Rhetorical Analysis Of Martin Luther King Jr

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was well known for giving many inspiring speeches that had an affect on the American society during the 1960's. I believe his speech in 1967, "Beyond Vietnam- A Time to Break Silence" advances the cause of African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement because Dr. King is challenging the logic that both black and white Americans fight in war together but they can not sit in the same seat in the same class together in school. As well as challenging the movement of peace by speaking for the weak or the voiceless.

"And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negros and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the
same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor" (Chunk 6). Mr. King disputes the irony on how African American and white males fight together in wars but are not allowed to be seated in class together or receive the same education. This helps advance the Civil Rights movement by showing the public that the government is allowing the "Negros and white boys" take lives and die together but come home and never see each other again. He states that he could not stay silent anymore and describes the situation as "such cruel manipulation of the poor". This statement helps advance the Civil Rights movement as well. His statement makes the audience feels guilty or ashamed about the punishment that the "poor" is facing. King also states "I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social changes comes most meaningful through nonviolent action. But they ask-- and rightly so-- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation was not using massive doses of violence to solve it's problems, to bring about the changes it wanted" (Chunk 7) . King challenges the benefits for the Vietnam war. He states that his trying to make a "social change" through nonviolent actions while the government is just causing more problems. This also advance the Civil Rights movement because it's get the people thinking about the main question. Are we solving the problem or causing more?

An Editorialist from "New York Times" wrote an editorial called "Dr.
King's Error". The article non effectively dispute that "civil rights and war do not mix". Mr. King states that it does mix because "America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic suction tube". King feels as if all our money is going to waste over a war when we should be fixing the problems in the country we live in. The article also non effectively dispute that Martin King used language that was too "antagonizing". The newspaper stated " ... Dr. King can only antagonize opinions in this country instead of winning recruits to the peace movement by recklessly comparing American military methods to those of the Nazis testing 'new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps in Europe'. The facts are harsh, but they do not justify such slander". Mr. King had to use "antagonizing opinions" to actually grasp the people of the church's (the setting where the speech was presented) attention as well as to get his point across. The reaction from the audience would not have been as effective to the emotions if he had used unantagonizing
language.

Some people may say that my claim of advances is not true because civil rights and war do not mix and King's facts "do not justify such slander". Nevertheless, my point that this advances the Civil Rights movement still stands because the civil movement and war do in fact mix and the "antagonizing language used by Mr. King was used to get his point across.