Hello
This is my first time using this site, and I hope I can get a good response back within time.
This is due in about 12 hours, so please hurry!!
Thanks alot in advance for the help.
Prompt:In a six to eight page essay, compare and contrast the rhetorical tactics of Henry David Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" and Martin Luther King Jr. in "Letter from Birmingham Jail" as they seek to influence their respective audiences on issues that are as similar as they are different. To what extent, if any, do you think the rhetorical tactics-and the essay itself-might have influenced not only its contemporary audience but a wider audience throughout history? If you cite differences in their strategies, can you make a case for one being more effective than the other? Why? Do you see either of their philosophies influencing the other?
Do not merely point out the already obvious differences and similarities in the causes that these two writers are defending, the races of the writers, the time periods in from which the two works emerged, the methods of seeking justice, the nature of both writers' imprisonment, or the philosophical beliefs of the writers. Though you must be aware of these details, they should not constitute the brunt of your paper. Instead, your paper should be a meticulous discourse on what the rhetorical strategies of both writers are, how they are similar and/or different, how they are effective or ineffective, proof of their success or failure, both from the essay and from your living observations, and the degree to which one essay may be superimposed onto the other
Words to Freedom
Harry Potter novels have captivated millions of readers and continue to sell very well, but are generally seen to be generic and follow the same template. Fanatical readers of the novels, however, would readily disagree, citing details such as the death of Harry's godfather on plot and character development and its endless symbolisms to the modern world. Trying to find the differences in "Civil Disobedience" and "Letter from Birmingham Jail" may seem to be as irrelevant as the differences in Harry Potter novels at first, but such assumptions can be validly and quickly disproved. Thoreau and King Jr., speaking in volumes against the injustice of the American government legislative system, endeavor in persuading both contemporary readers, and the readers of the day through the use of wide range of literary devices that differ greatly from each other. Though they come from different time periods, write to different audiences, and differ in their methods of writing and positions, the essence of their essays is this- it is time for every man to do something about the injustice being done around him. As King writes, "Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere"(King).
Thoreau's stance is clear from the opening paragraph of his essay "Civil Disobedience" formerly known as "Resistance to Civil Government"-"That government is best, which governs least"(Thoreau). He means that the most ideal form of government enforces the least amount of power over its people. Thoreau further explores his beliefs to its logical limit by imagining a dissolution of the government, but quickly comes to realization that our society is not yet ready for such vision: "That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have"(Thoreau). However, Thoreau's position cannot be generalized into being solely anti-government, because although he writes to condemn certain aspects of the government, he gives praise where it is due in statements such as "Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow"(Thoreau). It is clear in the opening paragraphs, that Thoreau's stance is not an unreasonable one inspired from an anarchic impulse, but rather from his moral consciousness that was against paying taxes that funded the continuation of government oppression on slaves, which he did not agree with. He solemnly believed that "the only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right"(Thoreau).
Thoreau uses many literary techniques in order to further his point and go in depth with his main themes. He utilizes techniques such as repetition and italicization of certain words to emphasize certain points. Thoreau writes, "It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate"(Thoreau). While it is clear that the pronoun is representing the government, Thoreau uses italicization and repetition of the word to stress the connotation that it is not the government doing the following things by its own right, but rather because the citizens that it represents give it the right to do so. In other words, the government only exists because the people allow it to exist, thus putting the people on a higher scale compared to the government and further emphasizing Thoreau's ideal of minimalistic government.
In addition to repetition and italicization, Thoreau shows his mastery in the use of powerful imagery in order to pursue the readers in persuading them of his ideals. After establishing his point about the citizens having the power to empower the government in making decisions, he goes on to explain that in order to pursue something, one cannot be dependent on someone else's point of view: "If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders"(Thoreau). One must disconnect him or herself from the establishment in order to reach one's own conclusion on the matter. Simply put, the citizens must be conscious of the laws they choose to obey and disobey whether or not they are in the minority. The people should not be influenced into believing that neither the majority of the population nor the government legislators will know what is right. On the contrary, it is up to every man to decide based on his own moral standards and ethics. By implying such underlining definitions to such imagery, Thoreau also accomplishes appealing to human consciousness and morality over logic and rationale. Thoreau also writes, "If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself"(Thoreau). By the means of this imagery, he successfully delivers his solution--the civil disobedience. One can infer from the imagery that it means if one has done something wrong, one has the obligation to make it right even thought it may mean his or her downfall. Thus, it can be translated in context to if one does not believe in what the US government is doing to be correct, one should withdraw him or herself from the government even if that may mean he or she is no longer protected by it: "They cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it"(Thoreau). Essentially, Thoreau is trying to say that if a law is deemed to be injustice by someone, then that law should be disobeyed by that person. Though it may not be convenient to resist, being morally right should outweigh the prices one has to pay as consequences.
One of the major techniques Thoreau uses to leave an impact in his audience is his first person narration. Not only does it allow the author to relay his opinions and theories on a personal basis, it helps him give personal accounts to his own experiences with authenticity. As Thoreau writes, "I have paid no poll tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night"(Thoreau), he describes how he had practiced civil disobedience as a result to his moral judgment, while again emphasizing that one should not be led unconsciously by commenting, "I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion"(Thoreau). The author implies that his theories are not only spoken, but practiced by himself, which ultimately results in credibility. The effectiveness of such strategy is due to the fact that Thoreau no longer offers theories and ideals that one can argue, but rather places the audience in his position in which they cannot retort.
King's views seem to accord with Thoreau's, as he utilizes Thoreau's views in order to support his more specific views. Through his letter, King defends his actions of sit-ins and non-violent demonstrations--major tactics used in civil disobedience. He further goes on to express his regret to his fellow clergymen failing to understand the necessity of such desperate measures: "You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express similar concerns for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations"(King). King explains, though the "Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers, the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation"(King). As the ultimate result of mistreatment of minority groups and the failure of the government to negotiate, King has declared through his letter that racial injustice is no longer tolerated and it is time for action: "It is unfortunate the demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative"(King).
King's major means to conquer his audiences differ from Thoreau. While Thoreau appealed to the human morality, King offers logical arguments in order to captivate his readers. The use logos by King is apparent throughout his letter, but especially effective when he states "A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law"(King). He then defends his claim by giving general examples of how the Negro community is hindered: "Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered"(King). Finally, by the use of this logic, King questions the authenticity of US democracy when he asks, "Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?"(King). By giving irrefutable and sound arguments to his claims, King successfully convinces the reader of the faults that lie within the government system, and the necessity for immediate change.
To respond to the clergymen, and the notion of Negroes' actions being untimely, King successfully convinces the audience that it has in fact, been long overdue through the usage of pathos. By giving specific examples of the times injustice is done to his community, King arouses sympathy, anger, disgust amongst numerous other emotions: "But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters"(King). The careful choice of King's words, allow him to bring forth the sentiments of his audience, the middle class white community, instead of badgering and pointing fingers at them for all their mistreatments. As King writes, "There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience"(King), he expresses the unified opinion of his community-enough is enough. It is time for actions and changes to take place.
One can notice that King also writes in first person narration as Thoreau did. Through this type of narration, King is able to express his personal opinions, allowing the readers to be on a more personal level with him. When King writes, "I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest"(King), he offers personal experience, as Thoreau did, in order to offer the audience, not a theory based upon other theories and accounts, but his personal conclusion resulting from his life-his methods of retaliation is not only lawful, but necessary. Thus, it opens the readers' perceptions to something other than logic and emotion.
It is evident throughout history, that both of these authors accomplished much through their essays in impacting what our society has become today. In fact, Thoreau's essay even impacted King's methods and logic: "Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake"(King). King's way of fighting unjust laws through non-violent actions such as demonstrations and protest, while dealing with jail time, has derived from the theories of none other than Thoreau himself.
However, despite the similarities and the influence of one to another, they both differ in their strategies in literary methods. While both authors successfully utilize similar strategies, like the personal narration, to their advantage by brining the readers and themselves closer, they also clearly make use of different means to reach their goals. While Thoreau writes with charisma through his powerful imagery and stresses his points by repetition and italicization, King writes softly by using logos and pathos, dealing with emotion and logic much more than human conscience and harsh criticisms. Although many of the techniques performed by both writers are the same-rhetorical questions, metaphors, allusions, and referencing-their major techniques and effects they aroused were very different. Thoreau, with the help of his imagery and repetition, criticizes the government's faulty logic and performance while calling for the immediate necessity for people to acquire moral conscience of their own. Whereas King, on the other hand, persuades the reader in a more sugar coated fashion to believing that there is no other way but civil disobedience for his community. King also accomplishes to make his letter sound non-aggressive and non-blaming through his eloquence, thus allowing his audience to sympathize with his cause much more efficiently. In essence, both authors equally demonstrate the use of their own methods to its maximum potential, and achieve equal amount of impact.
It is difficult to distinguish which author was more successful in terms of his overall influence in the world. Thoreau's minimalistic government ideals, and his solemn belief for the necessity of every man being conscious to the laws that they obey have influenced many civil rights activists throughout the world, including King himself. On the other hand, King's letter and his movement have brought about the abolition of racial injustice within United States. To say that one essay was more influential than the other seems incredulous and unnecessary. However, speaking on a personal level, King's letter seems more appealing. His calm eloquence and irrefutable logic is hardly deniable by a man of any race, thus bringing about a more persuasive stance. On the other hand, Thoreau's tactics and criticisms can be argued by many scholars to be unreasonable or beyond extreme. Looking back at both of their lives in addition to their writing, also allows me to prefer King over Thoreau because King had a lot more accomplishments under his name because he lived by what he preached, whereas Thoreau simply preached. It is my opinion, that despite the equal capabilities of both writers and power their writings have upon societies, that Martin Luther King Jr. indeed appealed his messages more fashionably.
This is my first time using this site, and I hope I can get a good response back within time.
This is due in about 12 hours, so please hurry!!
Thanks alot in advance for the help.
Prompt:In a six to eight page essay, compare and contrast the rhetorical tactics of Henry David Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" and Martin Luther King Jr. in "Letter from Birmingham Jail" as they seek to influence their respective audiences on issues that are as similar as they are different. To what extent, if any, do you think the rhetorical tactics-and the essay itself-might have influenced not only its contemporary audience but a wider audience throughout history? If you cite differences in their strategies, can you make a case for one being more effective than the other? Why? Do you see either of their philosophies influencing the other?
Do not merely point out the already obvious differences and similarities in the causes that these two writers are defending, the races of the writers, the time periods in from which the two works emerged, the methods of seeking justice, the nature of both writers' imprisonment, or the philosophical beliefs of the writers. Though you must be aware of these details, they should not constitute the brunt of your paper. Instead, your paper should be a meticulous discourse on what the rhetorical strategies of both writers are, how they are similar and/or different, how they are effective or ineffective, proof of their success or failure, both from the essay and from your living observations, and the degree to which one essay may be superimposed onto the other
Words to Freedom
Harry Potter novels have captivated millions of readers and continue to sell very well, but are generally seen to be generic and follow the same template. Fanatical readers of the novels, however, would readily disagree, citing details such as the death of Harry's godfather on plot and character development and its endless symbolisms to the modern world. Trying to find the differences in "Civil Disobedience" and "Letter from Birmingham Jail" may seem to be as irrelevant as the differences in Harry Potter novels at first, but such assumptions can be validly and quickly disproved. Thoreau and King Jr., speaking in volumes against the injustice of the American government legislative system, endeavor in persuading both contemporary readers, and the readers of the day through the use of wide range of literary devices that differ greatly from each other. Though they come from different time periods, write to different audiences, and differ in their methods of writing and positions, the essence of their essays is this- it is time for every man to do something about the injustice being done around him. As King writes, "Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere"(King).
Thoreau's stance is clear from the opening paragraph of his essay "Civil Disobedience" formerly known as "Resistance to Civil Government"-"That government is best, which governs least"(Thoreau). He means that the most ideal form of government enforces the least amount of power over its people. Thoreau further explores his beliefs to its logical limit by imagining a dissolution of the government, but quickly comes to realization that our society is not yet ready for such vision: "That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have"(Thoreau). However, Thoreau's position cannot be generalized into being solely anti-government, because although he writes to condemn certain aspects of the government, he gives praise where it is due in statements such as "Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow"(Thoreau). It is clear in the opening paragraphs, that Thoreau's stance is not an unreasonable one inspired from an anarchic impulse, but rather from his moral consciousness that was against paying taxes that funded the continuation of government oppression on slaves, which he did not agree with. He solemnly believed that "the only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right"(Thoreau).
Thoreau uses many literary techniques in order to further his point and go in depth with his main themes. He utilizes techniques such as repetition and italicization of certain words to emphasize certain points. Thoreau writes, "It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate"(Thoreau). While it is clear that the pronoun is representing the government, Thoreau uses italicization and repetition of the word to stress the connotation that it is not the government doing the following things by its own right, but rather because the citizens that it represents give it the right to do so. In other words, the government only exists because the people allow it to exist, thus putting the people on a higher scale compared to the government and further emphasizing Thoreau's ideal of minimalistic government.
In addition to repetition and italicization, Thoreau shows his mastery in the use of powerful imagery in order to pursue the readers in persuading them of his ideals. After establishing his point about the citizens having the power to empower the government in making decisions, he goes on to explain that in order to pursue something, one cannot be dependent on someone else's point of view: "If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders"(Thoreau). One must disconnect him or herself from the establishment in order to reach one's own conclusion on the matter. Simply put, the citizens must be conscious of the laws they choose to obey and disobey whether or not they are in the minority. The people should not be influenced into believing that neither the majority of the population nor the government legislators will know what is right. On the contrary, it is up to every man to decide based on his own moral standards and ethics. By implying such underlining definitions to such imagery, Thoreau also accomplishes appealing to human consciousness and morality over logic and rationale. Thoreau also writes, "If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself"(Thoreau). By the means of this imagery, he successfully delivers his solution--the civil disobedience. One can infer from the imagery that it means if one has done something wrong, one has the obligation to make it right even thought it may mean his or her downfall. Thus, it can be translated in context to if one does not believe in what the US government is doing to be correct, one should withdraw him or herself from the government even if that may mean he or she is no longer protected by it: "They cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it"(Thoreau). Essentially, Thoreau is trying to say that if a law is deemed to be injustice by someone, then that law should be disobeyed by that person. Though it may not be convenient to resist, being morally right should outweigh the prices one has to pay as consequences.
One of the major techniques Thoreau uses to leave an impact in his audience is his first person narration. Not only does it allow the author to relay his opinions and theories on a personal basis, it helps him give personal accounts to his own experiences with authenticity. As Thoreau writes, "I have paid no poll tax for six years. I was put into a jail once on this account, for one night"(Thoreau), he describes how he had practiced civil disobedience as a result to his moral judgment, while again emphasizing that one should not be led unconsciously by commenting, "I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion"(Thoreau). The author implies that his theories are not only spoken, but practiced by himself, which ultimately results in credibility. The effectiveness of such strategy is due to the fact that Thoreau no longer offers theories and ideals that one can argue, but rather places the audience in his position in which they cannot retort.
King's views seem to accord with Thoreau's, as he utilizes Thoreau's views in order to support his more specific views. Through his letter, King defends his actions of sit-ins and non-violent demonstrations--major tactics used in civil disobedience. He further goes on to express his regret to his fellow clergymen failing to understand the necessity of such desperate measures: "You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express similar concerns for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations"(King). King explains, though the "Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers, the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation"(King). As the ultimate result of mistreatment of minority groups and the failure of the government to negotiate, King has declared through his letter that racial injustice is no longer tolerated and it is time for action: "It is unfortunate the demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative"(King).
King's major means to conquer his audiences differ from Thoreau. While Thoreau appealed to the human morality, King offers logical arguments in order to captivate his readers. The use logos by King is apparent throughout his letter, but especially effective when he states "A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law"(King). He then defends his claim by giving general examples of how the Negro community is hindered: "Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered"(King). Finally, by the use of this logic, King questions the authenticity of US democracy when he asks, "Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?"(King). By giving irrefutable and sound arguments to his claims, King successfully convinces the reader of the faults that lie within the government system, and the necessity for immediate change.
To respond to the clergymen, and the notion of Negroes' actions being untimely, King successfully convinces the audience that it has in fact, been long overdue through the usage of pathos. By giving specific examples of the times injustice is done to his community, King arouses sympathy, anger, disgust amongst numerous other emotions: "But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters"(King). The careful choice of King's words, allow him to bring forth the sentiments of his audience, the middle class white community, instead of badgering and pointing fingers at them for all their mistreatments. As King writes, "There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience"(King), he expresses the unified opinion of his community-enough is enough. It is time for actions and changes to take place.
One can notice that King also writes in first person narration as Thoreau did. Through this type of narration, King is able to express his personal opinions, allowing the readers to be on a more personal level with him. When King writes, "I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest"(King), he offers personal experience, as Thoreau did, in order to offer the audience, not a theory based upon other theories and accounts, but his personal conclusion resulting from his life-his methods of retaliation is not only lawful, but necessary. Thus, it opens the readers' perceptions to something other than logic and emotion.
It is evident throughout history, that both of these authors accomplished much through their essays in impacting what our society has become today. In fact, Thoreau's essay even impacted King's methods and logic: "Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake"(King). King's way of fighting unjust laws through non-violent actions such as demonstrations and protest, while dealing with jail time, has derived from the theories of none other than Thoreau himself.
However, despite the similarities and the influence of one to another, they both differ in their strategies in literary methods. While both authors successfully utilize similar strategies, like the personal narration, to their advantage by brining the readers and themselves closer, they also clearly make use of different means to reach their goals. While Thoreau writes with charisma through his powerful imagery and stresses his points by repetition and italicization, King writes softly by using logos and pathos, dealing with emotion and logic much more than human conscience and harsh criticisms. Although many of the techniques performed by both writers are the same-rhetorical questions, metaphors, allusions, and referencing-their major techniques and effects they aroused were very different. Thoreau, with the help of his imagery and repetition, criticizes the government's faulty logic and performance while calling for the immediate necessity for people to acquire moral conscience of their own. Whereas King, on the other hand, persuades the reader in a more sugar coated fashion to believing that there is no other way but civil disobedience for his community. King also accomplishes to make his letter sound non-aggressive and non-blaming through his eloquence, thus allowing his audience to sympathize with his cause much more efficiently. In essence, both authors equally demonstrate the use of their own methods to its maximum potential, and achieve equal amount of impact.
It is difficult to distinguish which author was more successful in terms of his overall influence in the world. Thoreau's minimalistic government ideals, and his solemn belief for the necessity of every man being conscious to the laws that they obey have influenced many civil rights activists throughout the world, including King himself. On the other hand, King's letter and his movement have brought about the abolition of racial injustice within United States. To say that one essay was more influential than the other seems incredulous and unnecessary. However, speaking on a personal level, King's letter seems more appealing. His calm eloquence and irrefutable logic is hardly deniable by a man of any race, thus bringing about a more persuasive stance. On the other hand, Thoreau's tactics and criticisms can be argued by many scholars to be unreasonable or beyond extreme. Looking back at both of their lives in addition to their writing, also allows me to prefer King over Thoreau because King had a lot more accomplishments under his name because he lived by what he preached, whereas Thoreau simply preached. It is my opinion, that despite the equal capabilities of both writers and power their writings have upon societies, that Martin Luther King Jr. indeed appealed his messages more fashionably.
