Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” raises several interesting ideas. His first idea deals with time and how people must take action for progress. King said “… that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor: it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Also every time King tried to take action he was told to “wait” because his action is untimely. When is it ever a good time? King believes there will never be a good time to take action and justice has been delayed for too long. Another interesting idea King mentions is how to take nonviolent direct action. First collected information to show that there is an injustice; then try to negotiate a deal. If that fails, then the process of self-purification starts. The oppressed ask themselves if they are able to “endure the ordeal of jail” or “accept blows without retaliating” to prepare themselves for the next step, direct action. The goal of direct action is to make a “situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.”
King had two great ideas that I would like to explore. I’ll start with King’s first idea on taking action and how untimely it is to people. I agreed with this point because to get something changed you have to go out and make it happen. If you sit around and do nothing then you can expect nothing in return, but if you take action then you can expect progress. The problem with taking action is the untimely factor though. There will never be a good time to take action. For example, you decide to take action against companies that pay their workers a very low wage. When would be a good time to protest? The company would complain about the protest being to sudden, no matter how long of a notice they had, and also how the protest is happening at a bad time so they should postpone it until a later date, never.
I also agree with King’s other idea on doing nonviolent direct action. It shows that you are obeying the law while protesting an unjust law. I believe this is the best way to take action because it is safe. There is no force involved; there are no riots or people holding weapons; there is just plenty of people coming together, protesting what they commonly feel is wrong. I believe that King’s four steps of direct action are still used today. For example, many people are against the war in Iraq and want the troops to come home. They have all the data and information they need; they tried to negotiate several times. Now they started to take direct action. We see direct action happening all the time, in marches and in protests. These people make plenty of sacrifices to protest what they believe in. People are willing to go to jail, lose their jobs, and spend plenty of their time protesting.
I found King’s letter to be very interesting and thoughtful. He explains everything in the letter slowly and carefully, with great detail to show his position and show respect for the reader. All of King’s main ideas were stated clearly and were given several paragraphs to analyze and explain further. King added many examples and quotes to the letter for further evidence. For example, he used quotes from Jesus, Amos, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and St. Thomas Aquinas. Towards the end of the letter was the most interesting. King was apologizing for writing a long letter and taking the reader’s time. He was also asking for forgiveness if the letter overstates the truth and shows impatience. King shows that he tried his best and if there is anything wrong with the letter, then he is sorry. He wants to show that his intentions were not to be offensive, but to give a well thought-out reason for his purpose in Birmingham.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This brings up an interesting point. Martin Luther King Jr., in his letter, does discuss the appropriateness of nonviolence. This, in theory, should work to prove a point effectively using peaceful forms of protest. Although, in reality, does this approach actually work? Throughout the world, there are a number of opinions of how to accomplish a goal. For example, in exploration of the war in Iraq, we can observe the use of guerrilla warfare, more specifically in the form of suicide bombers. This approach is both violent, and illegal, a direct opposite approach to King’s preferred methods of nonviolence. However, looking back into history, which method has been more successful: terrorism, or peaceful protest? Peaceful protest is great for bringing attention to injustices, but rarely does it actually stir conflict in Washington. Terrorism, however, is one of the most popular topics discussed when referring to global conflict today. Maybe this is a sign that nonviolence is an effective way to receive attention, but anything more is a long shot.
"The problem with taking action is the untimely factor though. There will never be a good time to take action." this seems to be a significant theme throughout all of the authors we have examined. Only through tension, will progress be made -- King called it "positive tension" -- but today who among us would be willing to accept responsibility to protest an injustice?
No matter the issue who would be willing to go to jail? risk suspension from school? lose a job? risk being identified in the paper or on the news? etc. As King and Thoreau said, it's easy to theorize about justice and injustice but to actually do something is "divine".
I'm not sure direct action is all that successful -- yet. If someone is arrested for a cause, sitting in etc., we tend to write them off as "radical", "extreme", etcdoes that move us to action or serve to alienate a non-mainstream view?
Post a Comment