MLK's "A Letter From Birmingham Jail"

MLK’s “A Letter From Birmingham Jail,” is long and powerful in it’s rhetorical techniques used. In the very beginning of the letter he starts off appealing to the readers’ by complimenting them. “But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.” He is complimenting the readers’ on their good judgment and character and starts the letter off on a high note. MLK then goes on to use examples from bible, other places (continents like Asia and Africa), and movements to let his readers’ know that he’s educated and rational. “…just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I.” He is appealing to the readers since many of them belong to the Methodist and other forms of churches in the south. MLK also thoroughly explains what he’s doing and more importantly WHY he’s doing what he’s doing to let the reader’s know that he is also a logical person.
“I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham-Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here.”
MLK acknowledges the fact that people are questioning why he is in Birmingham and goes in depth to explain what called him to be there. This way he lets his readers know that he’s not irrational in his actions. Throughout entire piece he says, “well you may think or say or other may…” and then goes on to explain why he’s doing what he’s doing, sometimes in spite of what others think should be done. “You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action.” MLK makes a point of noting other people’s concerns and then goes on to confirm that their concerns have not been said in vain, but are actually the main driving force in the very campaign they all fight for. There are countless other rhetorical techniques MLK uses but the ones I feel that the ones I have noted are most significant in grabbing the readers and keeping them hooked into believing what he’s doing.

i believe essay comparison

Both essays I read from “I Believe Essays.com” had very clear personal credo’s but they were distinctly different essays. Robin Baudier’s essay covered an unusual blessing in terrible circumstances, while George Bowering discussed the joy and divine serenity in music, poetry, and becoming involved in an artist/author’s mind through their work.
The two essay’s share a common ground when they speak of a divine and higher power. Baudier’s essay discusses her belief in divine power when she talks about being blessed even in unwarranted circumstances. Bowering’s entire essay is centered around his belief in the divine and a spiritual connection between people when they experience the mind of another person. Both author’s believe in a spiritual being having control in their lives.
Each author’s purpose differs as well. Baudier shares her experience in her essay, while Bowering is about explaining, demonstrating, and encouraging the reader to share in an experience that he has had. But, both are very effective with their rhetorical strategies. Baudier’s essay, however, uses a personal rhetorical strategy to connect with readers. She gets on the same level as the reader and uses descriptions of her family and doesn’t try to sound above the reader. Bowering, however, uses very visual descriptions to get inside the reader’s head and connect with them on that personal level.

Persona:
Bowering gives his persona by saying who he is and name-dropping big name artists. He makes a statement about his belief and then backs it up with examples and real-life experiences.
Baudier gives her persona by make it known that she is well familiar with her home-town and is well educated and persevering because she worked hard for two years to finally get the job she wanted, only to quit because of hurricane Katrina.

aztecs vs. greeks

I believe that Charles Murray is right to a certain extent. He makes a valid point in that people of exceptionally high intelligence need to use their knowledge for the greater good. Their knowledge should not go un-used and un-appreciated, but only if they are using it to benefit the greater society. People with exceptional intelligence are blessed and should share their blessing with others. Therefore, they should be allowed to attend a different school to hone their talents, but a school that teaches and helps the students to use their talents for useful and beneficial activities.
What happens to those people who are not exceptionally gifted intellectually? They should definitely not be ignored! There needs to be a balance created between the two groups of people to great stability and harmony. A world with only intellectually gifted people would not only be boring but there would be no means for which to measure growth and learning, everyone would be the same. Each person has a gift, talent, opinion, etc. and whether they are intellectually gifted or not everyone is important to the progress of society. Everyone has something to give and should give it! It is not possible to ignore the greater percentage of society and look down upon them. Society should also strive to push for excellence in those people not exceptionally gifted. This way society can grow, develop, progress, and become balanced.
So yes, I do agree with Murray that those people who are blessed with exceptional talents should hone their skills and use them to be beneficial. But, I disagree that all attention should only be focused on those exceptionally intellectual. That would mean the rest of the population is “wasted.” Everyone should receive special attention and equal opportunities specified to their talents. This way everyone can benefit from those exceptionally gifted people ad flourish on their own.

Burke's parlor metaphor

"Where does the drama get its materials? From the “unending conversation” that is going on at the point in history when we are born. Imagine that you enter a parlor. You come late. When you arrive, others have long preceded you, and they are engaged in a heated discussion, a discussion too heated for them to pause and tell you exactly what it is about. In fact, the discussion had already begun long before any of them got there, so that no one present is qualified to retrace for you all the steps that had gone before. You listen for a while, until you decide that you have caught the tenor of the argument; then you put in your oar. Someone answers; you answer him; another comes to your defense; another aligns himself against you, to either the embarrassment or gratification of your opponent, depending upon the quality of your ally’s assistance. However, the discussion is interminable. The hour grows late, you must depart. And you do depart, with the discussion still vigorously in progress."

RESPONSE!
According to Burke, intellectual discussion is unending. It has been started before our time and will continue on after our time. He uses the metaphor of a heated discussion to bring some visual effect into mind; and we are just a momentary addition to the never-ending discussion. We come into the discussion as if entering a river along the side bank, not at the source or mouth. The main emphasize of Burke’s commentary is on the timelessness of intellectual conception. In the second sentence he already uses the phrase “unending conversation.” Right off the bat Burke is setting the notion you are not beginning or ending the discussion. A parallel metaphor is to imagine becoming a student at Oxford University. The university was there before you attended and will continue to exist after you have graduated. You, the student, are merely a contribution to the great learning that goes on.
The metaphor Burke uses values the discussion in order to attain a deeper level of learning and intellectual growth. It is not possible to have an intelligent conversation where there is no presentation of opposing ideas to make people think deeper into why they believe what they believe. Simply stating an option does not necessarily mean someone has intelligence.
Burke’s metaphor does, however, skims over the growth that does happen during an intellectual discussion. Each new point made brings out new ideas and concepts that might not have been thought of before. The more thoughtful and challenging the question or statement, the more discoveries are made. It’s a two lane street not a one way road.

shooting an elephant

The author of “Shooting an Elephant” uses phronesis to convey is attitude about shooting the elephant. He makes it very clear that he is a European and therefore higher up than a Burmese and by extension, more logical. I had committed myself to doing it when I sent for the rifle. A sahib has got to act like a sahib; he has got to appear resolute, to know his own mind and do definite things. When is in inner turmoil trying to decide whether or not to shoot the elephant, he goes about justifying his final decision to make him seem logical and not as uncertain and “spine-less” as he really was. Going through the agony of indecisiveness, the author came to some realizations about imperialism and the British Empire in general. The author then uses virtue to explain his beliefs and insight into the inner workings of tyranny. He makes the connection explicitly between his inability to go with his gut and not shoot the elephant when he has those 2000 Burmese behind him watching and imperialism. “And it was at this moment, as I stood there with the rifle in my hands, that I first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East.” The author gets a glimpse into the “behind the scenes” of what the British rulers may have felt with regard to Burma. His attitude gets conveyed and skewed by the subconscious pressure put on by the people watching even though he consciously considers the Burmese to be lower than him. Had he been on his own, the author would not have shot the elephant. But, with so many people watching him and expecting him to shoot it, he “knew” he had to because he didn’t want to appear weak and/or get laughed at. It’s the same type of feelings that teenagers deal with in social settings. Peer pressure is extremely powerful and, unfortunately for the elephant, extremely effective.