Different perspectives may lead to different things but in this case there are two similarities and a difference in Martin Luther King’s Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance speech and in President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech. Both King and Obama express and explain their views on how things should be and how they should be done.
In both speeches, Martin Luther King and President Barack Obama talk about violence but in different ways. King’s examples are about how violence is used for killing people because of something as crazy as segregation while Obama’s examples are about how violence is used for the safety and self-defense of others in need. The first example King expresses his knowledge about violence says, “And only yesterday more than 40 houses of worship in the State of Mississippi alone were bombed or burned because they offered a …show more content…
Obama states that violence being necessary shouldn’t be a disbelief because force and violence was and still is apart of the United States’s history. Some of the force or violence in American history is simply just self-defense. To conclude, both Obama and King use the term “violence” but they’re different perspectives on the word changes the way it is displayed in their speeches, such as bombings of churches and self-defense in war.
In both speeches, Martin Luther King and President Barack Obama both talk about peace and how that is what the end result should be for all of the nonsense and violence that has went on in the nation. The first example that King delivers about peace as an end result says, “I accept this prize on behalf of all men who love peace and brotherhood.” This example is showing that King is accepting the award for those who love peace and equality in their nation. King shows that he wants peace in the world as much as anyone else after all of the situations going on with the church burnings and
In both speeches, Martin Luther King and President Barack Obama talk about violence but in different ways. King’s examples are about how violence is used for killing people because of something as crazy as segregation while Obama’s examples are about how violence is used for the safety and self-defense of others in need. The first example King expresses his knowledge about violence says, “And only yesterday more than 40 houses of worship in the State of Mississippi alone were bombed or burned because they offered a …show more content…
Obama states that violence being necessary shouldn’t be a disbelief because force and violence was and still is apart of the United States’s history. Some of the force or violence in American history is simply just self-defense. To conclude, both Obama and King use the term “violence” but they’re different perspectives on the word changes the way it is displayed in their speeches, such as bombings of churches and self-defense in war.
In both speeches, Martin Luther King and President Barack Obama both talk about peace and how that is what the end result should be for all of the nonsense and violence that has went on in the nation. The first example that King delivers about peace as an end result says, “I accept this prize on behalf of all men who love peace and brotherhood.” This example is showing that King is accepting the award for those who love peace and equality in their nation. King shows that he wants peace in the world as much as anyone else after all of the situations going on with the church burnings and