Carmichael and King

In this essay I will compare and contrast the rhetorical style and strategies of Stokley Carmichael and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I will be using the artifacts of Carmichael's Black Power speech delivered at Berkley in 1966 (Carmichael), and Dr. King's Letter From a Birmingham Jail (King 76). I will begin by noting the similarities between the two men's rhetoric.

Let's begin by looking at the obvious. These were two well-educated African American men fighting to be heard in a nation that would just as soon have let them stayed quiet. Instead they stood up, spoke out, and persevered in their belief that things could and would get better within their lifetimes. Both were excellent at adapting their speaking styles to various audiences. Although Carmichael did seem the superior at this particular skill. It is noted that he would even dress differently for each audience (Stewart 435).

Indeed, we must consider the audiences to whom each man was speaking. Carmichael, as member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, often addressed his peers in age. He addressed his rhetoric at students, as is evidenced by this speech at Berkley. He also spoke in more political terms than Dr. King. This is probably because his audiences were more familiar with political events and were more willing to involve themselves in a political discourse.

Dr. King on the other hand, aimed his rhetoric at an older audience. Also, his audience might not be as literate or educated as he was. Coupled with the fact that he was a minister, he used spiritual terms to speak to his followers. Even if his audience had never read the Bible, they were sure to have heard it. He was in the South, after all, where religion is taken very seriously.

Each was a very powerful speaker in his own right. Each was very popular with the masses. Each had an amazing grasp of language and rhetorical strategies. Each also had very specific ideas on what the African American population was should seek and how they should endeavor to attain their goals. And that is where these two men diverge.

Within this essay, I will endeavor to look at each man's rhetoric from three different perspectives. They are love vs. power, nonviolence vs. violence, and spiritual rhetoric vs. political rhetoric. I will define each of these terms as they pertain to the styles of the individual speakers in question.

First let's look at the cornerstones of each of these men's platforms. For Dr. King, he believed in love as a powerful motivator and reason for civil rights activists to gather behind (91). Stokley Carmichael on the other hand saw power itself (i.e. the ability to exact change through force) as the best way to achieve the movements ends. This is not to say that he advocated violence exclusively. Violence is often confused with power. But violence often gives its victims the power as opposed to giving the perpetrator more. No, Carmichael used force to mean political or societal pressure against the white majority. He believed that it was the best way to get their attention and to exact change in a more timely manner than Dr. King's methods would (Carmichael).

Ironically, both Dr. King and Carmichael had very similar ideas about time. They both believed that the African citizens of America could no longer afford to wait for change to happen (King 82). Instead they believed that it was time to make the changes happen for themselves. As Dr. King states "there comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over..." But Carmichael did not see things in exactly the same way. Instead he stated that change was due now and Dr. King's more moderate seeming practices would take to long to achieve the goals the movement had set forth.

Both men agreed that the white population could not and would not condemn itself for injustices committed against Black people during this time in history. Stokley asserts that this is because if one blamed themselves, then they would have to exact punishment upon themselves as well (Carmichael). Dr. King instead says that instead of condemning themselves, white people say that more time is needed to make integration happen (86). But both did have the same target in mind, moderate or liberal white Americans who were "trying to help." Carmichael suggested they go back to their own communities and work to stamp out racism there, as that was where the real problem was still being perpetuated. Dr. King suggested that the moderate whites could not fully understand all the ways that they were keeping the oppressed race down.

Both men also had similar views on Black people taking back their pride and their communities. They agreed that they must free themselves of the white races perceptions of them as a race. Instead they had to gain their own sense of self and not view themselves as inferior anymore (Carmichael). They could not allow themselves to be called "lazy" or "worthless" anymore. Carmichael actually states that white people often think of anything that is "all black as all bad". He furthers this statement by saying that he "is all black and all good (Carmichael)." By throwing off the prevalent perception of his race, he took back a sense of self.

The two did differ, however, in their views of the effectiveness of violence on the situations in which many activists found themselves in. Dr. King advocated peace and nonviolence even to the point serious injury as some activists were severely beaten by police forces (93). So strong was his commitment to nonviolence that there were workshops held to show people how to act without retaliation if they were struck (King 79).

Carmichael's stance, however, was one of retaliation. He stated that if pushed he and his people would push back (Carmichael). Perhaps retaliation isn't the word that best fits his viewpoint. Reactionary, I think, is the better word. For if one is pushed, then the natural reaction would surely be to push back.

Each man's stance on violence or nonviolence, or action vs. non-action if you prefer, was almost surely rooted in his worldview. Dr. King was a minister (77). He believed in the teachings of Jesus and in turning the other cheek. Carmichael on the other hand had been part of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for quite a while. He had become disillusioned with the work they were doing, and how long it was taking to see any changes (Carmichael). He wanted to take action (Carmichael). To stir people to action (Carmichael). And this is how his political rhetoric was shaped.

By political rhetoric, I mean to say, that Carmichael's style was adapted to using a political language in order to bring about change. In contrast, Dr. King used a spiritual rhetoric. That is, his style and use of language incorporated symbolic spiritual aspects to connect with the audience. Carmichael's style was no less stirring. Indeed, he could rouse a crowd quite easily (Stewart 435). And while both were experts at using both logos and pathos, it was the ethos aspect that helped each of them to connect with the audience best.

And of course, their emotional appeals were wound tightly into their political and spiritual rhetoric. This is evidenced with Dr. King's citing of himself as being an extremist for love (88). It is also evidenced in Carmichael's emotional appeal for power in the statement "We have no choice but to say clearly, move over, or we're going to move over you."

In conclusion, I would like to state that I admire both men's command of language, their ability to adapt to their audiences, and their desire for social change. Each man may have had divergent styles of speaking and of the kinds of rhetoric they chose to use to reach their audiences, but they were both strong, charismatic men who helped to bring about much needed change throughout America.