More handpicked essays just for you.
Martin Luther King's contribution to society
Contribution of Martin Luther King
Martin luther king jr and how he changed society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Humans, despite their long history of cruelty and spite towards each other, have also showed a desire for peace and understanding during crucial struggles for power and rights. A prevalent example of this peaceful resistance is the nonviolent movement by African-Americans throughout the course of American history to gain full civil liberties and protected rights. The movement has evolved through various time periods, eventually being the catalyst for a civil war in America. Recently, there has been tension due to several racially-motivated killings by police officers, notably in the cities of Baltimore, Maryland and Minneapolis, Minnesota. There have been lockdowns in cities due to fear of hate crimes, and as violence escalates across the …show more content…
Martin Luther King Jr,. Nonviolent protest has often proved successful among minority groups, especially those inclined to try peaceful revolution. Chavez, distinctly aware that his target audience is an oppressed minority and will respond to this history, ensures that his audience connects with this powerful history through mentions of Gandhi and Dr. King, thus allowing for the audience to feel impressed and empowered. Chavez directly references King’s prolific history through saying: “Dr. King’s entire life was an example of power that nonviolence brings to the real world” (Chavez paragraph 1). By connecting two basic emotions such as a want for power and desire for peace, Chavez informs the audience that such contrasting ideals coexisting are in fact possible, and can lead to great results as in the case of the legendary Dr. King. This idea is further expanded when one takes into account that precedents are not needed for revolution to occur, as in the first example of nonviolent protest, Gandhi. His vision for a united Indian republic was one of a lust for power, but he saw that violence would only lead to lust for more violence, and that peace was the only linear path to justice. Chavez …show more content…
By addressing the counterargument, Chavez gives readers a decisive reasoning and plan of action behind his words and inspires eloquence in speech and grace in action for his audience. Chavez is also aware that his audience may be oppressed and not have access to opposing viewpoints, so by giving them access to a variety of arguments, he empowers them and earns their trust. Chavez solidifies this trust by explaining, “When victory comes through violence, it is a victory with strings attached. If we beat the grows at the expense of violence, victory would come at the expense of injury and perhaps death” (Chavez paragraph 10). Chavez’s clear and direct manner in addressing and reflecting the various other arguments allows for a decisiveness that is so rarely seen in protests and boycotts. This creates a clear throughline of rational thinking and direct, connected thinking that draws the audience in. Chavez exemplifies this rationale by saying: “But if we are committed to nonviolence only as a strategy or tactic, then if it fails our only alternative is to turn to violence. So we must balance the strategy with a clear understanding of what we are doing” (Chavez paragraph 6). This then adds a cohesiveness and a clarity to his existing argument, and defines the importance and purpose of nonviolent protest, and why the leaders before him were so critical to the
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
By using diction and repetition, Cesar Chavez emphases the need to use nonviolence during moments of injustice. The rhetorical choices made in this argument draw forth feelings of understanding and cause the readers to think deeper into Chaves' point of view. The purpose is to carry a message that shows the power of nonviolence and what it brings to the world. People quickly follow the straight, bloody path of force and violence, rather than thinking deeper in search for the winding yet cleaner path. As human beings, we crave the freedom and power we believe was bestowed upon us by God. We will fight tooth and nail, even threw the deaths of many, in order to achieve these trivial things.
By alluding to Dr. King, Chavez is able to show that nonviolent actions are possible and have been shown to flourish. Chavez uses the plural “we” along with his phrase “we are convinced”, creating appeal in that it is very inclusive. Avoiding the alienation of his audience, he includes himself, which makes the issue of violence versus nonviolence his problem as well. He continues his ideas on nonviolence not only by alluding to Gandhi, but also by using rhetorical questions.
Cesar Chavez was a Hispanic migrant worker who fought for the rights of other migrant farm workers. His strategy for fighting inequality was through nonviolent strikes, boycotts, and marches. In this interview of him by a Christian magazine, Chavez uses logical and religious appeals, and allusions to justify his usage of nonviolent resistance in order to gain civil rights.
Nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay off of the offensive, and this is of crucial importance to win any contest.” (lines 12-16). Also, repetition is found throughout the passage when he mentions the detrimental effects a violent resistance can produce. The repetition of the word nonviolence followed by things that result from it allows him to emphasize the importance of nonviolence and implant the ideals of nonviolence in the audience's mind to cause them to further consider the topic of non violence. This argument can sway the reader to agree with him and further asserts his opinion that nonviolence is the correct way to go about an issue. By utilizing this strategy, Chavez stresses non violence to his audience and achieves his purpose of bringing attention the the success and essentiality of non-violence gaining the support of his audience.
In Cesar Chavez’s article, he uses many rhetorical devices to help give the reader a better understanding of how important nonviolence vs violence is. Chavez explains how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi have endowed reasons of nonviolence worth following.
“All machines have their friction―and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil… But when the friction comes to have its machine… I say, let us not have such a machine any longer” (Thoreau 8). In Henry David Thoreau’s essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” the author compares government to a machine, and its friction to inequity. He believes that when injustice overcomes a nation, it is time for that nation’s government to end. Thoreau is ashamed of his government, and says that civil disobedience can fight the system that is bringing his country down. Alas, his philosophy is defective: he does not identify the benefits of organized government, and fails to recognize the danger of a country without it. When looked into, Thoreau’s contempt for the government does not justify his argument against organized democracy.
Cesar Chavez explains the effect of violent protests by stating, “ Nonviolence supports you if you have a just and moral cause. Nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive, and that is of crucial importance to win any contest. 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.” Cesar believes that using violence is the immoral thing to do, that can result in accidents. Not using violence will always help you have a stronger message than using violence will. By addressing morals his readers will have a closer understanding about what he is saying. The activist shows how violence is immoral by stating, “ If we beat the growers at the expense of violence, victory would come at the expense of injury and perhaps death. Such a thing would have a tremendous impact on us. We would lose regard for human beings. Then the struggle would become a mechanical thing. When you lose your sense of life and justice, you lose your strength.” Cesar Chavez explains that using violence to injury people is an immoral way to act and it will not help your cause. The idea of injuring is not a moral way to protest and Chavez uses this argument to appeal to his religious
Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.” This is true in most circumstances but there are exceptions. By comparing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience with acts of violent civil disobedience it is apparent that force or violence is only necessary to combat violence but never if it effects the lives of the innocent. A recurrent theme in each of these examples is that there is a genuine desire to achieve equality and liberty. However, one cannot take away the liberties of others in order to gain their own. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that political change would come faster through nonviolent methods and one can not argue his results as many of the Jim Crow laws were repealed. Similarly, through nonviolent resistance Gandhi was able to eventually free India from the rule of Britain. It is true that sometimes the only way to fight violence is through violence, but as is apparent, much can be said of peaceful demonstrations in order to enact change. Thus, it is the responsibility of we as individuals to understand that nonviolence is often a more viable means to an end than violence.
In the article, written by Cesar Chavez, an argument of whether people should react with violence or nonviolence is displayed. Chavez argues that violence is never the answer and will eventually lead to more violence. Examples of how to protest peacefully are shown to prove that it is the better solution. Chavez’s sophisticated use of juxtaposition, anecdote, and imagery appeals to the reader by showing them that nonviolence is far more powerful than violence.
Cesar Chavez used inspiration from Dr. King's paper to talk about non violence. Cesar used the observations and conclusions of King’s works to rhetorically use pathos to form arguments. Most arguments took in the reader's attention because Chavez used the reader's emotions and logical explanations to create his excerpt.
From the onset of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has always been whether one person can make a difference using words rather than wars. Philosophically, the concept of civil disobedience would appear to be an ineffective weapon against political injustice; history however has proven it to repeatedly be one of the most powerful weapons of the common man. Martin Luther King Jr. looked at the way African Americans were treated in the United States and saw an inequality. By refusing to pay his taxes and subsequently being imprisoned for a night, Henry David Thoreau demonstrated his intolerance for the American government. Under British rule, India remained oppressed until Mohandas Gandhi, with his doctrine of non-violence lead the country to freedom.
"Nonviolence supports you if you have a just and moral cause," he says. He intrigues the audiences’ feelings of good morals and that human nature is more drawn into nonviolence than the violent, corrupt nature. Nonviolence should not exploit the poor people and the ones that are already oppressed. He doesn’t want his audience to be influenced by the violence and having their morals go to waste, it should only go to helping the others that are caught in the violence and the ones who are poor and weak. Also he says, "Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers." He answers the obvious who's more prone to be hurt and killed in violence— the poor and the workers. Furthermore, Chavez also says, "Nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect. If, for every violent act committed against us, we respond with nonviolence, we attract people’s support." He makes it seems that nonviolence is attractive in a way that will entices his audience to realize that nonviolence will gather a lot of supporters that will make a positive and healthy way to make change have a greater chance to happen against the
However, Gandhi puts emphasis on a need for personal suffering in the practice of nonviolence, a stance that is somewhat less aggressive than King’s need to suffer for the sake of his cause. Martin Luther King Jr. was an American Baptist minister, humanitarian, activist, and leader in the African-American civil rights campaign. His main goal was to guarantee the progress of civil rights in America, and he has become a human rights figure. King led protests, held boycotts, and organized the southerly Christian Leadership Conference, serving as its first chairperson. Gandhi was known first for his nonviolent behavior and would condemn his own party for opposing violence.
Throughout his education, Martin Luther King Jr. tried to find a way to demonstrate his belief of racial equality with the most effective means possible. He quickly realized that the best strategy to end segregation was to use nonviolent forms of protest. At Crozer, Morehouse and Boston University, he studied the teaching of Mohandas Gandhi, who used nonviolent methods to help India claim its independence from Britain. King read several books on the ideas of Gandhi, and eventually became convinced that his methods could be employed by African Americans to obtain equality in America. King knew that any violence on the part of African Americans would lead to violent responses from segregationists, which would lead to injury or maybe even death for his followers. He had to teach his followers not to respond violently to cruel attacks from segregationists. King decided to sponsor workshops to train African Americans in nonviolent beh...