We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
King is saying that those who are hurt the most should demand change, not wait for it to happen, since those who are doing the oppressing like the way things are and they won’t change anything.
The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.
This is where King makes his argument, but it wouldn’t have made sense without including the “they say” in the beginning because without that, it makes the audience think why he’s saying what he’s saying.
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?"
Uses questions that “they” might ask. He sets up his argument and that gives purpose to why he says what he says.
But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth.
King says this because there are two types of tensions: violent and nonviolent tensions and he’s saying that nonviolent tension is necessary for growth.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
He’s saying that even if rights are impeded in Birmingham and not Atlanta, it would affect him and therefore it is his duty to call for change; Not just in Atlanta, which is essentially where he lives.
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.
Starts off with “They say” not his argument first.
He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead. He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns. He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes, with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement. He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce; in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given, as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of women - the law, in all cases, going upon the false supposition of the supremacy of man, and giving all power into his hands. After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it. He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration. He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known. He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education - all colleges being closed against her. He allows her in Church as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church. He has created a false public sentiment, by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man. He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God. He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life. Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation, - in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States. In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.
It’s important to note that just like the Declaration of Independence, the similarity is that both authors use lists to make their points and in this reading, the author is pointing out how men treated women, and the whole reading is basically about the many things that He has done to her.
He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise. He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice. He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men - both natives and foreigners.
These are some facts that the author is pointing out and making a list of them to illustrate how our history is filled with what the author calls “usurpations” which means wrongfully seizing or holding by force and how women have been treated by men for many, many years.
there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television sets and YouTube, if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
This quote makes me sit up and take notice because it can be connected to the book we’re reading “They Say / I Say” because in this speech, Obama includes questions / objections that people may have and includes that in his speech in order to set up his own argument just like Eric in the book “They Say / I Say” says we should do in order to really grasp the basic moves in academic writing.