The civil rights movement in America contains two transformational figures; one being Martin Luther King Jr., who preached the message of love and unity between blacks and whites. However, on the opposite end, Malcolm X used messages laced with fear and separatism. Nevertheless, both sought the same goal of racial justice for blacks in the United States. This paper will explore the opposite viewpoints of these two pivotal figures and how they separately and unwittingly complemented each other to achieve the overall goal of racial justice. King and X differed on the tactics used in the pursuit of racial equality. King sought to pacify whites so that blacks would not be regarded as a threat versus X’s implications of violence; thus King sought …show more content…
Additionally, King does not seek to label all whites as the problem and is precise in his address, assigning blame to individuals as Commissioner of Public Safety Eugene “Bull” Conner and Mayor Alber Boutwell. Conversely, X uses the term white man in repetition as to foster us against them mentality, not that the blacks in that era needed any further justification X sought to put a name to the black struggle, to name the monster under the bed and it is the white man. In the opposite fashion, King saw the lynchpin to black civil rights struggle as moderate white and Christian whites. Thus, X exacerbates the discord between whites and blacks with the generalization that all whites are evil which may be attributed by the black superiority ideology of the Nation of …show more content…
While not necessarily at odds over what needed to be done, it is the how that was being called into question. X called for the selective use of the black vote, noting that in several voting districts the black vote would be the deciding vote subsequently giving blacks voting power while at the same time he admonishing them that the white man is plotting to steal their vote and that they are were trying to dilute their vote by gerrymandering. Some would say the X is a realist that he is preparing his people for the harsh realities of the civil right movement yet King finds a way to prepare his people but gives them hope for a new day. X provides his audience with the means of power; the black vote than in the same breath says the white man has made it null and void, clearly then the mantra “A ballot is like a bullet. You don't throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket.” is a play on words and is meant to threaten as much as it is meant to inform. Subsequently, X expounds on the notion that American cannot win a guerilla war and certainly cannot win one against people of color. Additionally, X proclaims “There’s a new strategy coming. It’ll be Molotov cocktails this month, hand grenades next month, and something else next
Both Fannie Lou Hamer and Malcolm X rejected the idea that the main goal of the civil rights movement should be based on an aspiration to gain rights “equal” to those of white men and to assimilate into white culture. They instead emphasized a need to empower Black Americans.1 Their ideas were considered radical at a time when Martin Luther King Jr. preached the potential of white and black americans to overcome “the race issue” together and in a gradual manner. Malcolm X’s attempt to achieve his goals through revolutionary top-down methods and Fannie Lou Hamer’s focus on the need for grassroots movements contributed to the Civil Rights movement significantly by encouraging and assisting Black Americans.
In Kings letter, he explains the physical disrespect that was experienced, “When you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, brutalize, and even kill your black brothers and sister with impunity”. King goes into great detail with his words to put a clear picture into the readers mind. He wants the picture to create an image so strong that the thought will spark emotions, creating guilt. Guilt because the police of our nation that are supposed to provide safety, are doing the exact opposite, instead causing harm to citizen’s. Morally at this time, segregation was seen as the correct way for society.
King explained that, even though the laws had granted equal rights to all black people, the white supremacy wasn’t changed just by these acts. To most white people, civil rights movements, only made them realized that how cruel they did to those black people and they should treat them with some decent, but never really led them to think that Black American was as equal as themselves. He also addressed that this dominant ideology led to many structural obstacles, which impeded the implementation of those legislations in almost every structure of life, including the economic market, educational institution and public services. In Education, even many years after the Supreme Court decision on abolishing school segregation, there only a few integration schools existed. The segregated elementary schools received fewer fund and were in the harsher condition and “one-twentieth as many African American as whites attend college, and half of these are in ill-equipped Southern institution”(Reader, p.p.186). In labor market, most of employed Black American were worked in menial jobs and received lower wages even though they did the same works. This racism had already rooted in whole social structures that cannot just be solved by
To me, this argument is logical and valid. King acknowledges this by describing policy makers crafting the living conditions of the Negroes. King states, “The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them, but they do not make them, any more than a prisoner makes a prison,” (King, 8). King refers to the slums as the housing projects of the Negroes and states the policy makers flagrantly violate building codes and regulations. This would show the white man not enforcing the laws and breaking laws intentionally when dealing with Negroes. As Negroes stood up for what they believed to be true, the white man became increasingly defiant. To me, it seems as if the white men were afraid to allow Negroes rights that they themselves possessed and perhaps even took for granted. My inference here is that white men were not prepared and were frightened to allow a class of people that they found less than human be present and existent in their everyday society. I believe fear was one of the major adversaries on both sides. The white man was afraid of change and this fear birthed hate and discrimination to a race that they were unsure of. They were more involved in their own self-interests than in a whole race of people. The only thing that they thought was right was to keep Negroes and whites separated through segregation, which fumed the emotions of the Negroes and ultimately established their conclusions to violence and riots. The white man perpetuated policy making that effected the Negroes in a negative way which I believe caused harm to race
Kings first attempt to reach his reader is through his appeal to their logic or reasoning. He does this by presenting a direct relationship between the reasoning for his position against segregation and argument for it’s resulting actions of civil disobedience by those oppressed by it. This approach is most evident when King gives the reasoning for his statement, "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Klu Klux Klanner, but the white moderate...
Malcolm X: His very name is a stab to the beliefs of the white supremacists of his time"X" symbolizing "the rejection of slave-names' and the absence of an inherited African name to take its place." Similarly, in his speech "The Ballot or the Bullet", Malcolm X denounces the actions of the white population, without any attempts to appeal to them; his approach to the civil rights issue is in complete opposition to the tactics of other civil rights leaders of his time, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. Rather than trying to integrate the black community into the white, he focuses on the complete separation of them: he doesn't want the blacks to integrate into the white hotels, he wants blacks to own the hotels. He believed that the black population had to break the psychological, cultural, economic, and political dependency on their oppressors. By using tactical phrasing of his sentences that connects to his audience emotionally, Malcolm X attacks the tendency of African-Americans to identify with White America, and insists they identify instead with Africans, their ancestors; thus, he promotes his purpose: to instill a feeling of self-respect and self-help in his fellow African-Americans, which in turn is the stepping stone to the liberation of the Black people.
The clergymen claim colored people have become very violent towards civilians to the point that authoritative figures have been necessary in order to stop the commotion and protect the civilians in Birmingham city. King did a great job in ...
Again, Mr. King uses religion as a guide to explain why violence could never be used to get the end of the segregation. At that moment and as a strategy, he was probably right. The forces between the parts were to uneven. Besides, Mr. King knew that the federal government barely has capacity of action since they were stuck in a horrible and unpopular war in Vietnam, and riots and demonstrations were happening everyday in the universities across the country. However, if we look at his decisions from today’s point of view and attending to the fact that minorities are still suffering the injustice of economical segregation and the police force abuse, among others injustices, we can say that he didn 't go to far. Then may be we can rethink if appealing to violence to avoid those problems could be considered just as self-defense. For example: when communities are being devastated by poverty, drugs, and criminality, and the authorities don’t do anything to protect them just because they are black, Latin, or American Natives, don’t they have the right to fight back? Moreover, when they have to watch everyday in television the awful crimes that some authorities commit against minorities with no punishment in most of the cases. Don’t they have the right do defend their own life? It is a fact that violence is not desirable, but we have to remind that the end of slavery in the United States cost a civil war, that the
African Americans are fortunate to have leaders who fought for a difference in Black America. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X are two powerful men in particular who brought hope to blacks in the United States. Both preached the same message about Blacks having power and strength in the midst of all the hatred that surrounded them. Even though they shared the same dream of equality for their people, the tactics they implied to make these dreams a reality were very different. The background, environment and philosophy of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were largely responsible for the distinctly varying responses to American racism.
Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X are two of the significant figures in the modern civil rights movement. The reason I say “modern” is because civil rights acts were still practiced. For example in the 19th century there was the Plessy versus Ferguson which meant separate but equal and although this wasn't a successful wave there had to be consideration towards the problem of white supremacists and African Americans in order to even stage a judicial ruling. In the early 20th century Ida B. Wells who was a radical writes about “violence in the south, trying to get the federal government involved.” Professor Carrie Pitzulo, Class Lecture, 24 Jan 2017, US History 151, Colorado State University.
Until the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., his life’s work was dedicated to the nonviolent actions of blacks to gain the freedoms they were promised in the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 by Abraham Lincoln. He believed that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (King, 1963). These injustices had become so burdensome to blacks that they were “plunged into an abyss of despair” (King, 1963). The nonviolent actions of the sit-ins, boycotts, and marches were so the “individual could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths…to help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism” and ultimately lead to “inevitably opening the door to negotiation” (King, 1963). Not only was King’s approach effective with the older black generation, it was also successful with white people. They did not feel threatened when approached by King. White people gained a sense of empathy towards the plight of black freedom as King’s promise of nonviolence did not threaten their livelihood. Malcolm X viewed the world similarly to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., however; his beliefs to changing the status quo were slightly different from his political counterpart. Malcolm X realized that “anger could blind human vision” (X, 1965). In realizing this, X knew that in order to achieve racial freedom blacks had to “forget hypocritical politics and propaganda” (X, 1965). While Malcolm X was more so an advocate for violent forces against white people than King, X merely used force when it became necessary for defense. According to X, “I don’t go for non-violence if it also means a delayed solution. I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to American black man’s problem” (X, 1965). However, this le...
By introducing Malcolm X as the most prominent proponent of early Black Power activism, Joseph calls for a reassessment of the similarities and the differences between civil rights and Black Power activists. Criticizing a scholarship that commonly downplays the activism and the community programs of Black Power advocates, and that tends to remain silent on its distinct philosophical roots, Joseph calls for a revision of historical accounts that presents the Black Power era largely as the ultimate decline of a civil rights coalition that enjoyed broad biracial support. Ending a narrative that juxtaposes the aims and goals of the civil rights and the Black Power movement would allow scholar to identify the overlaps between the two activist traditions, but also to illustrate the lasting impact the politics of Black Power had in the different realms of American
The 20th century was a definitive time period for the Black civil rights movement. An era where the status quo was blatant hatred and oppression of African Americans, a time when a black son would watch his father suffer the indignity of being called a “boy” by a young white kid and say nothing in reply but “yes sir”. Where a Black person can be whipped or lynched for anything as little as not getting off the sidewalk when approaching a white person, for looking into their eyes, or worse, “for committing the unpardonable crime of attempting to vote.” In the midst of the racial crises and fight for social equality were Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. who despite their difference in philosophies were “icons of social justice movement both in the United States and around the world” .
In history we know that no two men are alike but, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were phenomenal people and leaders. Both had visualized some type of change in the future, yet were not literally able to see it. Both Dr. King and Malcolm X set out to bring a sense of confidence to blacks all over the United States. Their main purpose was to help instill black’s power and strength so that they could overcome racial disparity and prejudice that surrounded them, but both of them had very unique and distinct different ways of promoting their message. Martin was more geared and focused on equality and wellness of the world as a whole, a Malcolm X’s personal interpretation of the world was very well blinded by anger, bitterness, and the desire to get revenge at the expense of the world that he thought treated him unfairly.
MLK and Malcolm X had different ideas on how the civil rights movement should be handled. MLK wanted to be equal to whites not be segregated and to be free.Malcolm X wanted to be free just like MLK but had different ideas on what to do. MLK’s philosophy was a peaceful way to lead the civil rights movement. He followed the same kind of ideas that Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Malcolm X had a lot of good points that made sense. Such as the fact that he kinda went ff of the universal law or the Golden Rule “Treat upon others as you would like treated to yourself”. He thought that if MLK wanted to preach non violence that was great but until the people who look down on African americans also went through the path of nonviolence. MLK and Malcolm X were raised very differently MLK was raised in a religious household by a father that was a pastor. While Malcolm X was raised on the streets and was into drugs and lived a