The Civil Rights Movement: Martin Luther King Jr.

The rising popularity of racialized movements such as #BlackLivesMatter and #OscarsSoWhite affirm that racial equality is still a goal. It is not something that has been achieved, though many credit Martin Luther King, Jr. as the pioneer of advancing America to being a “post-racial” (cite) society. His monumental speech “I Have a Dream” marked a pivotal moment in the Civil Rights Movement, yet it did not end the conversation. Decades later, former president Bill Clinton addressed the pandemic of black-on-black crime at the Convocation of the Church of God in Christ. Years following the proposal of the Clinton Administration’s 1993 Crime Bill, George W. Bush and Barack Obama gave speeches advocating for systemic and societal equality, respectively,
to the audience of the annual NAACP Convention. Determining who gave the most convincing speech could be adequately measured by the amount of change that followed. Accordingly, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech presents the most powerful case for racial equality.
Unlike Bush’s idyllic address to the NAACP, which proposes government intervention will solve the issue, Martin Luther King, Jr. promotes equality in a nuanced manner that is appropriate for the time period. He did not have the technology present in the time of Clinton, Bush and Obama, and neither did his audience. However, King manages to deliver from his repertoire of American history, as seen in his opening remarks about the founding fathers, “Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation” (King, 1963, p. 3.). By rephrasing the Gettysburg Address, King establishes a common place for an audience of different educational backgrounds. Those unfamiliar with Lincoln’s famous document will at least see reflections of its impact on society. Refraining from using political jargon as the other three orators had done works in King’s favor as King’s speech does not alienate certain people. Moreover, his speech is impactful because of his visibility as an “every day” man, and his speech challenges other “every day” men and women to judge others “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” (King, 1963, p. 5) and raise their children to do the same. The manifestation of King’s influential dream depends on everyone in America, not just elected officials.
Furthermore, King’s accessibility is not inhibited by sophisticated language.
He masterfully presents his audience with vivid images of unity, love, and equality. King resounds, “I have a dream that that one day even the state of Mississippi…will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice” (1963, p.5). This simplistic notion is comprehensible to all audiences. Additionally, his repetition of “I have a dream” indicate his background in the church. This serves as another common place to meet his audience. In the 1960s, the vast majority of Americans were church-going people who may not have been formally educated, but they could be moved by sermons. If his tone mimicked that of a sermon, then it could better persuade his audience, which it
did.
Later in the speech, he specifies what this dream he is referring to would entail, as he continues, “one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers” (King, 1963, p. #). Using children is another effective narration strategy to persuade King’s audience. The American dream is often pursued for the sake of children. By promising both black and white parents that his vision includes their children living without racial tensions, he appeals not only to their emotions but to the American value system. This is not the only appeal King utilizes in his speech. Returning to the beginning of the speech, he points out the erroneous statements in the U.S. constitution. These points endorse that all men were created equal while there were African captives in chains. King remarks, “America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, American has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds.’” (1963, p. 3). Without dividing his audience, he implores them to speculate and challenge inequality because it is incongruent with fundamental American beliefs. The strategies King implements build upon the beliefs already established across the nation and this has proven effective. When comparing King to the speeches by former presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, it becomes evident that King and other prominent Civil Rights figures provide the benchmarks that latter three aspire to be.
The impact of their speeches is subsequently lessened because of King’s prior achievement. Clinton cites that his efforts would be commended by King himself, had King been alive during the 1993 Convocation of God in Christ (p. 41). According to Clinton, “If Martin Luther King were to reappear by my side today…’You did a good job,’ he would say” (1993, p. 41). The self-congratulatory tone of his opening remarks diminishes his credibility. Moreover, the 1993 Crime Bill contributed to the mass incarceration of many African-American citizens, furthering the racial divide. The effect is adverse of what King envisioned, despite Clinton’s claims otherwise. Bush attempts to use historical contexts and future generations as a vantage point in his speech as well, but he does not do so as eloquently as King does. Bush asserts, “I have proposed a New Prosperity Initiative that reflects the spirit of Lincoln’s reforms. A plan to remove obstacles on the road to the Middle Class” (2000, p. 2). He does not resolve to call for a social reform, which limits his power of persuasion to other politicians. Obama, on the other hand, mentions the strife of John Lewis and Emmett Till without relating with them (2009, p. 6). By interjecting asides such as “not by color but cause” (Obama, 2009,
p. 1) and “of every age and faith, race and region” (Obama, 2009, p. 1), it could be inferred that Obama is pandering to please and comfort his racially-mixed audience, not hold the oppressors accountable. Furthermore, he seperates himself, and those in his position from the people he is advocating for. This is an attitude that manifests in his latter days in office when he did not comment on the #BlackLivesMatter movement.