Martin Luther King Jr Rhetorical Analysis

Words: 806
Pages: 4

American congressman and civil rights activist John Lewis famously stated before he died in 2020 that "Ordinary people with extraordinary vision can redeem the soul of America by getting in what I call good trouble, necessary trouble." Throughout history, whether it be American colonists throwing tea into the harbor, Civil Rights activists rallying protests, or suffragettes holding hunger strikes in protest of their arrests, trouble has typically always precedent change in America. Lewis knew that to make lasting change, the involvement of trouble is necessary. Trouble is obligatory necessary to make permanent change as the agitationit disrupts the status quo, can sway the masses to the cause, and can implement legislative action. Trouble is …show more content…
King was known for his peaceful protesting abilities, which often overshadowed how his organized marches acted as a form of civil disobedience by blocking transportation and causing a general disturbance. When King organized his marches around busy areas and roads, he forced locals to see civil rights protestors in the flesh rather than being depicted on the radio or in the newspaper. This humanizes Martin Luther King's cause and establishes a connection with bystanders, adding more numbers to support the Civil Rights movement. Civil disobedience is a tactic still widely used today, with pro-Palestinian protestors conducting sit-ins on busy highways to block traffic across America. Civil disobedience is an important tool that the average citizen can wield and should not be overlooked in the arsenal of protest tactics. However, the problem of civil disobedience is not only a tool to make a statement, but also one that can sway public opinion. Furthermore, necessary trouble can be successful in springing legislative action, but only through public support, can there be lasting change it can only make lasting change with public …show more content…
By thus, by inflicting necessary trouble on establishments of oppression, they are shaken to their core. The Black Panther Party used methods of armed protest to resist police brutality as well as legislative attempts to thwart their efforts. In May in the late 1960s, California's legislative body passed the Mulford Act, prohibiting the public from carrying loaded firearms without a permit. On paper, this sounded like a form of reasonable gun control; however, the bill was intentionally crafted to target and disarm the Black Panther Party as a response to their armed patrols around black neighborhoods, a tactic to protect black citizens from police brutality. In retaliation, members of the Black Panther in Sacramento proceeded to march fully armed onto the legislative body's building, demanding that their Second Amendment rights be protected. Their protest ultimately failed, with then-Governor, Ronald Reagan, still signing the bill into