Hannah Adkins

Dr. Schur

HNRS 205

Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere:

Shifts in the Rhetoric of Martin Luther King Jr. and How He is Remembered

Born in 1929, Martin Luther King Jr. has been considered the face of the Civil Rights

Movement in the United States of America. Throughout the mid-fifties to late-sixties, King

delivered speeches about the injustice and inequality that African Americans were facing. His

dedication to the cause, passion for it, and determination for change has made him one of the

most memorable figures of that entire era (1955-1968). In the beginning, his speeches were on

the subject of blatant discrimination and segregation. He pleaded with his followers to combat

these problems with love and acceptance for all involved- even white supremacists. However, as

time went on, King’s speeches shifted in their tone.

The span of Martin Luther King Jr.’s reign as a leader in advocacy can be divided into

three eras. For the purposes of this paper, the time period of 1955 through 1961 will be referred

to as the era of “early King”, the time period of 1961 through 1965 will be referred to as the era

of “middle King”, and the time period of 1965 through the year of King’s death, 1968, will be

referred to as the era of “late King”. These three eras are distinctly identifiable by the degree of

radicalism and the general tone of the speeches King presented throughout them. Even the

subject matter of the speeches underwent some shifts throughout the different eras. In the era of

early King, the subject matter and tone heavily regarded love, acceptance, and nonviolence. By
the era of late King, he placed more pressure on the people and the government to make changes,

and was outspoken about his criticisms of the way different institutions were being run.

One of the speeches King delivered in his early era was titled The Power of Non-

Violence (1958). The purpose of this speech was to reinforce the power of non-violence and

remind his followers and his skeptics of why maintaining a stance rooted in non-violence is

crucial to the movement at hand. This is a rhetoric King shares in the early era, that never really

changed with the general shift in tone. Non-violence was an important feature of the movement

throughout its entirety. King reminds the audience that a non-violent resister is equally effective

in the face of the oppressor as a resister that is violent, and he pleads with the followers to try to

win the “friendship and understanding” of the opponent (30). Another interesting thing that King

asks of his followers is to not attack or hate the individual oppressor, but to attack the system that

produces these oppressors and allows for their wrongdoings. King speaks of agape as the form of

love utilized in this fight and dehumanizes the conflict stating that the struggle is between

“justice and injustice” rather than specific people or groups of people (31). This non-violent and

loving approach to fighting for civil rights was received both positively and negatively.

After hearing and understanding that Martin Luther King Jr. was uninterested in

participating in violence against whites, and was even willing to place pressure on the system

that produced the inequality rather than the people perpetuating it there were some mixed

feelings regarding this methodology. On one hand, it was very admirable of King to practice a

loving approach to the conflict and encourage his followers to maintain a level of respect in the

face of their oppressors. However, this did ignite some criticism from his audience. Many

citizens of the African American community (especially in the North) did not see this approach

as being enough. Some believed that King was letting the oppressors off easy, and was not
practicing any urgency regarding the matter. Despite any criticism, this approach allowed the

white population in the United States to sympathize with King and the movement at large. The

approach of non-violence, agape, and attacking the system most likely made them more willing

to listen to him. When he shed light that there was a system behind their racism, it took the

pressure off of the individuals in the white community and the plea for a mutual friendship and

understanding was more easily digestible to them. It is important to note that just because King

might have minimized some tensions with this approach, his ideas and the movement at large

were still rejected by many in the South and throughout the United States.

Throughout the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr. received a lot of backlash

and criticism. King was not unaware of his critics, but ultimately chose not to respond to them.

This was the case until 1963 when he received mass critics for not spending enough time in jail

and practicing hypocrisy. These criticisms came from his fellow religious leaders, so it resonated

deeply with King. In the letter, he addresses these clergymen directly and rebuttals their

criticisms. The letter is widely studied, analyzed, and quoted. Of all the messages in the letter,

one of the most memorable messages is one King addresses to the white moderates. He claims

that he has discovered that the force most in the way of African Americans achieving their goals

are not the white supremacist groups directly opposing them. The largest road block for African

Americans was the white moderate. King claims that the white moderate is one who “prefers a

negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of

justice” (91). This was a big deal because he was directly addressing people that believed they

were acting impartial (or close to impartiality) by asking the African Americans to wait and be

patient in regards with desegregation. By stating this, he clarified a direct enemy or opposer of

the movement for the first time. He also responds to critics that he is an extremist. To combat
this accusation, he reminds the reader of the actions and beliefs of beloved religious and

American leaders; asking if they, too, were not extremists. This was a profound statement

because it made a clear point to his opposers. It was direct, it was to the point, and it was

unapologetic. This was a very different sentiment from that with which we saw in his previous

speeches, and it influenced the way some people perceived King.

The time period of 1963 to 1968 (mid and late King eras) really shaped the way the

public reacted to King, and heavily influenced the way he is remembered in American society.

Following Letter from Birmingham Jail and his famous I Have a Dream speech, King continued

to become more and more radical and unapologetic in his words and desires. By the era of late

King, he is criticizing beloved institutions such as the military and education. Though he

reinforced the idea of loving one another and practicing non-violence, he definitely continued

shifting his tone. Specifically, in King’s speech, A Time to Break the Silence (1967), he shares

some radical ideas about an institution highly valued by the majority of American society- the

military. This is one of the clearest demonstrations of the shift that took place in King’s rhetoric

between 1955 and 1968.

Throughout the entirety of A Time to Break the Silence, King is pointing out the

hypocrisy practiced by Americans in their policies and beliefs. The majority of this hypocrisy

comes in the form of the military and the handling of the Vietnam War. In the speech, King

directly attacks the American government, claiming it is the “greatest purveyor of violence in the

world” (139). King also speaks on behalf of young African American men, showcasing the irony

that they are fighting for a country that has belittled them and stripped them of their liberties.

King claims that the Vietnamese are brothers to us, and makes parallels between American

involvement in the Vietnamese War and genocide. Even the funding of the military is questioned
by King in this speech, as he informs the audience that more money is spent on the military than

social programs in the United States. Though there was opposition of the war by many, this

speech was delivered at a time in which patriotism was the root of all decision making and

loyalty to one’s country was highly regarded. Because of this, King caused a lot of uproar and

faced a lot of backlash, as well.

Following this speech and the almost anti-American sentiment that went with it, Martin

Luther King Jr.’s disproval rating hit an all-time high. King’s disproval rating grew 25 points

between 1963 and 1968, ultimately reaching 75% in the South (Cobb). The enemy and subject of

King’s rhetoric shifted from justice versus injustice to fighting all of American society and the

institutions that control it. Even King himself noted that over time the crowds he was facing were

growing in hatred towards him (Cobb). Even politicians were publicly criticizing King and he

movement at large. Following several speeches in 1963, public officials went on the record to

comment about the movement. In 1963 Senator Strom Thurmond claimed

“[African Americans] are better fed, they have better houses here than in any other

country in the world. No one is deprived of freedom that I know about” (Whitaker).

Another Senator, Russell Long, claimed that he wanted to fight for the right for people to be able

to choose who they want to surround themselves with. This was in combat to mentions of

desegregation. Even after King’s life opposition continued. During the 1980’s Ronald Reagan

publicly questioned King’s motives and suggesting there is a possibility he was a communist.

Nationally, by 1966, only 33% of Americans viewed King and his messages positively

(Whitaker). With a disapproval rating nearing 70% nationwide, it is interesting that today, in the

United States, the positivity rating of King is over 90% (Cobb). Somewhere between the mid-to-

late 1900’s and now, the public response to King has changed dramatically. The King that
American society chooses to remember is early King; the least controversial and the easiest to

agree with.

Today in the United States of America, Martin Luther King Jr. is remembered in a way

that overshadows his later messages. Some aspects of the way King is remembered today

remains true to his general messages about love, justice, and nonviolence. Despite this, it is

rarely remembered by the public that King’s tone, willingness to spark controversy, and subject

of criticisms underwent major shifts. As the eras of King’s writings and speeches progressed, he

became more and more radical and directly opposed the most valued institutions in American

society. However, contemporary American society gives little attention to this shift and

remembers him for is general messages of love and acceptance.

 Works Cited

Cobb, James. “Even Though He Is Revered Today, MLK Was Widely Disliked by the American

Public When He Was Killed.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 4 Apr. 2018,

www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-martin-luther-king-had-75-percent-disapproval-

rating-year-he-died-180968664/.

“Power of Non Violence, Letter From Birmingham Jail, A Time to Break Silence.” I Have a

Dream Writings and Speeches That Changed the World, by Martin Luther King et al.,

Harper San Francisco, 1992.

Whitaker, Morgan. “Back in the Day: What Critics Said about King's Speech in 1963.” MSNBC,

NBCUniversal News Group, 2 Oct. 2013, www.msnbc.com/msnbc/back-the-day-what-

critics-said-about-king.