Martinlutherking.org is a site devoted to a “true” biographical sketch of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It has been online since January 14, 1999. Let’s be honest; how many of us have been searching for something and simply typed www. whateveriamlookingfor.com into the address box? This site provides a valuable lesson in why that may not be a good idea. This site is produced by Stormfront—a white supremacist group. The main purpose of the site is to persuade the audience that Martin Luther King was a fraud, unworthy of the holiday bestowed upon him. Their target audience seems to be young children who have yet to form an opinion on Martin Luther King. However, the rhetoric on this page is vastly overdone and while young children may not notice or understand the overuse of rhetoric and may see the site as purely academic, it would most likely be ineffective to the wider audience.
The main page of the site seems, at first glance, to be respectable and academic. It sports a simple grey background with links to various articles and discussion pages. In the
middle of the page sits a drawing of a distinguished-looking Martin Luther King (seen right). The page lures in potential student audience members with a link at the top of the page encouraging them to take a quiz about Martin Luther King. At the bottom of the page are links to various printable posters with the encouragement to hang them in school hallways. Each of links sports an unbiased title. In fact, the only indication that this site is at all biased lies in the text of the quote facing the image of King: “That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit sex--including King's cries of "I'm f--ing for God" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!" This is a direct quote from an article linked to the main page.
Being a student myself, I immediately clicked the link to take the short answer quiz. The heading reads: “Many Americans don't know enough about MLK. After taking this quiz, you will see how little the schools, news media and political establishment have told you about the only American with his own holiday.” This line is an effective appeal to pathos. It urges you to question the fairness of the statement. I didn’t pass the quiz—not even close. The questions are phrased in a way that makes them entirely rhetorical. They offer no opportunity to respond or even consider the question. It is simply a sly way of presenting information. “According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last night on earth in an adulterous liaison?” Stormfront really doesn’t care about the author of the biography. They are more interested in presenting the idea that King had an adulterous liaison. The questions continue: “According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last morning on earth physically beating a woman?” “Whom did King plagiarize in more than 50 complete sentences in his doctoral thesis?” “Name the man who served as King's personal secretary from 1955 to 1960, had joined the Young Communists League at New York City College in 1936, went to prison for draft evasion in 1944, and in 1953 was sentenced to 60 days in jail in California ‘lewd vagrancy and homosexual perversion?’” These are four questions from the fifteen question quiz. These questions provide no possible means for answer, but are designed as a clever mechanism for presenting information. This section of the site is best designed to reach its target audience. While the use of big words may make it difficult for some students to understand, the tone of the question and connotation of the words they do understand makes it clear that the information presented “proves” that King was a bad person. The format allows younger children to comprehend the information presented. This stands in stark contrast to the rest of the site.
The links from the main page connect to articles and dissertations about the life the life of Dr. King. The information is written at an advanced level and the average length is somewhere in the range of 5000 words. Another link connects to a 66 page article. I, as a college student, found that the articles were to long and complex to allow me to retain any information. This is an ineffective means of reaching the target audience. The site’s purpose is to persuade the young students who have not yet been “brainwashed” by society. The information may be interesting and relevant, but if it is not presented in a way that can be understood, there is no point in presenting the information.
The article entitled “Beast as a Saint” from the link “Truth about King” also alludes to the Founding Fathers. Martin Luther King is seen as a great man and a revolutionary by many Americans. The text compares Martin Luther King to Washington and Jefferson. The text reminds us that Martin Luther King is the only American to have his own holiday. It seems to ask the question: What makes Martin Luther King better than Washington, Lincoln, or Jefferson who share the rather generic “Presidents Day”. This is perhaps the most effective rhetoric presented in the site. This is effective to children in that children have a heightened sense of fairness: “That’s not FAIR!”
One of the downloadable posters is rhetorically effective as a means of using connotation. The poster describes King as a communist, woman-beater, plagiarist, subversive, adulterer, and sexual deviant. All of these words have negative connotations. This poster would not be nearly as effective if it described King as a man with possible, mistaken communist ties; or if it described King as a privateer. People wouldn’t develop the same emotions if King was described as rebellious or a cheater. The use of words with a negative connotation is prevalent in this poster.
The site seems to get off topic and reveal its true agenda in some of the links connected to pages, not about Martin Luther King, but African Americans in general. One of these pages, entitled “Black Invention Myths,” lists 63 inventions credited to African Americans. These inventions range from peanut butter, to the gas mask, to the toilet. Its format is full of rhetorical questions. Each invention is listed, followed by a rhetorical question stating the commonly accepted inventor of each item. “Heart surgery (first successful)—Dr. Daniel Hale Williams in 1893? No!” Then the text goes on to explain the “real” inventor of each item. Another link discusses Kwanza and explains all of the false traditions associated with Kwanza. This article has
a link to a site about the horrors of Black Africa, complete with a picture (seen right) that seems somewhat irrelevant in the context of the article. This may be effective from an emotional standpoint as it is a gruesome image , but academically is confusing and misleading.
The tone of this site is possibly the most disturbing and rhetorically ineffective point of the site. The text and pictures are entirely one-sided and present an unrealistic view of Dr. King’s life. The text throws into question everything about King, from his personal life to his name. The tone is negative to the point of being unbelievable. This rhetoric is damaging to the ethos of the writer and adds very little to logos of the information. The tone makes the writer appear closed-minded and immature. There is no alternative viewpoint and this technique of ignoring alternative points of view throws into question the authenticity of the view being presented.
Finally, the site is rarely updated which makes the site seem out of date. The majority of the articles are from the late 1990s—nearly ten years ago. Several sections refer to the upcoming holiday, Martin Luther King Day, which is not for nearly four months. Admittedly, most people will be seaching for Martin Luther King around the holiday, but it seems short sighted. Overall, this is damaging to the kairos of the site.
In conclusion, while the information presented in the site may have merit, it is overshadowed by the obvious negative rhetoric and poorly acknowledged arguments. The site is too complex to reach its target audience, but to narrow to reach a wider demographic. The site is a rhetorical failure.
middle of the page sits a drawing of a distinguished-looking Martin Luther King (seen right). The page lures in potential student audience members with a link at the top of the page encouraging them to take a quiz about Martin Luther King. At the bottom of the page are links to various printable posters with the encouragement to hang them in school hallways. Each of links sports an unbiased title. In fact, the only indication that this site is at all biased lies in the text of the quote facing the image of King: “That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit sex--including King's cries of "I'm f--ing for God" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!" This is a direct quote from an article linked to the main page.Being a student myself, I immediately clicked the link to take the short answer quiz. The heading reads: “Many Americans don't know enough about MLK. After taking this quiz, you will see how little the schools, news media and political establishment have told you about the only American with his own holiday.” This line is an effective appeal to pathos. It urges you to question the fairness of the statement. I didn’t pass the quiz—not even close. The questions are phrased in a way that makes them entirely rhetorical. They offer no opportunity to respond or even consider the question. It is simply a sly way of presenting information. “According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last night on earth in an adulterous liaison?” Stormfront really doesn’t care about the author of the biography. They are more interested in presenting the idea that King had an adulterous liaison. The questions continue: “According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last morning on earth physically beating a woman?” “Whom did King plagiarize in more than 50 complete sentences in his doctoral thesis?” “Name the man who served as King's personal secretary from 1955 to 1960, had joined the Young Communists League at New York City College in 1936, went to prison for draft evasion in 1944, and in 1953 was sentenced to 60 days in jail in California ‘lewd vagrancy and homosexual perversion?’” These are four questions from the fifteen question quiz. These questions provide no possible means for answer, but are designed as a clever mechanism for presenting information. This section of the site is best designed to reach its target audience. While the use of big words may make it difficult for some students to understand, the tone of the question and connotation of the words they do understand makes it clear that the information presented “proves” that King was a bad person. The format allows younger children to comprehend the information presented. This stands in stark contrast to the rest of the site.
The links from the main page connect to articles and dissertations about the life the life of Dr. King. The information is written at an advanced level and the average length is somewhere in the range of 5000 words. Another link connects to a 66 page article. I, as a college student, found that the articles were to long and complex to allow me to retain any information. This is an ineffective means of reaching the target audience. The site’s purpose is to persuade the young students who have not yet been “brainwashed” by society. The information may be interesting and relevant, but if it is not presented in a way that can be understood, there is no point in presenting the information.
The article entitled “Beast as a Saint” from the link “Truth about King” also alludes to the Founding Fathers. Martin Luther King is seen as a great man and a revolutionary by many Americans. The text compares Martin Luther King to Washington and Jefferson. The text reminds us that Martin Luther King is the only American to have his own holiday. It seems to ask the question: What makes Martin Luther King better than Washington, Lincoln, or Jefferson who share the rather generic “Presidents Day”. This is perhaps the most effective rhetoric presented in the site. This is effective to children in that children have a heightened sense of fairness: “That’s not FAIR!”
One of the downloadable posters is rhetorically effective as a means of using connotation. The poster describes King as a communist, woman-beater, plagiarist, subversive, adulterer, and sexual deviant. All of these words have negative connotations. This poster would not be nearly as effective if it described King as a man with possible, mistaken communist ties; or if it described King as a privateer. People wouldn’t develop the same emotions if King was described as rebellious or a cheater. The use of words with a negative connotation is prevalent in this poster.The site seems to get off topic and reveal its true agenda in some of the links connected to pages, not about Martin Luther King, but African Americans in general. One of these pages, entitled “Black Invention Myths,” lists 63 inventions credited to African Americans. These inventions range from peanut butter, to the gas mask, to the toilet. Its format is full of rhetorical questions. Each invention is listed, followed by a rhetorical question stating the commonly accepted inventor of each item. “Heart surgery (first successful)—Dr. Daniel Hale Williams in 1893? No!” Then the text goes on to explain the “real” inventor of each item. Another link discusses Kwanza and explains all of the false traditions associated with Kwanza. This article has
a link to a site about the horrors of Black Africa, complete with a picture (seen right) that seems somewhat irrelevant in the context of the article. This may be effective from an emotional standpoint as it is a gruesome image , but academically is confusing and misleading.The tone of this site is possibly the most disturbing and rhetorically ineffective point of the site. The text and pictures are entirely one-sided and present an unrealistic view of Dr. King’s life. The text throws into question everything about King, from his personal life to his name. The tone is negative to the point of being unbelievable. This rhetoric is damaging to the ethos of the writer and adds very little to logos of the information. The tone makes the writer appear closed-minded and immature. There is no alternative viewpoint and this technique of ignoring alternative points of view throws into question the authenticity of the view being presented.
Finally, the site is rarely updated which makes the site seem out of date. The majority of the articles are from the late 1990s—nearly ten years ago. Several sections refer to the upcoming holiday, Martin Luther King Day, which is not for nearly four months. Admittedly, most people will be seaching for Martin Luther King around the holiday, but it seems short sighted. Overall, this is damaging to the kairos of the site.
In conclusion, while the information presented in the site may have merit, it is overshadowed by the obvious negative rhetoric and poorly acknowledged arguments. The site is too complex to reach its target audience, but to narrow to reach a wider demographic. The site is a rhetorical failure.
