| October 9, 1999 Letter from Birmingham Hell Martin Luther King, Jr. writes very passionately and avidly about his feelings in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” As he responds to the critics of his own peers, his message appeals not only to the ethos and logos but also to the pathos in his readers. He follows up his succinct evidence of injustice and careful analysis of events with passionate emotional pleas to his audience. Reasonable and clear, the authority and compassion in King’s voice are effective in persuading the audience of his purpose. By King’s writings, he appears to be an educated man, which lends him credibility. Instead of just pleading from his heart, King dramatically describes the “ . . . degenerating sense of “nobodiness”” (177) that has been afflicted on his people. The emotional damage is great enough for most people; but just in case that isn’t enough to persuade his audience of their cause, King mentions the wonderful Birmingham police force. Instead of being the kind, “keepers of justice” that they are intended to be, the police force find it their duty to “ . . . punch and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls” (183) and sink the teeth of their dogs into “ . . . unarmed, nonviolent Negroes” (183). With such substantial evidence, King makes an obvious appeal towards the ethical and moral beliefs of the reader. Perhaps King realizes he might be writing to someone of Vulcan descent, one who understands nothing but logic. For this person, King writes that his campaign went through the necessary steps before starting any action. Negotiations were tried. But they failed, and the Negroes were again the “ . . . victims of a broken promise” (175). There was nothing left to do but take action. King defends himself against the accusation of acting “untimely” by stating that the new city administration needed to be “ . . . prodded about as much as the outgoing one . . .” (176) before any changes would be made. Assuming that it is an indisputable fact, King uses the evidence that “ . . . freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor” (176) as another point in his favor. Although a logician might not see the logic in an “unjust law,” King authoritatively quotes St. Aquinas as promoting civil disobedience when the law is immoral. Though King does not say it directly, the implications are there: this country was founded by civil disobedience. Most readers, however, will relate to King’s letter by what he makes them feel emotionally. Appealing to our humanitarian side, King expresses his hopes that changes would be made. They were not. King keenly feels this disappointment. With bitter disappointment he “ . . . wept over the laxity of the church” (182), making it clear that even his brethren in Christ did not stand by his side in this issue. There is anger and frustration as he illustrates that “the nations of Asia and Africa are moving . . . toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter” (176-177). Such a simple comfort that most people took for granted was not even granted to the Negro community. The denial of the Negroes’ basic human rights shows the reader how very far the domineering white man has pushed the minority group. Paragraphs later, King’s mention of Hitler (178) and the genocide of the Jews forces the reader to see at least a small connection. Whether this was intentional or not, the effects are the same. Although this letter was written decades ago to a different class of people, the feeling in King’s voice promotes an emotional reaction in readers even today. Skillful in his writing, and aware of the reactions he will get by his word choice, King’s letter touches the conscience of readers. His cause is worthy; his case is sound. Whether this letter managed to persuade those whom it was intended to persuade depends on the openness of their minds and the softness of their hearts. |