Civil Rights Movement: Analyzing Approach of E. Roosevelt and M. L. King Jr.

The Fight For Rights: Who did it better?

Human rights: moral principles or norms, which describe certain standards of human behavior, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law. For centuries individuals have been fighting for their human rights, whether its rights for colored individual's, rights for immigrants, or rights for those in destitution. Indeed, even today we continue to deal with such issues. In any case, we made considerable progress since activists like Martin Luther King Jr, or Eleanor Roosevelt stood up for the benefit of those with mishandled rights such as those within the black community or the casualties suffering from a world war.

After over 3 centuries of waiting for justice within the black community, conditions worsened because of the drastic increase in the amount of racial discrimination. Activist, Martin Luther King Jr ,a dedicated Clergyman and dissident, stood up from his prison cell in Birmingham in the wake of challenging the unreasonable treatment of minorities individuals. Dr Martin Luther King Jr clarifies that it is critical that the colored community take action immediately . In “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, Dr King addresses the current situation, believing that areas such as Birmingham need to fight back against the increased amount of discrimination as well as the unjust laws still in effect. Dr Martin Luther King decided to take action starting nonviolent campaigns in attempt to put an end to segregation and gain back moral rights. While being confined in Birmingham jail, Dr Martin Luther king chose to set an example for his followers and for the black community as a whole. Dr. King gives appropriate techniques for dissent that exclude acts of savagery or of gore, usually carried out during protests- “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action.” While the people of Birmingham consistently participated in nonviolent protests, Dr. King was able to bring to our attention that there will remain the latter, consistently refusing to engage in good faith negotiation. Dr. King also argued how an oppressor will never voluntarily provide freedoms to the oppressed bringing up the fact that the majority of the people in Birmingham simply bypassed the injustice even though they were the ones being affected by it- “. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.” Dr. King relates back to classical racism and how colored people have developed a certain mindset centered around being abased by “privileged” groups- “When you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next.” Dr. Martin Luther King also refers back to the constitution guaranteeing all men basic rights. These rights however only serve those of privileged groups, preferably white people and not those who are colored. Dr. King uses parallelism to further this idea of classical racism. Dr.King explains that while these “just” laws are only being offered to the privileged it's as if there was no law presented in the first place.- "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." Dr Martin Luther King explains that just laws should be developed to coincide with the needs of the all people of any status,as well as, moral law, and the laws of God. Laws should not be created in order to give the privileged a false sense of superiority or to give the less privileged a sense of inferiority. Dr.King uses pathos to further develop his argument

While Dr.Martin Luther King fought for the equality of the black and white community during the mid 20th century, a few decades earlier lived a woman by the name of Eleanor Roosevelt. Eleanor Roosevelt served as the first lady of the U.S for the longest period of time. Besides from being the wife of a president Eleanor she served as an activist, writer, politician, and a diplomat. On February 16, 1946, while confronting the mind blowing infringement of human rights that the casualties of World War II endured, the United Nations built up a Human Rights Commission, with Eleanor Roosevelt as one of its individuals. The United Nations selected Eleanor to be a delegate allowing her to convey to the commission her long responsibility to human poise and sympathy, her long involvement in governmental issues and campaigning, and her later sympathy toward displaced people after World War II. She began to work on a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, composing parts of its content, keeping the dialect immediate and clear and concentrated on human poise- “the language of these amendments has been dressed up somewhat, but the substance is the same as the amendments which were offered by the soviet delegation” . Within her speech, “On the Adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, Eleanor discusses how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the product of the reflections of many men and that the document itself can not address every issue at hand. Roosevelt also discusses how they have to continue to cooperate with the majority while continuing to “persuade, and eventually be successful.” Eleanor discusses the amendments within the declaration such as “the first two paragraphs of the amendment to article 3” that deal with minorities. Roosevelt continues to note that the provision refers to group rights rather than individual rights. Roosevelt notes that we should keep “in mind the basic character of the document”, since it does not serve as a treaty.” Rather, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should serve simply as “ a common standard of achievement for all peoples of all nations.”

Both Martin Luther King Jr and Eleanor Roosevelt address the topic of human rights and insist that it is dire that the “unfinished task that lies before us” is handled. Dr. King however presents a reasonably stronger argument than Eleanor does. Eleanor simply discusses how the declaration ought to premise a basis for human rights and how we should work by it. She doesn't provide much reasoning for why the declaration should be followed rather than the fact that the declaration “is based upon the spiritual fact that man must have freedom in which to develop his full stature.” Rather than providing an efficient amount of reasoning for why it should be adopted, Eleanor explains the information mentioned within the articles and insists that the declaration “may well become the international Magna Carta of men everywhere”. Even though both Martin Luther King and Eleanor Roosevelt use many types of rhetoric such as analogies, parallelism, and repetition to prove their points, Roosevelt mainly addresses those who suffered many hardships during World War II “the realization that the flagrant violation of human rights by the Nazi and behind Fascist countries sowed the seeds of the last world war”. Dr.King on the other hand addresses all people as a whole, especially the black communities since their moral rights within areas such as Birmingham, where colored people have experienced extreme hatred and discrimination. Dr.King's argument is more intense and resentful than that of Roosevelt's as Dr.King has experienced tragedies such as those that he mentions within his letter. He also appeals to the emotion of the audience by using rhetoric such as pathos to explain how the violation of rights towards the black community is immoral. Roosevelt however does not present her argument with restraint and proves to be more objective than passionate.

Lobbyists such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Eleanor Roosevelt serve as the reasons we have made so much progress in gaining our ethical rights as human beings. Through the works of such activists, different perspectives are provided based on the idea of freedom and how we can further our chances of gaining back human rights. Dr. Martin Luther King bases his argument off of emotions and morals, supporting his claims using logic. Roosevelt provides statistics and keeps a stern and objective tone throughout. Dr.King however proves to be more persuasive as his use of rhetoric connects to his audience on an emotional level. Both individuals however make outstanding efforts to reach out to the public on the idea of universal freedoms for every human being.