Bauer 1

DJ Bauer

Lori Bedell

CAS137H – 002

4 October 2017

Ending Separation Through Speech and Song

Separation is destruction. Throughout history, humans have had a tendency to separate

from each other, forming allegiances to one side while criticizing the other. This kind of division

can result in the destruction of humanity. Both Pink Floyd and Martin Luther King Jr. were able

to realize this. Pink Floyd and King had their peaks during times of separation and struggle.

Known for his speaking abilities and his push for civil rights action, King was a prominent figure

during the age of segregation, a time in which hate divided white and black Americans. Pink

Floyd released the album The Dark Side of the Moon, perhaps the most well-known album of

time, in the midst of the Cold War, an era in which rivaling political and economic ideologies

split the world into two competing sides. During these moments of conflict, both King and Pink

Floyd took a strong anti-separation stance. In 1963, King delivered his celebrated “I Have a

Dream” speech in an attempt to convince blacks and whites to put aside their differences and live

in brotherhood. Ten years later, Pink Floyd released the single “Us and Them” to offer their

negative view of the Cold War. Although King and Pink Floyd were discussing entirely different

topics, both were trying to convince their listeners to realize the negative repercussions of

separation. In order to make their messages understood, both employed elements of rhetorical

language in convincing fashion to make solid arguments, King through speech and Pink Floyd

through music and lyrics. In short, Pink Floyd and Martin Luther King Jr. both utilized intrinsic
 Bauer 2

proofs, capitalized on the kairotic moments of the times, and issued a challenge to the dominant

ideology in order to argue for a civic call to end the separation of seemingly different peoples.

Both “Us and Them” and “I Have a Dream” utilize intrinsic proofs as a means of getting

their messages across. In Pink Floyd’s case, logos and pathos are rooted within “Us and Them.”

The lyrics provide a strong argument about the illogicality of war, an act that forcefully separates

people into opposing factions. Through lines such as “me and you, God only knows it’s not what

we would choose to do,” and “in the end, it’s only round and round,” Pink Floyd conveys that

war is illogical. If we, the citizens of warring nations, wouldn’t choose to wage war, why do so

in the first place? After all, it only results in the same ongoing, back and forth aggression that

has been dividing people for decades. The lyrics also employ pathos through anecdotes like “for

want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died,” and “listen, son, said the man with the

gun, there’s room for you inside.” These lyrics elicit an emotional response in listeners because

they focus on such poignant topics as death and disregard for the safety of children. However,

the lyrics are not the only facet of “Us and Them” that provides pathos, as the music does just the

same. Throughout “Us and Them,” an alternating theme of soft “valleys” and loud “peaks” is

maintained. The soft valleys represent sadness and remorse caused by the destruction resulting

from war, while the loud peaks paint the picture of destruction itself. The contrasting volume

levels also function as a supportive background for the lyrics of the song, and, when taken in all

together, make for an emotionally persuasive piece.

For Martin Luther King Jr., his “I Have a Dream” speech includes the intrinsic proofs of

ethos and pathos. Perhaps the ethos of King is the most prominent factor present. During the era

of segregation, King earned himself a reputation for being a man who supported peace and

togetherness, particularly among races. He always advocated for the idea of brotherhood, and he
 Bauer 3

was well-respected for his nonviolent actions. As a result, King is the ideal figure to deliver a

speech about such a heated topic. Ethos may have been a part of King’s character, but the

pathetic aspect of his argument is found in the words of the speech itself. Just like Pink Floyd,

King describes hypothetical anecdotes like “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former

slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood,” and “my four little

children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but

by the content of their character.” These words spoken by King use touching imagery of unity

and family in order to add an emotional aspect to his anti-separatist message. In this speech, and

in “Us and Them,” an array of convincing intrinsic proofs is utilized to make for strong

rhetorical arguments against the harmful division of people.

In addition to the usage of intrinsic proofs, Pink Floyd and Martin Luther King Jr.

capitalize on their claims by using the kairotic moments of the Cold War and the age of

segregation respectively to their advantage. Pink Floyd’s argument against separation works

incredibly well in the backdrop of the Cold War. Certainly, the Cold War was a time of dispute

that pitted the United States, United Kingdom, and their allies against the U.S.S.R. and other

communist nations. During this time, many people were quite fearful of the unknown. Neither

side knew exactly what the enemy had in store. Nuclear destruction seemed like a very real

possibility, as both parties had national superpowers that proved to be capable of such. As a

result of this fear, tensions increased and hatred of the opposition expanded further. Pink Floyd

took advantage of this situation by releasing the anti-war song “Us and Them,” which displayed

in detailed description the potential for the public’s greatest fears to come true. Had Pink Floyd

chosen to release the song in a time of international peace, their message would have had no
 Bauer 4

ground to build on and would have hardly been persuasive. Pink Floyd made a wise decision to

wait until the right moment to deliver their argument.

Likewise, Martin Luther King Jr. lived through an era of separation, the age of

segregation, and based his argument around the time period. During the late 1950s and 1960s,

racism was rampant, and hatred between races was at an all-time high. Civil rights reforms for

blacks were gradually occurring, and, as a result, white backlash became a major issue. Racially-

motivated killings like that of Medgar Evers proved to be problematic as well. King knew the

magnitude of the racial tension that he was dealing with, and he was able incorporate it into his

speech. One example of this is how King mentions that Mississippi was “a state sweltering with

the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression.” At the time, Mississippi was

exactly that, and King knew it to be true. King was completely aware of the fact that the United

States was experiencing the largest racial divide in its history, and he seized the window of

opportunity by delivering his speech during this era. As was the case with Pink Floyd and the

Cold War, King’s argument would have been far weaker had it come in a time of racial harmony.

It’s evident that King, as well as Pink Floyd, realized the importance of the kairotic moment at

hand, and, as such, included these at-the-moment elements in order to make a compelling

argument against separation.

In both scenarios of the Cold War and the age of segregation, many people held the “us

vs. them” ideology: the thought that “our” side was different, and thus, better than “theirs,” and

that reconciliation was not a solution. Pink Floyd and Martin Luther King Jr. used their pieces to

issue a challenge to this dominant ideology and express the emerging ideology of togetherness

by describing possible consequences. In their challenges, Pink Floyd and King took completely

different routes. Pink Floyd’s challenge describes the negative consequences of continued
 Bauer 5

separation. In “Us and Them,” the lyrics that are used to employ pathos double as elements of

Pink Floyd’s challenge, as they explore the grim images of death, destruction, and sadness and

turn them into gloomy depictions of what could happen in the future should the dominant “us vs.

them” ideology persist in society. The challenge is a clear indication of Pink Floyd’s anti-war

stance, and it serves more as a warning than a proposed solution to the ongoing conflict.

King’s approach to his speech was just the opposite. While he does use negative imagery,

such as the aforementioned Mississippi example, King definitely focuses more on the positive

consequences brought on by ending the segregation of races in America. In a similar manner to

Pink Floyd, King allows his pathetic anecdotes of “the table of brotherhood” and his children

living in a world free from racism to serve as components of his challenge. The way in which he

differs from Pink Floyd is that his notions of unity and freedom represent a far more positive

outlook on the future. Even his Mississippi quote ends with the belief that Mississippi can be

“transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.” To state the differences concisely, Pink Floyd

decided to explain the possible negative consequences of continued division, while King focused

on the possible positive consequences of ending separation. Although both speakers took

different paths in issuing their challenges, the conclusions are the same in describing why

separation must cease. Another similarity present in these challenges is that both King and Pink

Floyd call their audiences to civic action indirectly. Neither one explicitly states “this will

happen if you do this.” Instead, both rely on the insight of the audience to make conclusions

from the arguments presented and to decide why they must act in order to change the world for

the better.

Overall, “Us and Them” and the “I Have a Dream” speech are excellent examples of

pieces that use intrinsic proofs, kairos, and challenges to the dominant “us vs. them” ideology to
 Bauer 6

explain the drawbacks of division between people. King’s speech proved to be monumental as

soon after its reading, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, helping to close the separation

gap between races in the United States. “Us and Them” may not have been successful at first, but

its message echoed on in the minds of listeners. Public opinion was gradually altered, and the

Cold War finally came to an end in the late 1980s. Although these situations have been resolved

through unity, many problems still persist. Continuous warfare with Middle Eastern nations and

the numerous controversies involving minority police shootings are examples of separation

issues still alive today. Since the reading of “I Have a Dream” and release of “Us and Them,”

King was sadly assassinated, and Pink Floyd has broken up for good. Although these speakers

are gone, their messages still live on. Both Pink Floyd and Martin Luther King Jr. leave us with

profound pieces of literature that continue to have meaning in the world today.
 Bauer 7

Works Cited

King, Martin Luther, Jr. “I Have a Dream.” 28 August 1963, Lincoln Memorial, Washington

D.C. Address.

Pink Floyd. “Us and Them.” The Dark Side of the Moon, Harvest, 1973.