Compare And Contrast Malcolm X And Martin Luther King Jr

Dr. King and Malcolm X strived to achieve equality for blacks under the law, more specifically, voting rights, desegregation, and more representation in government and politics. However, both men differed immensely in their tactics and strategies. For Dr. King, the negotiations could be brought about by the persistence of a nonviolent plan where, the oppressed people’s determination would overcome the will of the oppressor in the hearts and minds of the nation. He firmly believed in the principles of Mahatma Gandhi’s method of nonviolence resistance, which had been successful in driving the British out of India. For example, according to King, one of the resisters, or black mans goals is not to humiliate the opponent, (the white man) but to win his friendship and understanding. Dr. King proposed a passive resistance, based on “the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice” (“Pilgrimage to Non Violence” King, 112). He claimed the center of nonviolence is based on the principle of love, or understanding. Dr. King emphasized that the white man should not be held responsible for the minorities and blacks being oppressed. Here is where the two leaders oppose each other. Malcolm X felt social injustice and racism had endured too long, and it was

During the civil rights movement, the people (African American) and theirs leaders use different methods or approaches to achieve their goal, but I will focus on DR Martin Luther King JR and Malcolm X philosophies towards the “role of violence”. DR King and Malcolm X are two black men living in America when black people are treated and considered inferior human race. They are actually second class citizens in their own country. Although Dr King and Malcolm X goals are the same, but their method or approach towards achieving it are drastically different. Dr King believed that to work against injustice, one must develop a nonviolent frame of mind to achieve that because differences cannot be settled through violence. I think that

Malcolm X for example strived for the same thing as Dr. King, freedom. The difference is , is that although Malcolm X didn’t persuade or want violence , he didn’t care to stop it either. He believed in self defense for all African Americans and that self- preservation comes first. He says , "I don't mean go out and get violent; but at the same time you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence. I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then you've made me go insane, and I'm not responsible for what I do." People would look on this and make assumptions that every black leader or person strives to violence so why should Martin Luther King be any different. As proven by his speeches, points/views , belief, and demonstrations, he is/was a positive rebel that was heroic because he helped America’s

“Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding”. One of my favorite quotes by Ralph Waldo Emerson, the leading figure in the transcendentalism. Going by what the quote states, one can ask what role does violence even play in life? More specifically what role did it play in the Civil Rights struggle in the South? It’s evident that violence’s purpose in the struggle wasn’t for peace but for something else. Well that’s what it was for Malcolm X, a center figure in the Civil Rights struggle. For Malcolm X, violence was more of a response that anything else. It was a form of self-defense that he could no longer avoid. For Martin Luther King Jr. another center figure just like Malcolm X, violence was something else. For him violence was unnecessary. Violence in the Civil Rights struggle was inevitable for some not only because the segregationist whites were using such methods to assault the black people as well as their homes, but also at that time nonviolence was just another philosophy that some did and others didn’t. Even so violence did play an important role in this movement. Not the violence used by the blacks but instead the methods of violence used by the whites.

In an interview by Les Crane of Malcolm X, he stated that leaders should not be fighting each other but rather and discusses each individual's differences. Furthermore, X explain his ideas of creating a “Negros Militia” is not and should not be considered a threat, but to protect his people. In addition, X reveal his opinion about the government, “-either its inability or its unwillingness to protect lives of property of our people”(305), and that the defence department are involved in the murder, “police officers and sheriffs themselves are involved in the murder that takes place against our people”(305). X belive that his people should not take the abuse against them but rather fight back if necessary, “I think that it’s only fair to expect elements to do whatever is necessary to protect themselves”(306). Indeed X’s belief and King’s beliefs are rather different, when both people leds the Civil Rights Movement. King’s believe that in order to win their cause, they must take abuse and must not under any circumstances should retaliate, while X believe that sitting around and take the abuse by oppressors when the government unable, or unwilling to protect them is

As of the first lecture I attended, I observed that this course would be interesting because it dealt with the Civil Rights Movement and its effects on the population; moreover, we were going to discuss how great religion was involved most of the time in this movement. The most valuable figures we learned about in class who were up front but the opposites of each other were Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. When comparing these two figures, it was important to me to not be involved in any biases. Therefore, my first objective was to investigate the roots of King and Malcolm, analyzing the differences in their childhood experiences and how those experiences affected their scholarly appearance in the Civil Rights Movement. I wanted to see if their childhood experiences justified their adult beliefs. Also, I wanted to see how their strengths and weakness shaped

Malcolm X was a civil rights leader who advocated for the use of violence when it came to fighting for equal rights of his people. His most famous quote was “whatever means necessary” which meant that a person could do whatever he wanted

Martin Luther King and Malcolm x were both advocates for racism and had the same goals for their fellow negroes. They both fought for freedom, for their fellow black people to come together and fight, and for the future generation to have a brighter future. However, even with the same goals, their thoughts on how to gain it was very different. While MLK wanted to do it in a very peaceful manner, Malcolm X wanted it to happen in a very hostile manner. Also, MLK wanted everyone from gay, Muslims, and black to work together to achieve the big goal of ending racism but, Malcolm X wanted divisions to happen between all sorts of people. Therefore, supporting MLK seems more reasonable than supporting Malcolm X.

Racial equality has been a major issue ever since the beginning of America. Suffrage had been given to African Americans in the late 1800s. However, it was not until the mid-1900s that the movement for full equality really gained popularity. At that time there were many different ideas about how to gain equality. Although Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. both worked for African American rights, they had very different ways of going about it.

When it came to violence, Martin opposed, feeling that there was a thin line between aggression and defense. He felt that violence would lead to death and a spiral, making things worse rather than fixing them. In Martin’s ‘Where Do We Go From Here” speech from August 1967, he states “Through violence, you may murder a liar, but you can’t establish truth… murder a hater, but you can’t murder hate... Darkness cannot put out darkness; only light can do that.” Malcolm on the other hand, spoke of self-preservation and self-defense. He saw the whites as the ones guilty of violence throughout history, and now it was the time for African-Americans to stand up for themselves.

The 1960’s signified a time of progress in the struggle for African American rights. Two prominent leaders in this movement were Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. Malcolm X, born Malcolm Little, was a Muslim minister who believed the injustice that existed against African Americans could be solved through separatism and self-defense. On the other hand, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist preacher, felt that the road to justice would be paved through nonviolent protest and integration. Both figures challenged the oppression inflicted on the African American community, however each individual championed different portrayals of their appeal to ethos, pathos, and logo to convey their belief that America needed an immediate change in the unjust social, economic, and political systems that existed at the time.

In the pursuit of social justice and civil rights, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, and Stokely Carmichael, sought to amend a flawed system. To accomplish this task, these men entered the armory and chose to wield nonviolence as their weapon. Their goal: to combat violence with nonviolence, to fight hate with love, and to spread equality through peace. In the end they succeeded. Violence breeds violence, hate breeds hate, it is an ineffective approach and an archaic mean to resolving societies issues. Malcolm X and Carmichael were both extreme individuals but that does not make them violent. They attacked social justice and civil rights passionately and assertively, not violently. The methods used

Back in the 1960's, there was a lot of discrimination towards black people. Blacks did not have all the same rights as whites did, and were not treated equally as everyone else. African Americans became distraught over this issue. The problem then led to economic struggle and, in a way, a mini civil war between whites and blacks. In the two reading passages above, each author has similarities, differences, and one is more accurate in the idea of freeing blacks.

I strongly agree with the non-violent philosophy of Martin Luther King Jr for various reasons. First, and foremost if Africans Americans primarily relied on violence as a form of protest they wouldn’t of ever accomplished the goals they have accomplished till this day. Second, if they would have primarily relied on violence it could have backfired on them. It would have encouraged many people to appose the civil rights movement rather than support it. It would have given many Americans reasons to believe that because they were “violent” they didn’t deserve the right of public integration and the right to vote. By peacefully protesting it encouraged thousands of Americans to support the civil rights movement.

Martin Luther King and Malcolm X both participate in civil disobedience acts, such as protests against slavery althought they had somewhat different orientations on protesting. The King claimed that passifism is useless and would only create more injustice coming from the government and violence should not take place during protests, because violence never brings any benefit, but only scares the citizens and loses its authority from the government. So he supports the non-violence movements. On the contrary, Malcolm X suggests that if blacks are treated unjustly, they should react like any normal intelligent human beings would do--fight back. To say the least thus, the common question whether one must obey the laws is increasingly imortant during the periods of unjust