Both King and Obama obtain positions in society that affect their perspectives on violence. In his Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, King states society needs to overcome violence without the use of violence. By him saying this, the reader can tell that King is an activist for the civil rights movement. He believes in fighting violence with nonviolence, something that is thought to be ineffective for civil rights. King also says, “…nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time…” This proves how his leadership role as a preacher affects his views on the ways to gain peace. King’s role as a preacher shapes his view on violence because he strongly believes all people deserve to be treated with love and compassion.
…show more content…
In his speech, King recognizes the violent measures being brought upon the African Americans- churches being bombed, voters being murdered, snarling dogs. He uses this violence in his speech, not to praise it, but to stand up against it. King realizes the grief and strife violence is bringing upon, not only his people, but all people. Another way King uses violence to advocate for nonviolence is when he claims, “…nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time…” In saying this, King acknowledges the urgency of replacing violence with nonviolence to solve society’s contradictions. He believes that these violent attacks should never happen, but it is time they cease. Contrarily, Obama convinces audiences that, “A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.” By mentioning two conflicts that are well known by most people, he is able to strongly get his point across. Not all problems possess a solution of nonviolence, therefore violent measures must sometimes be taken. Obama also cultivates history of war when he recalls how war has always been a way that nations gain power and settle differences. Though he assures the fact that war is to be a last resort to all conflicts, Obama knows that war is sometimes the only way to
In his speech, King recognizes the violent measures being brought upon the African Americans- churches being bombed, voters being murdered, snarling dogs. He uses this violence in his speech, not to praise it, but to stand up against it. King realizes the grief and strife violence is bringing upon, not only his people, but all people. Another way King uses violence to advocate for nonviolence is when he claims, “…nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time…” In saying this, King acknowledges the urgency of replacing violence with nonviolence to solve society’s contradictions. He believes that these violent attacks should never happen, but it is time they cease. Contrarily, Obama convinces audiences that, “A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.” By mentioning two conflicts that are well known by most people, he is able to strongly get his point across. Not all problems possess a solution of nonviolence, therefore violent measures must sometimes be taken. Obama also cultivates history of war when he recalls how war has always been a way that nations gain power and settle differences. Though he assures the fact that war is to be a last resort to all conflicts, Obama knows that war is sometimes the only way to