In the speech adapted from Martin Luther King's "Beyond Vietnam - A Time to Break Silence" Martin Luther King verbosely deems American involvement in the Vietnam War as unjust. To strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of his argument: King uses vivid language, while constantly appealing to the listener's emotions using anecdote like stories to draw out a mellifluous argument. Martin Lither king uses vivid language in his introduction to start appealing to the listener's emotions. In the introduction, King talks about Vietnam's endless sate for soldiers by describing it as a "demonic destructive suction tube." King could just have stated that the war in Vietnam demanded more soldiers to be sent. However, he uses language to incite the rage within listeners, making a driven emotional statement. Because of his use of vivid language here, King is rousing feelings of anger in listeners …show more content…
In the conclusion, King talks about what the involvement in the ware might bring for America. He says: "If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam." King argues says that America will die and be "totally poisoned". Furthermore, by implying that the autopsy must read Vietnam, he is condemning the correlation between the two parties and America's involvement in the war. Throughout his speech, King uses stories to connect with the emotions of the listener's instead of using cold hard facts. Firstly, he tugs at listener's heart strings by talking about the progress the country was making in their poverty program, in addition, he connects this to race and how things were doing well for that subject in particular. Using a story, he emotionally appeals to readers and gets them hooked on the success the country was having. Then he turns around and blames the failure of that success on the involvement in the war. Turning the people against
In 1971, John Kerry stood in front of the Senate and spoke about his experiences in Vietnam as a soldier. There would be many that would agree with his position, some that would disagree and ultimately some that had no strong opinion at all. John Kerry knew that although he was speaking to the senate he was also speaking to the American people and through his intentional way of speaking he used this to his advantage. In John Kerry’s speech, strongly opposing the Vietnam War, Kerry successfully uses his persona as one who experienced the war head on, to reveal the lack of morality in Vietnam and paint the war as barbaric acts with no true purpose behind them.
Lawrence’s purpose in writing this book was concise and to the point. In recent history, due to the fall of the Soviet bloc, new information has been made available for use in Vietnam. As stated in the introduction, “This book aims to take account of this new scholarship in a brief, accessible narrative of the Vietnam War… It places the war within the long flow of Vietnamese history and then captures the goals and experiences of various governments that became deeply embroiled in the country during the second half of the twentieth century” (Lawrence, 3.) This study is not only about the American government and how they were involved in the Vietnam conflict, but highlights other such countries as France, China, and the Soviet Union. Lawrence goes on to say that one of his major goals in writing this book is to examine the American role in Vietnam within an international context (Lawrence, 4.) Again, this goes to show that the major purpose of Lawrence’s study included not only ...
The Vietnam War is one of the most controversial issues in American history. It is no secret that the American public was not in favor of this war, which is why the government’s decision to keep the US involved for over ten years created such a disconnect between America’s people and their government. In the third verse the Temptations sing, “People all over the world are shouting 'End the war.'” The Temptations bravely attack the government, addressing their continuation of a war no one wants. Although The Temptations avoid explicitly naming the war, or the government as the guilty party, it is evident that this is a criticism, or at least an acknowledgement of a predicament America found itself in.
Tim O’Brien’s book, The Things They Carried, portrays stories of the Vietnam War. Though not one hundred percent accurate, the stories portray important historical events. The Things They Carried recovers Vietnam War history and portrays situations the American soldiers faced. The United States government represents a political power effect during the Vietnam War. The U. S. enters the war to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam. The U.S. government felt if communism spreads to South Vietnam, then it will spread elsewhere. Many Americans disapproved of their country’s involvement. Men traveled across the border to avoid the draft. The powerful United States government made the decision to enter the war, despite many Americans’ opposition. O’Brien’s The Things They Carried applies New Historicism elements, including Vietnam history recovery and the political power of the United States that affected history.
	The novel illuminates light on the situation not just during the Vietnam era, but also rather throughout all history and the future to come. Throughout mankind’s occupation of earth, we have been plagued by war and the sufferings caused by it. Nearly every generation of people to walk this earth have experienced a great war once in their lifetimes. For instance, Vietnam for my father’s generation, World War 2 for my grandfather’s, and World War 1 for my great-grandfather’s. War has become an unavoidable factor of life. Looking through history and toward the future, I grow concerned over the war that will plague my generation, for it might be the last war.
Vietnam was a highly debated war among citizens of the United States. This war was like no other with regards to how it affected people on the home front. In past war’s the population of the United States mainly supported the war and admired soldiers for their courage. During the Vietnam War, citizens of the U.S. had a contradictory view then in the past. This dilemma of not having the support of the people originates from the culture and the time period. During this time period it would be the fourth time Americans went to war in that century which made it tough for Americans to give their supportS (Schlesinger 8). Most Americans did not know why the country was getting involved in Vietnam as well as what the United States’ agenda was. This dilemma ties into the short story, “On the Rainy River” which is a passage from Tim O’Brien’s book The Things They Carried.
By using emotions, King is allowed to share his background of suffering to provide a better understanding for the
The American public knew about Martin Luther King long before they had ever heard about the war in Vietnam. King was associated with the war in Vietnam only after accomplishing his finest civil rights works, and after US involvement in Vietnam was already nine years old. They met in 1965, and battled each other until King's death in 1968. By 1965 King saw a federal voter rights bill passed for minorities, had national financial support, and even gained the backing of President Johnson himself. We all know Martin Luther King Jr. as the man who helped desegregate America, as a great civil rights leader. But seldom do we know King as the outspoken anti-war advocate that he was by the end of his life. The government and the media are careful to step away from King's views on the Vietnam War. Some say that speaking out was the biggest mistake of King's life and career. In terms of public support and popularity, King's critics are right to say that it was a mistake to speak against Vietnam. However, King's life and work are evidence that popularity was never his goal. King was justified both in speaking out against the war and in his reasons for opposing it; the things that made him a great civil rights leader were the things that compelled him to speak out against the war.
When the Vietnam War was heating up, he tried his very best to keep his words very straightforward and honest. He used pathos in his speech through the usage of the phrases, “a celebration of freedom,” and, “forge against these enemies.” By using these phrases, instead of making the war a task for the people, he made it out as saving the country for the people and for their kids. It wasn’t just a "go and fight," but more of a "go, win, and when you come back enjoy what you have accomplished. " Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country.”
King peacefully pleads for racial tolerance and the end of segregation by appealing to the better side of white Americans. His attempt to persuade America about the justice of his cause, and to gain support for the civil rights movement, was emotionally moving. He spoke to all races, but his rhetoric was patriotic, and culturally similar to, and focused on African-Americans. He was able to make practical use of a history many Americans are proud of. The use of repetition reinforced his words, making it simpler and more straightforward to follow.
In the beginning of his Beyond Vietnam speech, King recalled that “there were experiments, hopes, and new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of society gone mad on war” (6). By using such descriptive language that appeals to one of our five senses, sight, King was able to help the American people paint an image of the jubilant road that the United States was presumptively heading and then crushed, when it became involved with the Vietnam War. Furthermore, King adds that sending US troops to fight the war was not only devastating the hopes of the poor at home, but it is equivalent as “sending their sons their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population” (15). King’s usage of various descriptors provided insightful imagery, which allows his audience to picture as if they were the ones who actually sent their own loved ones to war. Martin Luther King Jr.’s use of appealing to the feeling of pity, anger, and sadness to strengthen and refine his
King uses in his speech is Pathos, which is the appeal to someone 's emotions or beliefs. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. presented a strong feeling towards African-American people about how they were treated as equal individuals “But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination” (King par. 3). Another example of pathos that Dr. King used was when he uses vocabulary and phrases, such as “I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream” (King par. 12). He uses the appeal of emotion, especially the word of choice and diction to let his audience’s know what he would like to see in the
On the fourth of April in 1967, Michael King Jr, also known as Martin Luther King Jr, spoke to the American public in the speech titled Beyond Vietnam—A Time to Break Silence. Throughout this speech, King addressed a conflict that occurred during the late 1960’s which was extremely controversial; the Vietnam War. In the speech King detailed his position on the war and particularly discussed why he was against fighting in Vietnam. King utilized many rhetorical devices in order to explain the reasons why he was against this armed conflict. The rhetorical devices that are utilized the most in the speech is specifically logos and anecdotes. Through the use of rhetorical devices, King thrived in convincing his audience into believing that entering the war was a tragic mistake. In the speech, King used many anecdotes and logos to strengthen the persuasiveness of his argument in order to lead the audience into believing the reasons of why the war was negative.
In Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream speech, King makes use of an innumerable amount of rhetorical devices that augment the overall understanding and flow of the speech. King makes the audience feel an immense amount of emotion due to the outstanding use of pathos in his speech. King also generates a vast use of rhetorical devices including allusion, anaphora, and antithesis. The way that King conducted his speech adds to the understanding and gives the effect that he wants to rise above the injustices of racism and segregation that so many people are subjected to on a daily basis. Throughout King’s speech, he uses the rhetorical mode, pathos, to give the audience an ambience of strong emotions such as sympathy.
King begins his speech by referencing important historical documents such as the Constitution of the United States and the Emancipation Proclamation. This is emphasized when he states, ”Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation...But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free”. Which shows how even though the Emancipation Proclamation freed the African Americans from slavery, they still are not free because of segregation. He then transitions to the injustice and suffering that the African Americans face. He makes this