Martin Luther King Alive Today

I initially think Dr. Martin Luther King would be speechless and overwhelmed with the change that is manifested in our society. I know that he would be proud of the nation’s first African American president, President Barack Obama. He would find comfort to know that we have a diverse Congress to oversee the laws that are set for our nation. If Dr. King were alive today, he would be a witness to a new society that fulfills his dreams of unification. He would challenge our nation to continue to overcome economic issues, financial burdens and global wars facing citizens today.

many people still did not want to change. It took a strong leader, a person who believed in peace and justice for blacks, and Martin Luther King Jr. was that man.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister and social activist, who led the Civil Rights Movement in the United States from the mid-1950s until his death by assassination in 1968.

Martin Luther King Jr. is one of the most famous civil rights activists in the history of the United States. He gave several important speeches and promoted non-violent protests. His most famous speech was “I Have A Dream”, around a quarter of a million patrons, black and white, attended this empowering speech at the March on Washington on August 28, 1963. The reason his speech was vastly successful in the movement against segregation and injustice was because of its repetitiveness.

Machiavelli concentrated more on the way things should be and how to manipulate them for his own personal gain rather than for the betterment of the state. He was well-known for being a political thinker who believed that outcomes justified why things happened. A key aspect of Machiavelli’s concept of the Prince was that “men must either be caressed or annihilated” (Prince, 9). What Machiavelli meant by

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

August 28, 1963 (Eidenmuller) marked a very important day in history that had an impact not only on America, but the whole world. On this day, Martin Luther King Jr. presented his well known I Have a Dream speech that aimed to eliminate racism, inequality and discrimination. He strongly believed that one day people would put their differences aside and come together. So, what happened to that dream? Along with other equality initiative ideas, they rarely make it past the idea stages or end in the actual eradication result. It is clear to us that even after 51 years, our societies still struggle with accepting full equality. Within those 51 years we have made a mass amount of progress but, a common thought would be that after this long the issue should have been eradicated. Two essays that can be used as an example of proof that racial inequality still exists in our society are, Black Men in Public Spaces by Brent Staples and Who Shot Johnny? by Debra Dickerson. In these essays, both provide solid evidence to support their main goal with the use of different writing styles, tone, and rhetorical devices to display how African Americans are perceived and treated by society.

Modern day hero, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (United States), lived in Chicago (1966), Atlanta, Pennsylvania, and Montgomery. He worked for civil rights and gave his “I Have a Dream” speech and was shot in Memphis Tennessee standing on a balcony (April 4, 1968 shortly after 6 P.M.) at the age 39. He strongly believed and was a leader for the civil rights movement. Him and his dad both originally had the name Michael but his dad decided to change both of their names to Martin after the Christian Protestant (Martin Luther). He was also a political (civil rights) activist, or someone who gets involved in a political process to promote something. He suffered at least one fatal gun shot that

Barnett makes sure to approach this article with other peoples' opinions still in mind, telling Machiavelli's story very open mindedly. I understood his doings a bit more when Machiavelli used Agathocles the Sicilian as an example to distinguish between the rights and wrongs of doing something unlawful to "better" yourself or others. If you kill tons of people and take over their city and don't end up bettering it and its' people then it's cruel. If you do end up doing something great for that country, city, or whatever, then you have what it takes to be a great ruler. Power, motivation, and hard skin.

Machiavelli considers society an immoral place. According to Machiavelli as stated in The Discourses on Livy, “for as men are, by nature, more prone to evil than to good”. The Prince is a manual for being a successful ruler in an immoral society. Often times that success is met by committing immoral acts. Machiavelli, an outsider to the inner workings of government gives what he thinks are the critical tools to being a successful ruler in modern society. “Sometimes you have to play hardball” is a saying from today that I relate to his philosophies.

In the first few chapter, Machiavelli writes about political and military strategy, and gives extended advice to secure a country’s security, on the outside as well as on the inside. Cruelty and religious beliefs, his most controversial tools, are however the most powerful ones to maintain political order as explained previously: by using both those tools, a ruler maintains respect and order throughout the state. Therefore, Machiavelli’s advice should not be judged by its means by rather by its result: from this perspective he does not teach wickedness in The Prince but solely political

When examining Machiavelli political ideals, it is hard to look at it without saying this is cruel and not ideal in any sense. Machiavelli is a prime example for a strong leader that pursues justice through unification and has shown to be very open-minded. Justice doesn’t just come through cruelty and strength, it also requires intelligence with careful studies. As exhibited in the prior quote, he takes in historical mistakes and success to shape his ideal. To have a culture with justice, Machiavelli pushes that “It is necessary for a prince who wish to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it accordingly” (224). It is quite evident that Machiavelli is willing to use the full extent of his power without fear. Through his willingness and open-mindedness, he examines both side, good and the bad, for the benefit of his country. He believes only those that can utilize both knowledge is fit for the position of being a prince. When he says knowledge, it goes deep into the studies of history and past experiences. It is shown time and time again throughout his

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince

Machiavelli has another argument “concerning those who become princes by evil means.”# He believes that cruelty can also be used to benefit the prince but only in modesty. If a prince frequently relies on cruel acts then he will not live in power for long. Proper use of cruelty is only achieved when it is done “out of the need for safety” and when it is done swiftly as to make sure that the act is quickly forgotten, and the people can return to a feeling of safety.# His idea that cruelty should be swift is excellent, this way the citizens will feel more at ease with there prince, because if he were to drag out the atrocities then the people may feel the need to revolt to protect their personal freedoms and civil rights. Many people may think these are evil ideas, but it is completely practical, during Machiavelli’s era (and even today) a prince will always face a moment in this rule that he will have to act in a cruel manner, in no way is this statement cruel it is just a practical way of dealing with a inevitable situation. He also believes that “benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer.”# As much as people may be discusted by this

Although he may be considered cold hearted and unjust, I believe that in many roles of political leadership, a person will have to be cold in many areas of ruling. Machiavelli is a leader who understands the human mind. With this knowledge he has, he influences the people. If the people are loyal to their leader they will prosper and benefit mutually. If the city so does the leader and he gains more power. So to me it seems like a cycle of you get what you want, and I get what I want. Machiavelli understood the place of a prince and the place of his subjects and citizens. He knows what leadership consist of and how to obtain true power. He also knows that most common people do not, and they should be ruled over for their own good. Maybe I'm being too easy and optimistic about Machiavelli, but I do believe he gives sound advice based on his knowledge of how people work and think. Pain and evil are real and necessary to in order to rule affectively. Machiavelli states that laying down a solid foundation is important in building a successful future for the city/state. By doing evil and causing pain, it might be hurtful at the time, but in the long run, a good prince will be setting up a solid foundation for future