A Critique on Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” Essay

The job of this paper is two-fold; initially, this paper will trace and describe the evolution of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s belief that war, racism and economic injustice are all intertwined and can be dealt with the restructuring of society’s concerns and addressed the necessity of a transformation of worths; 2nd, this paper will also describe how he performed his beliefs in the his speech at the Lincoln Memorial, “I Have a Dream”.

At the beginning of this paper, it is essential to note that King’s ‘background’ [that includes his race, habituation, education and religious beliefs amongst numerous others] is vital in his resist racial discrimination, violence and financial injustice as experienced by blacks in the United States of America.

This was clearly stated in the speech where hundreds of countless people were able to work as audience.

In this speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. talks of produced and institutionalised oppression, I imply injustice which involves the systems of law and power relations the basis of which is against the ‘natural law’.

The speech function is made evident here as its objective was explained: that racism should be eliminated. Moreover, Luther King’s striking delivery made it more of simply an expression of flexibility however of a resist an intangible opponent: his fellow American’s mentality. Natural law theorists, following the ideas of St.

Augustine that “an unjust law is not a law at all” and Aquinas’ concept of “law as an ordinance of factor”, view morality as essentially tied up with the really essence of law. How does King figure in all of this? How can we explain the evolution of King’s ideological viewpoint? The point is clear: Oppression and unreasonable treatment of people is not morally legitimate nor is it morally acceptable most specifically if the basis of such is the person’s ethnic background or race.

As the Kantians thought, everyone has a capacity for logical consideration and choice and as such, a self-governing being with self-respect and therefore, should be appreciated by virtue of being human individuals. The development of King’s ideological viewpoint may therefore be construed in such way that it is an item, both of his experiences as a black living in a white-dominated society and his philosophical and political development and this may be presumed from Fairclough’s book, “Martin Luther King, Jr. “, 1995.

King’s speeches extremely plainly communicate his views: “I think that unarmed reality and unconditional love will have the last word in reality … I have the audacity to think that peoples all over can have 3 meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and self-respect, equality, and liberty for their spirits […] (as mentioned by Carson, 1998). Three crucial points about King and his political thrusts, philosophical orientation and regarding why he may be called a “extreme democrat” might be presumed from the previously mentioned quotation in his speech.

First, as a leading figure in “civil rights movement” King thought in the tenets of democracy and liberalism in the sense that he believed that both white and black Americans must have reasonable treatment in the world of the law, for the purpose of law itself is the administration of social justice. Second, he thought in the “non-necessity of violence”. Influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s “civil disobedience”, he thought that there are serene ways in and through which the problem of political and economic injustice might be solved.

It might further be inferred that for him, political, financial and social change can best be accomplished not through violence [which the federal government should not keep itself busy from going to war, as when it comes to the Vietnam War] nor by transforming a part or a sector of society however what is needed is a restructuring of the society as a whole. King thought that a “revolution of values” is a matter of strict necessity. King’s views might be determined as “extreme” in this sense.

He stressed the requirement to restructure even how we think of black Americans or African Americans. It may be inferred that racism, the feeling of being superior over another race or ethnic group or citizenship is grounded on the incorrect facilities; wrong modes of believing and thinking. It is by transforming our psyche and by appealing through factor and conscience that society as a whole might chart its rightful path towards genuine social change.

Third, he believed and battled not only for civil rights but likewise for economic changes especially labor rights and lobbied for law reforms to be enacted to protect Negroes from exploitation and overbearing plans embraced by companies. These consist of fair treatment and equal work chance, just payment, etc. This is how he carried out his beliefs in the Memphis Strike and the Poor Individuals’s Project. King acted as a voice crying for the emancipation not just of black Americans however also of other people from the chains of injustice.

Based upon the above conversation, we can see why King thought that the issues and conflicts caused by war, bigotry and financial oppression are all linked. What we can presume from his views is the interweaving and adjoining patterns produced by bigotry itself. Additionally, the speech was made memorable as it was delivered at the Lincoln Memorial. Abraham Lincoln was the first to abolish the slave trade in the southern states throughout his term which was thought about as a substantial action towards racial equality in the United States.

However racism is not in itself the root of the problem; it is merely an impact of a traceable cause. This cause, this root of bigotry, is none besides a distorted value system, a wrong frame of mind resulting to feelings of supremacy and even contempt and hate which further results to taking an unreasonable benefit of other humans, plus a really materialistic market essentially driven by capital.

The fault is, at bottom, deeply embedded with the minds of persons and a wrong worth system, a wrong sense of pride and nationality, for it stops working, in the Kantian sense, to appreciate individuals for the sake of being human individuals, not as simple methods and tools that another individual or race may utilize but as ends-in-themselves, having the capability for rational idea, capable of making rational choices and thus, beings that are autonomous and dignified and for the previously mentioned reasons, are worthy of to be respected.

Recommendations: Carson, C. A Call to Conscience: The Landmark Speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: Warner Books; Reprint edition (2002 ). Fairclough, A. Martin Luther King, Jr.: University of Georgia Press, c. 1995.

You Might Also Like