Rhetorical Analysis Of Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter

943 Words2 Pages

Martin Luther King Jr. was a revolutionary individual. Born in 1929, to a Baptist minister and schoolteacher, who would have known back then, that a black man would forever change the world with his efforts to end the discrimination of black individuals. He was a big asset to the civil rights movement and is greatly recognized to this day. As an individual who grew up in the early-to-mid 1900’s, he faced a lot of discrimination simply for the color of his skin. He challenged segregation and took various steps towards ending it completely. King was a minister that stood for civil rights and in the 50’s, he was traveling all over the country and made speeches promoting his vision of a better world for all. In 1963, he made the iconic “I have …show more content…

He was a minister so he knew what to say and how to say it to attract an audience. This letter was written as a response to the clergymen, but it reached various type of audiences. In the beginning of the letter, King he addresses that the letter is a response to the clergymen. Throughout the letter, he keeps a steady tone, representing a calm expression of strong sentiments against the unjust treatment him and his people have been suffering for years and the need to for it to end. He uses ethos in this beginning paragraph to draw in the clergy men by treating them in an authoritative manner. Rather than attack them, like they attacked his character, he respectfully addressed them: “But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I would like to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable …show more content…

The reason for this letter being more of an argument is because it is a calm retaliation to an attack on King. He decides to address both the clergymen and the other individuals that are able to read his letter. In the passage, he says “I am compelled to mention one other point in your statement that troubled me profoundly.” King continues to talk about the police brutality. He explains how he is not able to share in the clergymen’s “praise for the police department.” He was witness to all forms of mistreatment of innocent “Negro” individuals, men, women, and children. By recalling specific mistreatment, like that of police dogs being used to violently attack nonviolent individuals. His goal was to use pathos. Specifically, he addressed the clergymen again, but anyone reading that letter, including myself, cannot ignore the power in his statements. His recollection of the incidents he witnessed were so vivid and raw, that it hits an emotion of just how unacceptable the police behavior was. These were not statements anymore, but facts that identified how this type of suffering needs to end. There is no justification, although the clergymen want people to stop looking up to King and let the courts handle any type of problem. These policemen belong to the same legal system that handles any case, who will they act in favor of? It is

Open Document