who is better

On terms of sheer rhetoric, who do you think was more effective at relaying their message? Martin Luther King Jr or Malcolm X. There is the extreme Malcolm with his more literal language that had the ability to hit home. And then there was Martin Luther King Jr. with his words of incredible hope? It is not an easy decision to make seeing as they were both very skilled in the art of speech. I am going to compare the famous "I have a dream speech" by Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X's "The Ballot or the Bullet" speech and were going to see what kind of techniques they each employed to get their messages across.

First lets talk about repetition. Martin Luther King Jr. repeats the phrase "I have a dream" near the end of his speech over and over again. Now to some this may seem ridiculous. why would he repeat the same thing over and over? Well think about what he accompany's it with each phrase. He is saying different things that build his message of hope. He has dreamed of a day when his children can play with other children and race would hold no bearing. He dreamed of a day where states like Alabama would treat people equally. Putting all of these phrases together and uniting them with a common phrase makes the delivery of his message that much more powerful. Repetition is an effective tool when it comes to giving speeches.

Lets look at something Malcolm X does in his speech. There is something called Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. It basically describes what human beings need to survive. For example at the base you have the most basic needs like food and sleeping. Then next up is the need to feel safe, followed by the need to belong, then self esteem, and finally at the top is becoming everything you can be as a human being. Now I say this because if you are able to incorporate these needs into your speech, the speech can be made more effective. Malcolm was able to hit on the saftey needs in his speech. His method of delivery was one which hit on the safety needs. He was able to take the sense of not feeling safe and turning it into a means of motivation. His speech is one geared to helping people realize that they are fighting the same enemy. Look at this line for example.

"Whether you are -- Whether you are a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Nationalist, we all have the same problem. They don’t hang you because you’re a Baptist; they hang you 'cause you’re black. They don’t attack me because I’m a Muslim; they attack me 'cause I’m black. They attack all of us for the same reason; all of us catch hell from the same enemy."

You see the phrases "attack" and "hang" bring to attention all of the violence that some people had to deal with. This hits on the hierarchy needs of safety. People are getting killed and the feeling of safety for some is nonexistent. Along with this he also uses some repetition. This is also a very effective technique.

I only touched on a few methods that can make a speech powerful. When it comes down to deciding whose was better it is very difficult. They both use very similar methods like repetition and using Maslows needs. This one in my opinion can be a coin flop. Read their speeches and tell me who you think wins.

Individuality

What is it that makes another person's opinion seem important? Why do some people base descisions on other peoples thoughts? There are some decisions that are black and white with shades of gray. These situations usually involve some sort of specialist like a doctor or a lawyer. But what about the other kinds. The kinds that take into account what kind of interests a person has.

Recently I asked a coworker what he thought about the movie Watchmen. This coworker happens to be a nerd, I say this in the nicest way being as I am a nerd myself, and he is more into comic books than I am. He also usually catches the matinee shows of all the big movies that come out on opening day. So I approached him and asked him for his opinion. He told me he didn't like it for whatever reason, and I took what he thought and went ahead and didn't see the movie. Over the weekend I didn't really have much to do so I thought why not go see it. When I left the theater I said to myself, "What the hell is wrong with this guy?". The movie was pretty damn good in my opinion. And then I asked myself why did I let someone make a decision for me that I could have made for myself. I like superhero movies. I should have just seen it.

Now I am not bashing anyone that writes about thier opinions. I am obviously putting my own out there. It is always entertaining to read someone elses ideas about certain things. Da Musical Menace for example writes gold when he writes about things. If you fall into this category I am not hating. Keep it up actually. That is pretty much what most writing is anyway. What I am concerned with is those people that take other peoples thoughts and ideas and make them thier own without doing any research on the topic themselves.

Lets think about the news for example. There are things happening all over world that we wouldn't know about unless someone reports on it. There is a big responsibility that goes along with this for the journalist and the newscasters. They have to be honest and report accurately and that is what we all assume they do. But what if they didn't. What if things are worse than what they really are and we are just recieving a small portion of the truth. We wouldn't be getting what we deserve. It is like ordering a meal and only getting the beverage. I want my chicken too.

That was an extreme scenario though. Lets calm it down a little bit. What if Burgerking went somewhere and said "We make the best burgers. You are wasting your time and money if you try and eat a burger anywhere else." This is coming from a specialist in a sense. This is how they make money right? They're the king of burgers for crying out loud. But I am going to be honest. I love Whoppers. I think they are great. But sometimes I need a Big Mac, or a Big Buford, or a Classic Double, or a Five Guys burger. I really do. If I took Burgerkings word for it, I would miss out on all the other delicious, greasy, gifts from heaven that are there at my disposal. And that would be a shame.

There are some descions that an individual can make for themselves. A lot of times people fall into the herd mentality and give up on things they enjoy because other people think its not as impressive.

And it works both ways. Some things aren't for everybody. Someone could come and say to me, "Hey man lets go spend the night in a haunted house". Some people might get their kicks like that and they could say I am bashing it without trying it. But I have seen enough scary movies and heard enough ghost stories to say I don't want to have anything to do with ghosts. I think they exists and I want to leave them alone. My decision is made.

Individuality is hurt when these decisions are looked over and allowed to be made by others. Do things or don't do things. Just make sure you are the one making the decision.

The responsibility of the blogger

While reading the "Cult of the Amateur" by Andrew Keen over the weekend I came across a passage that made me wonder a little bit about Keen's argument against the "Internet 2.0". It starts out with him talking about Kevin Kelly and how "he wants to rewrite the very definition of the book". It is going to turn books into "a single universal free hypertext". After describing this he says:

To anyone with the most elemental appreciation for the sanctitiy of the book and respect for the toils of the authorm the implications of what Kelly suggests are, well, obscene. Is Crime and Punishment still Crime and Punishment if you remove the scene where Raskolnikov murders the pawnbroker?"

He goes on and gives a few more examples and then says that books shouldn't be taken apart and put back together like "Legos". Keen Is worried that books will be deconstructed and put back together with ideas of others with the use of Kevin Kelly's idea of digital books and therefore destroy the Original work.

I think that Keens fear is based on assumptions though. His theory that everyone on the internet will demolish the institution of books is rather farfetch'd. The day that the bloggers choose to do away with the thoughts of the great thinkers and writers of the past is the day when society really does relapse in the evolutionary process. I think that this is what is at the base of Keens fear. But civilization is moving forward. Books becoming digital is nothing but progression. Keens assumption that Kelly's idea will lead to the death of a culture makes me wonder why the internet scholars would honestly choose to do away with the fundamentals because this I figure would be the knife in to the heart of culture. Then i think some more and it hits me that this is not the case.

The original works will always be there. The removal of the great works can only be blamed to natural disasters and the rulings of tyrants. Society doesn't have to worry about natural disasters doing away with the works really because of technology and if a tyrant does around and decides to remove the great works, then its going to be war. (and Keen better be at the front lines) At the end of the day no one should worry about losing the works that are in circulation right now. 

And as for the death of culture via Kelly's idea, this can be avoided by means of responsibility. We have to honor the originals and do our best to not lose their ideas. It should be made clear what they thought and then add what others think. This will keep the wheels of progression turning. A person has to keep an open mind in order to learn. To shut out ideas is what will lead to a stop in mans evolution (just to keep up with keens idea of monkeys behind computers)

 

I think of myself for example. I am not a master in writing, but I do have a firm interest in the art and this interest drives me to look into the techniques. So the searches for writing techiniques and definitions of Kairos and other terms involving prose are neccessary for me to come to an understanding. The same goes if I am trying to understand the thoughts of the great authors and thinkers. I have to search for them and their ideas. I read their original works, and then I find Kevin Kellys digital books and find some more ideas. I then piece together both and come to an understanding. I can also look for a professional and get their ideas. This is my responsibility.

In the end, shutting out the thoughts of individuals is what will turn us into monkeys. The search for knowledge should be free. Putting barriers on the minds of others will only lead us back to the dark ages. The computer and the internet light up the faces of the bloggers and enlighten their minds as well.