Wole Soyinka's essay "Every Dictator's Nightmare" in the April 18, 1999 edition of the New York Times magazine seems almost prescient in light of the events currently occurring geopolitically. The recent events occurred in Egypt are certainly representative of the themes present in Soyinka's essay; “the idea that certain fundamental rights are inherent to all humanity" (476). Soyinka, the 1986 noble peace prizewinner for literature, portrays not only his well-formed persona in his essay, but also his well formed thoughts, devoid of literary naiveté common in so many of today’s writers. The essay portrays societies as corrupted, but with some elements of innate nobility. The existence of societies is guaranteed by the realization that every individual has undeniable basic rights. Soyinka also presents an overview of the enslavement of individual cultures; to the forces of religion, dictatorship, economic pressures, forced labor, and ideology; presenting the reader strong examples of the world's failure to respect individual human rights throughout history. In his essay, Soyinka’s explores the employment of irony and contradiction, in explaining the paradoxes that have riddled the historical search for just societies.
Soyinka suggests that one of the most important ideas in history is the belief that every individual is born with certain fundamental human rights. His essay does not specifically delineate what those rights are; but one can judge from examination of the essay that they include freedom from slavery, freedom to live without anxiety or fear, and the right to knowledge. He postulates that throughout history, the primary struggles have been between those who wish to suppress the rights of others, and those who desire free...
... middle of paper ...
...xplained in details the role of Martin Luther King Jr. in the American civil rights movement. Despite this, the essay is still very useful in highlighting the need to respect basic human rights. The recent events in Egypt are indicative of what happens when individuals gain the political and social will to stand up against oppression. The people of Egypt staged protests in order to overturn the established, 30-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak. This is the foundation of uprisings in the 21st century; the desire for fundamental human rights and dignity. Soyinka's essay predicted these 12 years ago; the world is watching; and dictator's and the politically powerful know it.
Works Cited
Soyinka, Wole. “Every Dictator’s Nightmare.” The Arlington Reader: Contexts and Connections. 2nd ed. Ed. Lynn Z. Bloom and Louise Z. Smith. Boston: Bedford, 2008. 475-80. Print.
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.
Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, in “Civil Disobedience” and “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” respectively, both conjure a definitive argument on the rights of insubordination during specified epochs of societal injustice. Thoreau, in his enduring contemplation of life and its purpose, insightfully analyzes the conflicting relationship between the government and the people it governs. He considerately evokes the notion that the majority of people are restrained by the government and society from making decisions with consideration of their conscience and that people need to overcome the reign of the government to realize their own ethics and morals. King, in accordance, eloquently and passionately contends the injustice presented in the unfair treatment of and the discriminatory attitude towards Blacks. Even though, Thoreau successfully accentuates his main concerns in his argument, his effectiveness in persuasion—appeals, conclusion, and practical application—pales in comparison to that of King’s.
The forceful subjugation of a people has been a common stain on history; Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail was written during the cusp of the civil rights movement in the US on finding a good life above oppressive racism. Birmingham “is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known,” and King’s overall goal is to find equality for all people under this brutality (King). King states “I cannot sit idly… and not be concerned about what happens,” when people object to his means to garner attention and focus on his cause; justifying his search for the good life with “a law is just on its face and unjust in its application,” (King). Through King’s peaceful protest, he works to find his definition of good life in equality, where p...
In “Four Human Rights Myths” Susan Marks discusses several conceptions (or misconceptions according to her) about human rights. She begins her paper with a case study of the 2011 London riots and how distinctively different is their coverage by the British prime minister and two scholars.
During the time of Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr., freedom for African-Americans was relative terminology in the fact that one was during slavery and the other during the Civil Rights era. “Civil Disobedience,” written by Thoreau, analyzes the duty and responsibility of citizens to protest and take action against such corrupt laws and other acts of the government. Likewise, King conveys to his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” audience that the laws of the government against blacks are intolerable and that civil disobedience should be used as an instrument of freedom. Both writers display effective usage of the pathos and ethos appeal as means to persuade their audience of their cause and meaning behind their writing, although King proves to be more successful in his execution.
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.
The political concepts of justice and how a society should be governed have dominated literature through out human history. The concept of peacefully resisting laws set by a governing force can be first be depicted in the world of the Ancient Greeks in the works of Sophocles and actions of Socrates. This popular idea has developed over the centuries and is commonly known today as civil disobedience. Due to the works of Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. civil disobedience is a well-known political action to Americans; first in the application against slavery and second in the application against segregation. Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience” and King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” are the leading arguments in defining and encouraging the use of civil disobedience to produce justice from the government despite differences in their separate applications.
In 1984, George Orwell repeatedly presents the government’s slogan “War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength” (3). The significance
One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights. Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills.
Metaphor, in reference to the “veins of society”, illustrates the necessity of non-conformists for a prevailing theocracy, establishing that opposition towards a totalitarian regime fuels the perpetual dehumanization among its non-adherents (115.4). It is initially stated that the act of opposing the culturally established religion is like “inject[ing] blood into the veins of society”, as if feeding societal intolerance of governmental suppression. Society is defined by individuals—a lack of dissent towards conforming behavior renders the absence of society. However, a theocratic regime’s adherence to its religious values drives the implementation of regulations in order to preserve its own culture. By upholding extremist values to maintain
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.
Peters, Jonathan A. A Dance of Mask: Senghor, Achebe, Soyinka. Washington D.C.: Three Continents Press, 1978.
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.
Robert D. Kaplan’s article “The Coming Anarchy," is best summarized by the following quote, which identifies the different factors that he evaluates throughout his article, “To understand the events of the next fifty years, then, one must understand environmental scarcity, cultural and racial clash, geographic destiny, and the transformation of war.” (Kaplan, 1994) This is the framework that he uses to make his supporting arguments and thus this summary will be broken down into these four main parts.
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.