Both of the speeches, Martin Luther King's and Cesar Chavez', are powerful peices and communicate one vision: equality. King and Chavez have two very different styles of writing but the message from both is simmilar. for example both king and chavez discuss how their people are discriminated against because of their skin color, and how their people have neither the right to vote in the the south, nor the will to vote in the north , and in Chavez' situation, to have their vote counted. however similar their message's may be, their writing styles are different. Chavez talks about statistics, about why and how his people are treated. king held that the atrocitys commited against his people were self evident and as such did not need to be proved to anyone. kings message was meant to encompass the entire Uninted States while Chavez' was directed primarily at California.
Throught the history of the uninted states it has been plagued with racism and prejudice. M.L.K and C.C were the two most outspoken opponents to the injustice that they saw on a daily basis. mlk said that it was "time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood". both ceasar and martin recognized a need for change and were brave enough to seek change. indeed in 1968 Dr. King sent a message to Chavez which said "Our separate struggles are really one. A struggle for freedom, for dignity, and for humanity." These mens cause was one and the same. these men were intamently connected, in fact chavez said that they were "Dr. King's disciples". you could no more have chavez without king than you could have ghandi without the imperialism. both men felt that their people were being robbed of there dignity. cesar chavez said that the most important thing to him was the "recognition of workers' dignity". "We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating "For Whites Only"." was how mlk stated their dissatisfaction with the inequality.
Even though their message was incredibly similar, their writing style was vastly different. for example, Chavez talked in a especially concrete sense. he gave specific examples and statistics to support his opinion wihle mlk spoke on a very idealistic level with no real support in his speech. this difference might be because of there different backgrounds.
Utilizing paradox, Chavez describes the effectiveness of nonviolent protest to his audience. Recalling the achievements of MLK, Chavez claims that King “learned how to successfully fight hatred and violence with the unstoppable power of nonviolence.” This quote demonstrates
In the speech that Cesar chavez presented himself at a mexican american celebration conference talks about of how he sees the church and mexican americans together. Also Chavez was committed to carry out his movement with no violence toward the crowd who doubted him and movement, but others did try violence on them and did not succeed on bring them down. He also had brought this speech towards the public during his 25 days of spiritual fast and had talked about mexican americans and the church and how they are related.Using imagery,metaphors,and repetition, Chavez hoped his speech would bring people together through rough times using the church and their faith to give them hope for a better future.
In the article, published on the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez invokes the ideas of Dr. King and advocates for nonviolent resistance. Utilizing a determined tone throughout, he asserts that nonviolence will accomplish the goals of civil rights activists. By using contrasting diction to distinguish nonviolent action and violent action, he is able to reason for nonviolent virtues. With the use of rhetorical strategies, Chavez is able to drive his argument for nonviolent resistance.
However, the essay he wrote about his method inspired many other people and still inspires people today. Equally important, King’s essay wanted to help people “...find you strong in the faith,” King and Thoreau had somewhat similar outcomes, with their essays or speeches, but Martin Luther King ended up having a greater impact and eventually end segregation. Not only King, but Smith and Carlos made a stand a showed a point of what they believed in. All of the protesters mentioned ended up making an impact, which was the point of their
In order to better understand why King and X took the course of action each took, one must take into account a little bit of their background. Martin Luther King jr., was born in Atlanta, Georgia into a middle-class family. The church was his source of leadership development and it helped provide him with moral values. Home and church were the most important influences in the early life of King. In both contexts, he was introduced to the integrationist values of protest, accommodations, self-help and optimism as they were related to the religious themes of justice, love and hope. He was introduced to the value of education as a potent way of helping him assert his self-worth to become a church and community leader and to fight racism in the larger society. “King’s basis for his campaign of nonviolence originated in the highest type of love - love for people who hate you. King preached that the combination of agape (spiritual love) with nonviolent action would elicit change”(Walton 78).
Cesar Chavez uses morals and his audience fear of destruction to justify his stance on non-violent protests . Martin Luther King jr was an activist and civil rights leader that did not use violence to get his point across like many other activists at that time. Cesar Chavez wrote on the anniversary of his death explaining why using nonviolence is the way to advocate rights for those in need. His article was put in a religious organization that helped people who were in need of help. Cesar Chavez uses morals as a way to appeal to the religious side of his audience. Cesar Chavez also uses the fear of losing power to prove that doing nonviolent protests are the right way to spread his cause.
Although both of these activists have different solutions and deliver things differently, they both address racism and the injustice the U.S. government performs on daily basis. In addition to this, they are both African Americans who persuading different audiences but are delivering the same content. In MLK’s letter he responds to his clergymen’s criticisms by addressing the racial injustices in Birmingham; while Malcolm X is delivery the same content but his audiences are blacks and whites. Even though they are both striving to declare freedom and are willing to fight for their human rights, MLK is more effective than Malcolm X in fighting against racial
In the 1960s, the nation was faced tumultuous times. There was racial tension between the white citizens and black citizens of America. Whites could not understand why the African Americans were so upset; they had their freedom from slavery and job opportunities. However, the African American was dissatisfied with the small crumbs of God given rights that all American citizens were entitled to. Two men propelled to the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement as leaders; Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. Their agenda was to seek equal rights for all Americans. But both men differ on the approaches needed to reach these goals; one believed using nonviolence was the answer while the other advocated violence Many people argue that the
One of the most influential speeches ever given on the earth was given on a potiumat the Lincoln Momorial in Washington D.C on August 28th 1963. The great speech was given by Martin Luther King Jr. who deciatied his time on earth to prove that all people are equal. Martin Luther used different parts of the English language to enhance the meaning of his speech and bring out the details. The different rhetorical devices, allusions to historic documents, and metaphors seemed to have brought about the emotions that King was trying to arouse in his listeners. This helped him influence his listeners towards wanting equality for all and changing what was happening in the present so they didn't repeat things in the past .
Martin Luther King Jr.'s achievement of a nonviolent movement. Chavez wanted to follow King's philosophy, and he gave reasons as to why King's ideas are the only way to achieve a successful protest. "If we resort to violence then one of two things will happen: either the violence will be escalated and there will be many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides, or there will be total demoralization of the workers." After King's death, the movement became violent, and several Americans died as a result of those violent acts. The white people demoralized the black people after the violence, so Chavez stressed the negative effects to the
Martin Luther King Jr. and Socrates, both born in different time periods, are both similar in the fact that they are both defending their beliefs, and so different with regards to their approach for redemption and their opinions on the issue of civil disobedience. Dr. King was victimized for his skin color, and Socrates for his way of thinking. Socrates and Martin, through the uses of persuasion and persona, convey that what they did was not civil disobedience, but that they acted for the betterment of society.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a key figure in the fight for the equality of African Americans. King had a great impact on the Civil Rights Movement, and had a nonviolent method of achieving what he did. Dr. King is a well-known Civil Rights Activist who gave his life for his cause. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, he addresses his fellow clergyman on the topic of segregation and the protests against it. King is well known for his nonviolent protests, and even the participants of the event have to ask themselves during a period of self-purification, “‘Are you able to accept blows without retaliating? ', and ‘Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail? ' “(King). King believed that nonviolent protest were better to use because "Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue," (King). King believes that nonviolent tension is
Cesar Chavez published an article in a religious magazine on the tenth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s death. Chavez’s message is delivered with a humble yet serious tone, as he shows compassion in his writing to emphasize his purpose, which is to bring attention to the importance of non-violent acts over violent acts, and to overall strive to gain the support of his audience, which generally those devoted to helping those in need. The persona of the author helps the audience create a stronger connection with and be further persuaded by Chavez because the audience can infer that he has experienced and is a strong supporter himself of nonviolence by the use of his examples and his points of view. By using rhetorical strategies such
Speeches are a method of persuading people to do something. For Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, their speeches were to bring equality for the people of color. However, their approaches are different. Consequently, the effects may be different. An example of their contrasting differences is a speech from each, King’s “I Have a Dream” and X’s “The Black Revolution”. Their speeches used pathos, a central metaphor, and a warning, but was presented differently.
Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were very significant during the Civil Rights Movement. Both were excellent speakers and shared one goal but had two different ways of resolving it. Martin Luther King Jr. chose to resolve the issues by using non-violence to create equality amongst all races to accomplish the goal. Malcolm X also wanted to decrease discrimination and get of segregation but by using another tactic to successfully accomplish the similar goal. The backgrounds of both men were one of the main driven forces behind the ways they executed their plans to rise above the various mistreatments. Martin Luther King Jr. was a more pronounced orator, a more refined leader, and overall saw the larger picture than Malcolm X.