The Negative Impacts Of Martin Luther King And President Barack Obama

Martin Luther King and Malcom X, both prominent figures in the Civil Rights movement, had vastly different views on segregation and violence. The first time these two met was at the U.S. Capitol in 1964 to watch the Senate debate on a Civil Rights bill. Of the two, Martin Luther king had the better philosophy for America in the 1960’s because of his views on Integration, economics, and anti-violence.

Due to his huge contributions to the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr. is important to the end of segregation in the United States. He used nonviolence as a way to fight for equality for African Americans. In a book he wrote called Strength to Love he said “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” Darkness lacks light and more darkness cannot make it less dark, so light is the only thing that can make it less dark. Hate will continue if we do not fight it and the best way to fight it, is with love. If you fight hate with hate things will not be a better place, the world will be filled with hatred and life will be miserable. Fighting with love brings peace. Martin Luther King Jr.

Martin Luther King Jr. showed African Americans nonviolent ways to resist. He did not want African Americans to commit violent acts for their rights. For example, slaves resist by not picking cotton or picking below their usual amount. Resistant in nonviolent ways require people to find other ways to resist without fighting or hurting someone. According to Pitney, he believes King wanted African Americans “to resist white racism through nonviolent actions undertaken in a spirit of love” (Pitney 2). In other words, he wanted African Americans to fight for their rights but he did not want them harm someone else to get equality. For instance, if a white man was using racial slurs toward a

(2012) Moye commends that Dr. King utilized the ethic of peacefulness to social change. At its embodiment was a profound appreciation for the human poise in all individuals, including the oppressor and the culprit. Martin Luther King means that every human has the right to live and no one can take this right except God. On the other hand, racism has directly affected the civil rights of blacks and indirectly on their lives.

People have fought for civil rights with nonviolence, but people fight wars with violence. In Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speeches, both see violence and nonviolence differently. Readers can see King and Obama’s different positions in society, how they use violence as examples, and how they want to establish peace. These men, want to do whats right for people, and they are doing it in a different, but effective way.

1960s America was a crucial point in history for American civil rights. While there were many influential people fighting for civil rights in America at the time, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X are two people who continue to be very remembered for what they did to help African-Americans gain equal rights and opportunities. Martin Luther King Jr. strongly believed in using nonviolence to make a change and Malcolm X held a firm belief that people must do whatever was necessary, even if that meant using violence, to see any real difference in the issues at present. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X fought vigorously for what they believed in and made an enormous change in American civil rights, but only one idea was best for the

Many people think that Martin Luther King, Jr. is a great warrior because no one stood up against the government, but he stood up against oppression against his race. Even when, threatened he kept fighting : “On September 30, 1956, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s house was bombed by segregationists in retaliation for the success of the Montgomery Bus Boycott”. He didn’t run when he got attacked; He tried to save everyone. For example, when he experienced terrorism by a bad squad, he didn’t run away. I might be very scared, but Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t run away and he tried to protect people from terror. Martin Luther King, Jr. knew many people thought oppression against race has to be changed : “ When he was a young man, Martin Luther King wanted a career helping people. He felt that as a minister, he could speak out “against racial injustice”. Following the example of the Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. King chose nonviolence as the keystone of his fight for civil rights”.

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

Martin Luther King Jr. advocates for non-violence throughout much of his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” However, he uses the extremist behavior of the black nationalists as a way to threaten the “white moderates” into siding with him on the issue of Civil Rights with the idea that he is the most moderate and sensible person leading the fight for equality. How can King justify using others’ violence to argue for nonviolence? Even though King’s tactics seems contradictory, it did help to encourage “white moderates” to advance his cause for equality, avoiding the violence of extremist groups.

Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X are notable activists during the civil rights movement in America. They were leaders highly credited by the public. They carried similar, and different views on how to take on oppression in America. “Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom” (1966) by Martin Luther King and “The Ballot or the Bullet” (1964) by Malcolm X had points were they agreed with one another, points of controversy were the did not see eye to eye, and points of disagreement about violence in the civil rights movement.

In his letter to the clergy he justified the use of ‘nonviolent direct action’ as tactical means to bringing parties together to negotiate. He vehemently condemned all forms of violent action but insisted that it was strategic and constructive to employ the nonviolent tension as a powerful alternate to negotiation. Similarly, Dr. King Jr. stressed to his audience in his momentous speech in Washington DC, that the desire to attain set goal must not be tainted by any acts of retaliation and cautioned the crowd to avoid the temptation of being ‘guilty of wrong doing”. He emphasized the importance of adhering to strict discipline and conducting their struggle in the highest form of respect for human dignity.

If he comes in here, you move clear to the other side of the room. Will you do that, Lennie? Both George and Martin believed that staying non-violent would be beneficial to everyone. Finally, they both organized something beneficial to not only their lives but the lives of others. “In the spring of 1963, Martin Luther King jr organized a

“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.

King was a man was of peaceful protest, no matter what was done never resorted to violence. While both men Martin Luther

President Obama’s victory speech and Martine Luther King’s speech are two of the most famous discourses that everybody is discussing today. The speeches are representation of racial progression, which starts from the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement to the election of the first black president in the American history. Both speeches are a symbol of hope and a new start of the upcoming changes. In fact, both speeches called for unity and inclusion to achieve the American dream. Furthermore, both occasions had loud voices echo not only in the United State, but also in the global level. Despite the similarity of Obama’s and King’s speeches in the persuasive and inspirational tones, their goals were for different purposes and audience, also the effects on the audience were different.