Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech “I have a Dream”, and Sojourner Truth’s speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” are similar in being rhetorical. They repeat many words more than once for the emphasis of emotion. They want the audience to feel their speech, which they do a real good job at. They also emphasis by repeating key words for the importance of the issue they are both talking about in their speeches.
Both speeches talk about human rights. Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech talks about civil rights of Black people. Sojourner Truth’s speech talks about the rights of women. She especially emphasizes on how men do not think woman can do certain things for the women’s suffrage and mentions how she does these things men say women cannot do. One mentions the Declaration of Independence and what is promised as far as equality and that promise broken. Also, how things have not changed in a century and how people need to stand up for justice. The other mentions the things men think woman should not or could not do, emphasizing on being a woman and using herself as proof women can do these things men say they could not and mentioning respectable women like the mother of Jesus.
Both speeches mention something from the biblical point of view. Martin Luther King Jr. quotes the bible in his speech and Sojourner Truth mentions how Jesus came from a woman. They also had a poetic style about their speeches not only by repetitiveness, but also in using metaphors and symbolism.
In parenthesis, Sojourner Truth’s speech has the tone of how she spoke. It seems that she spoke with the same tone of Martin Luther King Jr. They both had the raising of their voices with the “rolling thunder” that brought a lot of emotion into the speeches. One of the only differences between the speeches was that Sojourner Truth spoke somewhat bluntly and Martin Luther King Jr. spoke more respectively and educated, though both never lost that power in their voice and words when they spoke. They both had a way of getting their point across and touching the audience.
They were both very powerful speakers. I think they would respond to each other’s speech just like the rest of the audience was expected to respond. They would feel the emotion from the words being repeated and understand the importance of these words. They would have a common understanding from being treated differently and unfairly as well as watching others being treated differently and unfairly. They both were seeking justice in being treated fairly and without oppression.
I believe they would approve of each other’s speeches as far as subject matter as well. They were both speaking about human rights and believed in what they were saying. They also were two people in different eras to stand up for what they believed in. They both fought for a cause by standing in front of people and saying what they felt knowing that there could be consequences and they both believed that in their doing, there would be change.