Course Name: INTRO TO RHET & COMP
Course Number: ENGL 3050
Instructor: Harker, Michael W.
Semester: Fall 2020
Introduction to Beyond Vietnam: A Rhetorical Analysis
The rhetorical analysis audience is hard to define as this piece is strictly to define the work. The American people and the bystander effect of the Vietnam war has always intrigued me due to the social protest during the 70s as people began to use their Citizen rights to actively speak against the government’s affairs in the Vietnam’s. The negative impact of the by-stander effect is an interesting human coping mechanism. I wanted to explore this in MLK speech due to it being one of his last speeches that differed from previous works. Beyond Vietnam introduce many rhetorical devices and strengthened my ability to not only spot them but explain them through writing. This speech and analysis later became a wonderful teaching tool that I refer to discovery new ways of inserting rhetorical theories.
The rhetorical analysis audience is hard to define as this piece is strictly to define the work. The American people and the bystander effect of the Vietnam war has always intrigued me due to the social protest during the 70s as people began to use their Citizen rights to actively speak against the government’s affairs in the Vietnam’s. The negative impact of the by-stander effect is an interesting human coping mechanism. I wanted to explore this in MLK speech due to it being one of his last speeches that differed from previous works. Beyond Vietnam introduce many rhetorical devices and strengthened my ability to not only spot them but explain them through writing. This speech and analysis later became a wonderful teaching tool that I refer to discovery new ways of inserting rhetorical theories
Beyond Vietnam: A Rhetorical Analysis
Beyond Vietnam- A Time to Break Silence speech delivered on April 4, 1967, revolved around the growing concern with America’s involvement in the Vietnam war. This lecture became an explosive example of colorful language and visual examples that expanded the idea of rhetoric. During the final years of Martin Luther King’s life, it truly broadened the assumed notion of his image. Often seen as a “safe” choice of an activist by the political system and society of the time; becoming a crossroads for King’s career as the public saw his use of old rhetoric and opinions slowly dwindling. The premise of the claim throughout the speech is, the active participation in the war was unjust, granted the extensive use violence and horror thrown against the poor, as well as helping in the destruction of a country that for most people living there is outside of their own involvement. More than King’s general lack of support for the war he uses this current state of divide to home in on the idea of “silence”, and the dangers that lurk behind the “bystander effect”. Using ethos and pathos the speech leads the audience to consider the notion that the war is not only unjust but a civic duty of Americans to fight. Beyond Vietnam speech develops into an intriguing form of rhetoric and persuasion as it becomes a turning point for freedom of speech and the American viewpoint on the war.
King is known for his compelling form of rhetoric that often enchants the audience and helps further settle the point. So, what forms of persuasive language were used in the Beyond Vietnam speech? Throughout the text it is transparent of the continued use of “Devil” terms as famous rhetorician Kenneth Burke expressed in his research for literature and “symbolic actions/language”. Devil terms include words used to negatively evaluate the prospects of a situation or action. Considering the speech itself is inherently an anti-war speech we can find several examples of devil terms through the oration, such as the term “peasant” used.
Why is this word found not often throughout the speech considered important? The word peasant on the surface is a rather small and insulting word to remark about someone’s social and economic status in society. Considering this term is used broadly to a population of an entire country it becomes an intense word that harbors an increasingly negative connotation. King uses this term to signify the helplessness that many of the Vietnamese people felt over their predicament involving the war; as well as the force of war weighing upon them dragging them down to nothing but “mere peasants” who have little to no say in their country or way of life. All over the speech we see several other forms of devil terms to express the generalized bad or wrong that’s benign exemplified. For example, King’s use of “America” itself is a devil term. The US has become a concrete example for him as symbolism of silence being the large hand in the war. America weaves its way through the text as a mirror for the audience becoming a passive way of creating ownership over the war for the American citizens that remain quiet during this time of despair.
In the speech King imagines the Vietnamese seeing America as “strange liberators” that poach their land, kill their families, and turn a blind eye to the appointed dictators’ harsh actions/ general realities they face daily. He calls too “America’s soul”, it seems as if he questions if they have one; inferring that we created a sense of madness and inequality wherever we land. King also uses words such as “beloved nation”, another devil term, as a form of sarcasm that appeals to the ideal that America is viewed often throughout the word as the omen for bad times and war. This persuasive language creates an interesting dynamic as it puts the weight on the citizens passively and yet still calls to American citizens consciously relieving some of that “weight” by inferring they have the chance to redeem themselves. Martin had a persuasive way of forming his rhetoric in a way that was never intrusive or aggressive.
When studying a complex text such as an anti-war speech pertaining to Vietnam it’s important to understand the audience. It’s clear within the first few minutes that King means to target the average American citizen as a catalyst for change. What I found interesting within the context of rhetoric was King’s rejection of his secondary, meaning the government/officials within the walls of both sides at the very beginning of his speech. He states this exact intention during the text, directing the message to the audience, “Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans”. He rejects the idea of trying to reason with the political figures of both sides of the conflict, but rather the humanity of the individual to fight. It’s a delicate way to captivate not only your target audience but everything around that as well. What further expresses King’s understanding of the human dichotomy and rhetoric is he understands that this rejection of the government, but plea to the average individual gathers larger interest from citizens as most speeches are generally indirectly focused on the governmental audience. This sense of self-importance not only puts the weight of the choice on citizens but gives them a form of power that has been stripped for the Vietnamese themselves, allowing this juxtaposition to continue the message itself with self-realization that can be perplexing yet founding.
One message that became the foundation of the speech outside of its anti-war rhetoric was this question of authority and “reading/seeing against the grain” of the government. Martin Luther King questions the innate idea of “authority”, this is shown through the idea of questioning the reasoning of supporting the war blindly in the faith of patriotism. During the introduction of the speech King often stated that, “A time comes when silence is betrayal” and that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam. The rhetoric used during this idea was intriguing because instead of reprimanding the audience for not coming to this conclusion sooner, King states that we should “rejoice”. The first half of the speech he states, “we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation’s history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history”. Now let’s dissect this rhetorical idea; by taking away the discomfort of rebelling against the government during war times and showing this form of activism as enlightenment during American social reconstruction it allows for the idea to be formally more accepted and less intrusive. King’s objective to plant this seed early within his text allowed for greater absorption and compliance.
The metaphors and imagery used during Beyond Vietnam are what really tied the message together and explored the option of visual persuasion through rhetoric. One of the metaphors explained is Vietnam as a “demonic, destructive suction tube”, that is slowly shifting America’s attention from the real issues at hand within our own political system. This helped the audience create a discomfort and anger at the war that truly was not our responsibility to begin with. As well as stirring emotions around his own causes outside of anti-war speech.
King uses unsettling descriptions of the daily life of Vietnamese people since the war occurred. He describes poisoned water, acres of crops destroyed, destruction of nature, and worst of all children selling their mothers and sisters to soldiers to provide for their family. This imagery creates an uneasiness and hence allows the audience to first imagine their own daily life in comparison, this stark contrast appeals to the emotional appeals of the speech. Without this form of visual rhetoric, it can remain hard for the audience to truly sympathize with the objective because it’s innately too far from their own reality. Once you give a graphic detail of the true suffering, broken down to daily routine it’s almost impossible to not compare your own bearings, with this knowledge King used this form of empathy to hasten his point.
The Beyond Vietnam speech has become a brilliant example of persuasion at its finest. Martin Luther King blends several forms of rhetorical tools to help further his point without ever forcing it. The speech allowed the audience to formulate their own opinions while also informing them. Logic and visual arguments become the foundation for the orator, which further establishes a lasting sound impact. Through King’s career he exhibited a strong a gift with self-reflection as a means of Laissez-faire rhetorical persuasion. Despite Beyond Vietnam being one of his last speeches before his minutely death it remains a piece that truly his rhetorical understanding.