Comparative Essay

Dr. King strategically breaks down and characterizes acquiescence as a form of dealing with oppression. Through his analysis, King explains how people

Aung San Suu Kyi is a visionary that fights for Burma, her country, believing that people should fight for democracy and freedom through non-violent movements. She had a clear knowledge of her government and the government that she wanted for her people. As Aung Dan Suu said, it is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it (page 682). In order to bring this matter to the reader’s attention, Aung San Suu employs several rhetorical strategies. She uses the three main rhetorical devices: ethos, pathos, and logos to provide expert opinions on the subject. Through the text “Freedom from fear”, she made her ideas clear and define for

“A Comparison of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech and ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’”.

Two twentieth-century leaders who have continued to influence non-violent social protest movements internationally are Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Jr, Of different races and cultures, born on opposite sides of the world in nations vastly different in wealth and technology, these two aggressive men in their later years shared the philosophy of non-violent, but direct, action and expended their lives in pursuit of peaceful solutions to social inequities. An examination of their lives, consequently, reveals both similarities and differences in their family backgrounds, ideology, and plans for social action. Gandhi's and King's family backgrounds show similarities and differences.

After Aung San’s death, who was Suu Kyi’s father, Aung San Suu Kyi struggled to fight for Burma’s democracy. It all started just after Myanmar’s independence when Ne Win’s Revolutionary Council suspended the constitution and turned the country under Socialism. Suu Kyi, who was abroad for 23 years, came back to Burma to visit her dying mother when Ne Win announced his resignation and called for a referendum for Burma’s future. The people’s hope for democracy was drawn back after Ne Win’s party opposed his decision. The outraging people performed

Why did Aung San Suu Kyi return to Burma in 1988, and how did she become involved in the political situation there? Why do you think she became involved, even though she had not previously been involved in politics?

I want to start off by stating how much I really enjoyed the two articles about Burma. When I first begin to read, I was very intrigued by how poorly the people of Burma were being treated. The blunt disrespect of the people was very overwhelming, and I believe that no one should ever be treated that way. In Brief History of Burma By Thomas R. Lansner, it explained how Burma's peoples over many centuries were largely stripped of their authority after Britain's 19th century conquest of Burma. I feel that no one should have the power to take anything from anyone who had been working hard to get it in the first place. The military itself took the freedom of the people and tortured the people for years. As a read this, I begin to try to put myself

Aang San Suu Kyi was only two years old when she lost her father. She moved to United Kingdom to attend college and returned to Burma only to stay by her mother’s side when she was dying. During this period, Suu Kyii saw what problems the population was facing with the new ruler. As soon as she saw the deficiencies in the health system, the soldiers

At times there are opposing forces preventing one from achieving the good life, causing some of the greatest things in life to be fought for. This statement is supported by Nelson Mandela’s Long Walk to Freedom and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham jail. In Mandela’s life, the strict apartheid laws of his country prevented him and many others from living freely and similarly, Dr. King crusaded against racial segregation. When oppressors refused to negotiate, compromise, and in one instance, even refused to follow federal law, both men were forced to conduct acts of civil disobedience or better said, disregard discriminatory laws which led to the cost of imprisonment and to be an object of derision. For Dr. King, he explained to his critics that in order to gain freedom, it was important to fight for it even if equality isn’t “illegal”. Dr. King then relates how Hitler’s mass extermination

Suu's vicinity causes distress for the heartless, distrustful and superstitious officers who standard the nation. They might want to be freed of her; however her unmistakable quality, her global associations and the hesitance to make another saint like Aung San keep them from utilizing the standard fierce routines. Rather, Suu is welcome to leave the nation and afterward, when she won't, is set under a house arrest that will extend, in different structures, more than two decades. Moreover when she visits her mom in the healing center in 1988, she meets a large portion of the individuals who were injured amid the Tatmadaw's crackdown in the 8888 Uprising. She understands that political change is required in Burma and is soon attracted into the movement to advance change. She acknowledges the part of symbol in backing of self-determination by the Burmese individuals and dedicates herself to exercises in backing of objectives of more prominent political

Set in 390 B.C. and 1799, Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and Benjamin Franklin’s Temple of Learning demonstrate more contrasting than similar ideas on the topic of education. The two literary works are profoundly analyzed by modern society and are part of group discussions throughout school classrooms. Each author has a specific way of getting his point across. The Allegory depicts how a prisoner gained knowledge through his own life experiences while Benjamin Franklin credits Harvard as the only institution where learning can be acquired. Plato emphasizes on giving back to the community, yet Franklin talks of

In “A Letter From Birmingham Jail”, Martin Luther King Jr. is fighting for civil rights and equality for African Americans. During the mid 1900s civil rights movement, the rights of African Americans were subjugated and oppressed due to long standing racism and fear of change. King addresses these inequalities and advocates for change. His stance in the civil rights movement often corresponds with the non-violent protests Gandhi led. Both MLK and Gandhi courageously stood up for the unspoken minority and encouraged integration and equality. Martin Luther King Jr. states, “An unjust law is a code inflicted upon a minority which that minority had no part in enacting or creating because it did not have the unhampered right to vote” (Paragraph 3). African Americans,

A phone isn’t just a phone anymore. There are over 128 million people with smartphones in the US; so you are bound to see one anywhere you go. Technology is changing and advancing so fast that, it seems someone is always releasing the new and most advanced must have item. Two of the most popular smart phones are the Apple iPhone 5 and the Samsung Galaxy III. These smart phones have amazing similarities and abilities but also have stark contrast. These companies are constantly competing for new customers and for that reasons it can be difficult to decide which phone best suits your needs and lifestyle.

In Burma, 1962, a dictator, U Ne Win, carried out a coup d’état, or an “overtake”, of the ruling government party. U Ne Win introduced the Revolutionary Council of the Union of Burma, whose members

From 1948 – 1962, the country existed as a democratic republic, but was largely dysfunctional as there were continued insurgencies by different ethnic and political factions, such as the Red Flag Communists, the White Flag Communists, the Thirty Comrades, the Revolutionary Burma Army, and the Karen National Union. In 1962 General Ne Win and the Revolutionary Council led a military Junta that seized control of the Government. They deposed of Prime Minister U Nu and openly declared that “Parliamentary democracy was not suitable for Burma.” (Hoare 2015) The highly superstitious and oppressive leadership of Ne Win can be observed in what was labeled The Burmese Path to Socialism – a guiding ethos to the government of the time that was largely oppressive. The key tenants to this path included a totalitarian military rule, which gave no freedoms to its people. Like many other communist dictatorships, it embraced an attitude of authoritarian socialism, anti-western sentiment, and anti-intellectual fervor. In Beyond Rangoon we bear witness to the story of Aung Ko, a University Professor who was fired for housing student protestors, despite not being involved in any other way. (Boorman 1995) Anti-intellectualism is a key for oppressive regimes to retain power, as they must succeed in silencing all criticism and dissent. More than just being anti-western, the country adopted a militant Burmese nationalism that led to a xenophobic exclusion of “the other.” This, some ways, was a relic