Examples Of Injustice In Letter From Birmingham Jail

Injustice in Birmingham Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” written in April 1963, is a passionate letter addressing the social and racial injustice in America. It was written as a response towards the eight clergymen who wrote an open letter criticizing Dr. King’s exploitation of what happened in Birmingham as he defended the actions of his organization. King beautifully composed his letter through the three rhetorical appeals: pathos, ethos, and logos. The letter, remarkably persuasive, provides compelling evidence to both the black and white communities and to the American society as a whole of the unjust treatment through the underhandedness of the city government. Dr. King maintains a steady, humble peacefulness throughout

uses the rhetorical appeal of ethos to demonstrate his credibility on the issue of racial discrimination and injustice. Starting off the letter with “My dear fellow clergymen,” King puts himself in the same status as the clergymen (1). When King pens this, he expresses that the clergymen are no better than he, and he no better than they. King still shows his respect by writing that he feels the clergymen “are men of of genuine good will” and their “criticisms are sincerely set forth” (1). Going on further, King writes that beyond the “organizational ties” in Birmingham, he remains “because injustice is here” (1). King informs the readers of his credibility on the matter of injustice, not because he is the beneficiary of white privilege, but because he is well versed on the

Through logos, King makes commonsense statements to bring unity between him and the audience. As readers study Kings letter, they see him establishing himself as a well educated, knowledgeable, and strong leader who genuinely cares about “just and unjust” laws. King states a quote from St. Augustine that “An unjust law is no law at all” (3). As an exemplary appeal to readers, King uses Hitler and the Hungarian freedom fighters to make the point that “everything Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and “everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal’ ” (3). He goes on to make the strong point that legal does not mean right. People know that what Hitler did was morally wrong and saving the jews from the holocaust was morally right. King uses that knowledge to his advantage to make his point clear that sometimes it is better to disobey the law than to obey it. He employs the connection to the violations committed against the Jews to the atrocities committed against African Americans in America. On a considerably smaller scale, the circumstances can be deemed comparable, with unjust laws bringing about violence and