Voices for the Oppressed

            Aung San Suu Kyi and Malcolm X are two figures that certainly have different styles. Aung San Suu Kyi is a native of the country of Burma and is a modern activist for the rights of people everywhere. Malcolm X, on the other hand, was a voice for the colored race during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. Both the speeches “Freedom from Fear” (Suu Kyi) and “The Ballet of the Bullet” (Malcolm X) leave a strong impression the listeners, but in different ways. Although Aung San Suu Kyi and Malcolm X have very different styles of speech deliver, both leaders believe in a necessary change regarding the unjust relationship between politics and ethics.

            Both speakers have different methods of conveying their message, but both are speaking to a similar audience. Aung San Suu Kyi takes a much less accusatory tone in her speech. She is not pointing fingers at a particular group as the cause of all oppression in the world. Instead, she addresses the much larger audience of all people willing to listen. She uses a lot of ethos through referencing great leaders such as Gandhi and Nehru, along with making logical arguments such as how courage comes from a person consistently refusing to let fear dictate her actions. Malcolm X, on the other hand, has a much more forceful tone. Rather than presenting a philosophical argument surrounding fear and courage, Malcolm X boils the possible solutions to end oppression down to two—the ballet or the bullet. He uses a lot of phrases that conjure up strong emotions such as, “you put the Democrats first and the Democrats put you last.” Despite the fact that Suu Kyi uses more logos and Malcolm X relies on pathos, both look to inspire a government-oppressed group of people.

Aung San Suu Kyi explains in her speech how it is fear that corrupts the government. It is this “fear of losing power” that causes groups of people to be oppressed and treated extremely unfairly. She also calls for the people to take action because “it is not enough merely to call for freedom, democracy and human rights.” The people must have a revolutionary spirit coming from an “intellectual conviction” in order to create change in society. Similarly, Malcolm X sees the value in a revolution against the “political con game” going on in 1964 America. He said it “was the black man’s vote that put the present administration in Washington, D.C.,” which implies that ultimately the makeup of the government depends on the black vote. At the end of his speech, Malcolm X stresses that “if it’s not a country of freedom, change it.” It is not acceptable for people to sit back and allow unfair treatment continue. On a similar note, Suu Kyi mentions how “there is a compelling need for a closer relationship between politics and ethics at both the national and international levels.” Clearly, both see a strong disconnect between politics and the natural rights of all people.

Even though Suu Kyi has a much more general audience, she still effectively conveys her message of rising above fear. Malcolm X is equally as successful in using his emotional argument to inspire the black people to rise up against the government and the “corrupt white man.” Together, they reflect two different delivery styles, but also represent a combined force demanding government change.