Article Critique: Letter from Birmingham Jail

The article is about a Letter from Birmingham Jail inscribed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. from a lonely incarceration cell in Birmingham, Alabama. Brutal racist fear in opposition to African Americans was very terrible in Birmingham within 1963 summer that the municipality was being known to some natives from the area as Bombingham. King had been detained when taking part in a nonviolent anti-isolation demonstration on the basis that he did not possess parade consent. Segregation rules and strategies were a section of the Jim Crow organization of separate restaurant, schools, and bathrooms, e.t.c. for whites and blacks that survived far ahead of the age of slavery, particularly within the South American. Numerous local spiritual figures Dr. King had trusted for support concurrently printed a letter titled “A Call for Unity” that was criticized by King and his followers. King’s correspondence, in turn, recognizes and reacts to every of the particular criticisms that he comprehends is being created by these men, particularly, and by the leadership of the white church. King reacts to every of these accuses to make the composition of his Letter from Birmingham prison.

The Criticisms

The author tries to counter the criticism of the spiritual leaders. One of the criticisms was that it is not King’s position as a stranger to meddling with the municipality of Birmingham. The author argues that he is the leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference which is a nationwide association, and thus he has the right to meddle in the issues of the city. He also compares himself to Paul to justify his involvement since Paul carried the gospel of freedom. Further, the author points out that discrimination anywhere are a threat to fairness everywhere. About the condemnation of it being improper for King to communicate his point through open demonstrations, the author countered by arguing that the white authority system of Birmingham gave no other option due to the incessant violence, constant racist behaviors of neighboring merchants, and the reluctance of the political principals to negotiate.

About the issue of negotiation being a better course than express action, the King argued that his assembly destined to dramatize racial discrimination and make certain that the society at large was enforced to confront the problem through getting up in everybody’s faces. They looked to set up a non-violent, inventive pressure. To counter the issue that Negro group of people should be more tolerant and wait for the community to move slowly toward civil privileges, the King pointed out that independence is never willingly offered by the tyrant.

Concerning the issue of breaking rules the author acknowledged the rightful concern but rapidly launched a defense arguing that lawbreaking was an ethical act founded on the idea that there are fair rules, and there are unfair laws. The author’s litmus trial for that dissimilarity is if a rule ‘uplifts’ or disgraces human individuality. He evaluates the dissimilarity between the infringement of a law that needs a parade authorize and the contravention of legitimate rights promised through the First Amendment. Possibly his most influential spot in this part of the ‘Letter’ is that no rule can be deemed democratically planned when a marginal has no role in enacting or making the law because of discriminatory selection practices and privileges.

Concerning the criticism that is confronting community with demands for communal fairness whatsoever how nonviolent the process is provoking brutality to happen, the author instead warns that his social group will have to regret not merely from the events of the terrible people,’ but as well from ‘the awful stillness of the good citizens. To counter the criticism that direct political acts like the protests in Birmingham being acts of extremism, the author turned his attention to two groups of that include the complacent and the radical group. He separates the complacent into those who have been trodden down by scarcity and discrimination and are too tired to fight for themselves and others who match up to the ‘white modest,’ the little Negroes within the middle category.  By defining the groups into bitterness the King has positioned himself in the center but not the extreme of the black America. He as well rhetorically doubts if he does not take delight in being considered of as an extremist in this context.

Concerning the criticism that matters of civil privileges and social fairness are unrelated to the church, and that must not and does not call for him to get engaged with political issues, the King looked back to an era when the church had a more sturdy leadership responsibility on public matters. He argued that the church was the thermostat and not simply a thermometer in that era. He went on to argue that the early Christians were not frightened to criticize practices that were acknowledged but unfair. He contrasted the current church as an ‘arch follower of the status quo.

My view is that the author was in the right to fight for the fair treatment of all persons irrespective of color. All people should get fair treatment in all public areas and government institutions. My opinion about the arguments of the author is that he was rational and very clear on what he desired as a leader. The article is very educative on the matters of the issue of discrimination of the white.