MLK Letters from Birmingham Jail

            In Martin Luther King´s Letters from Birmingham Jail, he uses a very diversified approach to appeal to the interests of two members of different faiths. Judaism and Christianity are faiths that are against the segregation and persecution of a certain race. They, unfortunately, as of late, have been reinterpreted by white ministers to denigrate their African slaves. This de-ranking of a whole culture and race is the lowest form of religious practice, yet many white men are filling the pews every Sunday. As a member of the Christian faith, Dr. Martin Luther King is very disappointed and feels betrayed.

            I have never been exposed to the utter marginalization of a human but after MLK’s essay I feel as if I have. I cannot imagine being betrayed by my fellow humans. I say this because we are all human and the only difference between us all is the way light reflects the pigment of our skin to other people. This is unacceptable. But MLK is suffering from something even more difficult than that. Humankind hasn’t only subjected him; he has been betrayed by his faith. The only thing that separates man from beast is the fact that man has something to believe in. Man has something that wakes him up in the morning and puts him to bed at night, apart from the desires of the flesh. Martin Luther King’s ministers of his faith and others have all betrayed him.

            Based on that, now let us examine the structural integrity of his argument. First his tone: MLK uses a tone consistent with the mood that he is trying to bring across to the reader. When he mentions the Church-how he expected the white ministers to agree with him, how he referred to them as brothers in the faith and how he was utterly disappointed when they did not. All of these hopes are conveyed in a hopeful and longing tone and in the end, that tone is met with a more resentful and disheartened tone. Second his ethos: MLK established sundries of ethos in this letter, considering the fact that he wrote this from a jail cell. He quotes Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson, The Bible, St. Augustine, Moses, the Apostle Paul, and Amos among others. If he can quote the most influential men of faith from memory, he must then be devout in his argument. Quotes come from the heart and reason from the brain. If he can hold onto some words, then they are very meaningful to him. Lastly, lets examine his call to action. Though implied, the letter was laced with an underlying call for movement and the termination of stagnancy. He states that the majority of people living in the south are indifferent to segregation. They, in his eyes, fail in their societal roles of standing up for what they believe in. He is calling them to action. Also he is calling the Christian and Jewish ministers to not stand for segregation. He touches on the fact that, as ministers, they should preach the true word of God, suiting nobody in particular. 

Talk Shows

When asked my opinion of talk shows, I could take one of two approaches. I could state the obvious by pointing out the fact that they are mediocre and do not pertain to the current situation or myself at all. Or I could praise them for allowing wealthy people who are devoid of all worldly problems to sneer at the lives of the less fortunate. As you can probably tell, I am not too fond of them. I believe that talk shows only succeed in promoting more problems in the world. If a person can get up on stage without any talent at all and talk about how screwed up his or her life is, then they have accomplished something great. They not only succeeded in notifying the entire world of their problem, but they also padded their pocket with some extra cash; I digress. Barbara Ehrenreich wrote In Defense of Talk Shows to provide her audience with reasoning behind our society’s new social addiction; talk shows. She concludes that talk shows are a means of class exploitation. I would like to further that idea and call them a means of self-exploitation. Allow me to explain; the case of Susan on Montel Williams was of a woman who ultimately lost all self-control and destroyed her life. Montel and the therapist both rail her about the fact that she is a terrible person and an even more horrifying mother. She is unfit to even have kids…but what does this really accomplish? I mean she already is getting a one-year term in jail. Why would she want to humiliate herself even more? The answer is self-exploitation. I believe that when people reach a certain low in their life, they lose all rationality and cling onto any opportunity given to them. The number is online, the call is free, and you get 50 bucks, why not?

I would be willing to bet that 99% of the people that are allowed on talk shows are one or more of the following: poor, have unpaid bills, have no insurance, have lots of kids, have been divorced numerous times, or are desperate for a partner. The list could go on but I believe that I have the percentage already covered. The dissidents of society appear on these shows. I am totally with Ehrenreich when she says that she would like to see a show about CEOs who take from their company while their employees are kicked to the streets. Those people that find themselves on the streets have already had their turn on talk shows; it’s the CEOs’ turn now. If the people that are now on the streets have entered talk shows, they have at least attempted to make their grievance known, at least in their eyes. Though the general upper-class-viewer-base couldn’t care less, maybe the ex-employed have a point to prove. They are devoid of everything that they have always known. I believe that they should just dust themselves off and find another job, but I guess they don’t have a show about that yet… 

Recipe Rhetorical Analysis

                        Recipe is an essay in which I can read and eat the words off of the page. Every piece of the puzzle is in detail, outlining the intricate taste within. Although Recipe is a recipe, its manipulation of language portrays a lot more than is taken into account within the few minutes that this series of instructions is executed.

            Through many of Baker’s essays, he uses a minute period of time and explores the intricate details that go unnoticed otherwise. Baker’s intended audience in Recipe is the general population with a special respect to bakers. Bakers know how to make a special chocolate sauce by these instructions and they may even have their own recipe. However, at times even the baker doesn’t take time to realize the beauty of his craft. Baker uses pathos to evoke an emotional response out of the reader by using colorful and descriptive words such as “smear”, “tappable”, and “reliquify”. The reader has a closer emotional connection by involving their senses as well as their minds. Baker establishes ethos by explaining each step of the process by applying a logical result of every action. For example, “the butter will melt faster than the chocolate.” He establishes ethos here because if the baker is able to experience the same thing that Baker describes, he will believe Baker in the future. Baker lastly establishes logos by showing a result of the process. To get this “metal detector” you must follow the steps above.

            Baker’s argument unfolded in steps. A little bit of information was given to the reader to grasp on to and then the reader was constantly fed more and more. The author wastes no time in jumping into his essay because he assumes that his audience is in the right place and looking for a cooking recipe, not a review of one. His argument is simple cause and effect. If you put the butter and the chocolate in the pan, the butter will melt faster. When there is excess un-melted chocolate, it is to be chopped up. Simple yet strong argument. The arrangement of Baker’s argument is in steps as well. The essay wouldn’t make sense any other way than in steps because for the reader to get the intended meaning of the essay, they must read it based on the arrangement by the author.

            Baker’s style is very interesting as he leads the reader to the finished product. He uses colorful words, as mentioned above along with short commands such as “stir idly” and “sprinkle accordingly”. These short commands are intended to help the reader. If the author had said “take thy spoon and whip it through thine mixture,” the reader would get the same meaning; let alone it sounds too unnecessary. More prattle than anything else. Not only is the author rather straightforward, he uses implications to convey deeper meaning that requires the reader thinking beyond what’s being written. A metal detector attracts metal. Why would the author call it this? Instead of stating “you will be enticed every time you open your fridge” the author can just say “metal detector”. Overall it was a great essay that, when you look deeper, conveys a deeper significance that even bakers tend to miss.

            

The Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence is an amazing document that that is driven by a flawless argument. Jefferson’s argument begins with an introduction that sets the general trend of nations throughout the world. When there is a problem of oppression or malignant rule, they have to trample it underfoot and move on with new leaders and sometimes a new form of government. Jefferson’s second paragraph evokes sympathy and an emotional reason for his cause. He represents the feelings of the people and provides evidence of their emotional struggle. His train of thought is designed specifically to bring out the emotions of the reader. And if he successfully accomplishes this goal, which I think he did, he will have more bearing in passion throughout his argument. In other words, people will listen. His third paragraph lists the grievances of the people against the crown of England. They are very thorough and direct as he does not waste time and space to prove his point. This aspect of his argument provides logos. The logos is used to provide logical reasoning for his argument in that the facts and grievances provided are direct logical evidence for a reaction and change. Jefferson wants people to take action and he accomplishes this through his logical statements.  Logos leads us into the penultimate paragraph where Jefferson provides ethos, or moral reasoning, for independence. In this he justifies his reaction to the grievances and states, therefore, that they should take action about it. This is very pivotal because if Jefferson failed to make a logical and emotional connection with the leader beforehand, his moral objectives would add up to those of the reader. And the reader wouldn’t agree with Jefferson’s call to action. The final paragraph is Jefferson’s thesis. He states his call to action and recaps the reasons therein.

            I really like the way Jefferson wrote this declaration. His use of the populous opinion and his authority is quite stunning. He is very bold in listing the grievances of the king. The document is a treasure of the United States in that it not only is a reflection of one class and one opinion. It is truly a wholesome account of what life was like under the English crown in the American colonies. This document represents the citizen of any class or denomination, regardless of religious preference or political stance. This is one of the first declarations in history that actually spoke of the whole and not just of the individual writing it. The Declaration of Independence is very significant in the birth of an eighteenth century new world.

             

I Want a Wife

            Sarcasm is a great tool to use when writing. Judy Brady portrays the “getting of a wife” to be like going to the “wife store” and picking out one with all of the right specifications. The weight that women carry in modern society is great and they are definitely underappreciated by many. However, the points outlined are ideals for women. Jobs that people relate women with. Things that are socially acceptable for women to do. If a woman never stepped out of her comfort zone, then yes, she would be the perfect wife and thus fit these criteria. But I don’t think that is the author’s main point here at all. After all, she did step out of her zone to write I Want a Wife.

            The role of women in twentieth century society is that of a housewife. That is generally well known and accepted. Brady is not one to accept such truth. She writes about how nice it is to have a wife and she goes as far as to say that she too would love to enjoy that luxury. Here argument is that women take responsibility for all of the domestic chores and duties. If the children need anything, she caters to them. If the husband needs anything, she does it. In all that this wife does, she does out of the love of her heart. She, by no means, expects to collect on her duties. She is the perfect wife that does everything, but her situation is very one-sided. Where does the husband come into play?

            Husbands are on the receiving end of the Brady’s thesis of total women sub ordinance. They do not add anything to the domestic equation. But what is their role? Well, we envision from an early age that marriage is a time of happiness and joy and reverence and pure love. Brady doesn’t mention any of that stuff in her essay. The reason is this. I believe that the author is using a lot of blunt sarcasm to get the reader’s attention about something. The point is that the popular belief of a woman’s role is to be a subordinate housewife. Brady is arguing against that. Sure it would be nice to have a slave that does everything but that’s not how a marriage should work. Just like in the book A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen, where the main character Nora’s societal role was to serve and be a little “squirrel” to her husband. In conclusion of the story, she left Torvald and started anew just to prove that she could do things on her own.

I Want a Wife attracted a lot of attention as it was published in the first edition of a prominent feminist magazine. The goal was to inform women of their subordinate role, have them act upon it and eventually change their marriage into a happy partnership.  As Brady was not abdicating the sub ordinance of women, she was trying to shine the tarnished societal role of the middle class housewife.