murray, Ramage, Stallings, & Harmon, 1963)....
“Does the end ever justify the means?” This question is posed after reading The Tragedy of Julius Caesar. In this play, Brutus and the other conspirators murdered Julius Caesar because they thought he was a corrupt leader for the city of Rome. They thought that they were not doing anything wrong because they were doing it for the good of the people. Were their actions indeed for the good of the people, and if so, did that make the murder okay?