The Kings Rhetorical Prowess - Essay Example

The King’s Rhetorical Prowess Although both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were eager to fight for the rights and freedom of African Americans, it was only the former who believed that this dream could be achieved through nonviolent means or by not troubling, disrupting, or angering the White people. Both King and Malcolm X were powerful orators of the Civil Rights Movement, but in terms of persuasiveness, it was King who stands out among the popular leaders of the movement. This essay examines King’s I Have a Dream Speech and Malcolm X’s Message to Grassroots in terms of context, stylistic techniques, and rhetorical strategies. Afterward, this essay demonstrates the strengths of King’s speech over that of Malcolm X. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his I Have a Dream speech during the March on Washington on the 28th of August 1963. Thousands of people fighting for a civil rights bill attended the event. King powerfully portrayed the Civil Rights Movement and the fight for justice and freedom with this legendary statement: “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal’” (King para 25). On the other hand, Malcolm X delivered his Message to the Grassroots speech on November 1963, during the Northern Negro Grass Roots Leadership Conference. Malcolm X vividly demonstrated how African Americans were deceived and weakened by the White people. He clearly articulated his opinion about how weak the Black people were fighting for their rights and independence. He also piercingly criticized King and the other ‘Negro leaders’ for selling out the cause of the Black revolution. Apparently, both speeches were powerful and persuasive. However, King’s speech was more persuasive because of the manner he presented his arguments; his was more charismatic than the speech of Malcolm X. King was diplomatic, whereas Malcolm X was exceptionally radical. King called for unity between the Black and White people, whereas Malcolm X strongly advocated complete independence from White supremacy, and a land for African Americans. King’s diplomatic tone is more suitable to the political and social environment of the 1960’s, which is a period marred by bitter racial conflicts. The 1960’s is the ultimate spin-off of the clash between the Emancipation Proclamation and Jim Crow laws. However, despite the oppression and maltreatment experienced by the Black people in America, they chose to continue their struggle for freedom and dignity in a peaceful, compromising way. They detested bloodshed. In the tumultuous period of the 1960’s, civil rights advocates chose to exercise nonviolent means, such as lobbying, civil disobedience, rallies, and so on, to bring about their desired reforms. Opportunely, the federal government responded to these pressures by ratifying several major reforms such as the 1968 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. This event alone attested to the fact that the fight for the freedom and rights of the Black people can be won through diplomacy; no bloodshed, no revolution, is needed. The strength of King’s speech rests in his stylistic techniques and rhetorical devices. In his speech, he effectively used metaphors, personifications, and euphemism. He used metaphors to highlight the African Americans’ historical plight and struggles, and the possibility of uniting two very different races. Some of the stirring metaphors he used were as follows: “This is not time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism” (King para 8); “Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice” (King para 10); “With this faith we [Black and White people] will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood” (King para 34). King also used personification to give more power to his arguments. He mentioned inanimate objects and abstract concepts to symbolize the severity of the oppression African Americans suffered for so long. For example, in this passage “… America has given its colored people a bad check, a check that has come back marked ‘insufficient funds’” (King para 6), he used the term ‘check’ to represent the material destitution of African Americans. And then he proclaimed, “But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation” (King para 7). In this subsequent statement, he used the terms ‘bank’ and ‘vaults’ to embody his belief that racial equality is possible. Lastly, King exercised euphemism to moderate his arguments, and effectively express his diplomatic approach to the situation. A perfect example is this passage (King para 13): It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of its colored citizens. This sweltering summer of the colored people’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end but a beginning. Those who hope that the colored Americans needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. In this passage, King used literary or ‘creative’ words such as ‘sweltering summer’ and ‘invigorating autumn’ to cool down the obviously intensifying conflict between the oppressed African Americans and the ruling White people. He used the word ‘fatal’ instead of ‘disastrous’ to warn those in power of the possible catastrophic outcome of ignoring the Black people’s plight. Finally, he drew on the phrase ‘business as usual’ to subtly describe how the American nation continuously disregarded the rights and tarnished the dignity of African Americans. In terms of the use of rhetorical devices, namely, logos, pathos, ethos, King’s speech is more effective than Malcolm X’s address. King’s application of reasoning or ‘logos’ is not straightforward; his reasoning is largely metaphorical, which, during the 1960’s, would definitely appeal to both the Black and White masses. A nation embattled by racial conflict for so long does not need too radical reasoning, like that of Malcolm X; what it needs are ‘healing’, ‘placating’ words. In terms of pathos, King’s speech was powerful because it appealed to the emotion. He tried to stir the people with his words alone. He reverberated in his words the pain of oppression and the blissful promises of unity. He definitely persuaded nonviolent civil rights activists, the overwrought masses, the professionals (e.g. doctors, teachers, lawyers) who wanted to strengthen the status quo, and the policymakers. In contrast, Malcolm X’s speech certainly persuaded revolutionists and those who wanted radical changes, such as complete separation. Finally, in terms of ethos, both King and Malcolm X were credible civil rights advocates, but King had greater authority during this period because he reasonably understood that nonviolent struggle was the most appropriate way of proving to the White people that African Americans were not savages. Through this, he was able to acquire credibility for himself. On the contrary, Malcolm X’s credibility was weakened by his demand for complete separation, which was nearly impossible because African Americans were at the time already highly integrated to the American society. Works Cited King, Martin Luther Jr. I Have a Dream. History Wired, 2013. Web. 14 July 2013. Malcolm X. Message to Grassroots. Teaching American History, 2012. Web. 14 July 2013. Read More