Recently you have received a letter from Martin Luther King Jr. entitled “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” In Dr. King’s letter he illustrates the motives and reasoning for the extremist action of the Civil Rights movement throughout the 1960’s. In the course of Dr. King’s letter to you, he uses rhetorical questioning and logistical reasoning, imagery and metaphors, and many other rhetorical devices to broaden your perspectives. I am writing this analysis in hopes you might reconsider the current stance you have taken up regarding the issues at hand.
Rights have been emphasized as fundamental building blocks of the social order of society. These are both moral/ legal norms, which are aimed at protecting people from various forms of abuse. The idea of human rights is often taken for granted, these human rights fall into two categories; legal and moral. When looking at rights one must consider, whether we have rights, what these rights are, where they come from, what it means to have rights and whether or not they are timeless or context specific. On top of this there are two types of rights that will be looked at in relation to gay rights and others in this essay, these are the Utilitarian idea and the Natural idea.
Martin Luther King Jr. is considered to be one of the most prominent human rights’ defenders of the XX century and the speaker for non-violent social change. He believed that building power is the most important task facing movements for human progress because the human progress comes through the tireless efforts of people, who should use powerful and true weapon – non-violence – in order to achieve positive effects. King managed to achieve brilliant success in the battle for the liberty of blacks and not pour the way to freedom by rivers of blood.
The book “1984” by George Orwell is a fictional work that was penned as a discourse on Orwell’s views of what it would be like to live in a totalitarianism society. It is my belief that his views were based on his personal life experiences as he witnessed first hand many of the violent crimes perpetuated by those in positions of authority. Often, these crimes against one segment of society were carried out by other members of the same society in the name of political advancement or at other times out of fear for one’s life. Due to his experiences, Orwell began to write of his hatred of political power and the concept of a totalitarianism society. “1984” serves as a warning to readers of how a government can become abusive when seeking total control of it’s population. Furthermore, it showcases in great detail how a society can allow itself to be controlled through a series of psychological abuses and manipulation of historical information.
One of George Orwell’s most significant goals as a writer was to receive recognition for his works. Orwell achieved his aim by projecting his political perspectives into fictional works such as 1984 and Animal Farm. His position against totalitarianism is strongly evident throughout his novels and even today Orwell’s works still seem relevant because of the fear of totalitarian governments perpetuated by the media and the recent democratic uprisings in the Middle East against dictatorial regimes. In this essay, I argue that Orwell’s reasons for writing, as he outlines them in his essay “Why I Write,” is to seek literary fame and he found that through incorporating political commentary into his writing; in doing so, Orwell successfully turns his political thoughts into a form of art. Using 1984 and D. J. Taylor’s article “Left, Right, Left, Right,” I will also discuss briefly how Orwell’s novels can apply to contemporary political situations.
...a. Stalin in Russia, Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy all attempted to create a world where everything was controlled by a supreme ruler; there were no rights extended to the citizens of Oceania. To counter every such attempt to create a dystopia, the world gathered and fought as one, so that natural rights can be returned to the citizens, and spread humanity. The fight to create a united and equal civilization is far from over, all over the world these natural rights are snatched from innocent people, in the name or caste, religion, gender and age, to achieve power. George Orwell left an important warning for the future generations, to stand against injustice. It is the duty of every individual to ensure that every civil liberty, included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in truly extended to one and all.
“Human rights are not worthy of the name if they do not protect the people we don’t like as those we do”, said Trevor Phillips, a British writer, broadcaster and former politician. Since the day of human civilization and human rights are found. No one can argue against the idea that God created us equal, but this idea have been well understood and known after the appearance of many associations that fight for human rights as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that showed up in 1948. Human rights are those rights that every person, without exceptions, is born with. They are the most important human basic needs because no one can live a decent appropriate life without having those rights as a human. In fact, these rights
George Orwell’s horrifying novel entitled 1984 sets out what the end result of a totalitarian society may be. Orwell takes examples of inhumanity from past and existing totalitarian societies and shows the extremes that can be attained by the use of an all–embracing regime. Orwell accomplishes a sense of claustrophobia and inhumanity through a variety of literary techniques, his careful choice of language and by creating images in ones mind of this dull, intangible, sadistic world.
The two essays, "Civil Disobedience," by Henry David Thoreau, and "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," by Martin Luther King, Jr., effectively illustrate the authors' opinions of justice. Each author has his main point; Thoreau, in dealing with justice as it relates to government, asks for "not at once no government, but at once a better government. King contends that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Both essays offer a complete argument for justice, but, given the conditions, King's essay remains more effective, in that its persuasive techniques have more practical application. Both essays extensively implement both emotional and ethical appeal to give their respective ideas validity.
Every day, people are denied basic necessary human rights. One well known event that striped millions of these rights was the Holocaust, recounted in Elie Wiesel’s memoir, Night. As a result of the atrocities that occur all around the world, organizations have published declarations such as the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights. It is vital that the entitlement to all rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, freedom of thought and religion, and the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being of themselves be guaranteed to everyone, as these three rights are crucial to the survival of all people and their identity.
In the speeches The Perils of Indifference by Elie Wiesel and On Women’s Right to Vote by Susan B. Anthony, there is a common theme. Rights, whether human or civil, justifiably belong to every person. All people, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity, should be afforded the same human rights.
Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.’s essay “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience” has two main features. The first feature of King’s essay is a call for action; action to bring about change. The second feature, the more easily viewed feature of this essay is a call for a specific type of action to bring about a specific type of change. The change King wishes to bring about is a peace and equality brought about through non-violent actions.
According to Hannah Arendt, “The Declaration of the Rights of Man at the end of the eighteenth century was a turning point in history”. (Arendt, 290). She begins her thesis by making this affirmation. However, throughout her essay, she further develops the idea that this “Declaration of the Rights of Man” has been questioned ever since then, because of the fact that these human rights don’t really appear to be implemented over a numerous amount of human beings. This “turning point” which Arendt refers to, indicates that when human rights were first conceived, they stated that only the nation worked as the law, and neither the divine law nor anything else had power over them. This was the moment when control over these rights was lost, since there is a deficiency in the precision of who really has the rule of law over them, if not even the human authorities have been able to manage the “universality” they are supposed to express. Hannah Arendt’s explanation on the human rights article called “The