After being enlightened through the article titled, The Unfinished Dialogue of Marin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X., I realized, I did not know much about how different both civil rights leaders were. Although the article states there is not much difference between the two, I really have to beg to differ. Sure, they have the same ultimate goal at heart, but these men were at opposite ends of the spectrum. Martin went forward with the nonviolence approach, and Malcolm X decided upon the “any means necessary” approach. Overall, I feel as though it was Martin’s approach that was considered the most valid.
Looking back on how both activist leaders grew up, there were almost no similarities. Martin was a proud African American man, from the South, who wanted all of his people to embrace their heritage and gain the respects they deserved now they had traveled to a new life in America. Whereas, Malcolm fought to be like his white counterpart in the North. I would like to mention here that African Americans were given more rights in the North than in the South; there was a much larger tolerance with integration from where Malcolm X was from. It is interesting to note that their views on African Americans living in peace with white people stood as they were. For example, I would have imagined, coming from the South, that Martin would lead a violent protest to match how his followers were being treated. On the other hand, Malcolm X would have sought a peaceful treatment. Therefore, after reviewing both their philosophies for equal rights among races, I completely agree that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s strategy is the more valid of the two for many reasons.
During the Civil Rights movement there was a lot of hostility, there is no denying that. With all the tension throughout the South, a violent uprising of angry African Americans would not have done any good to the United States. That would just create a wider space from where Martin’s followers were trying to go with their efforts. Martin knew that in order to gain his God Given Rights back, he would have to go about it in a “friendly” fashion. He also understood that not all his actions would reap benefits right away, and only slowly would his followers see them. Martin tried to convey these ideas to Malcolm, but he was too extreme to agree with the silent protest side.
Malcolm X drew upon a lot of militant forces to support his fight for Civil Rights. He was a man ready for war when the time was right. Martin, on the other side, lived by the bible and drew a lot of his followers through the word of Christ. From my perspective, many people were incredibly invested in their spiritual life then more-so than they are now. I think this approach for Martin was smart when it came down to acting with civil disobedience. The Bible teaches you to not be violent when trying to gain wants, therefore you will attract the response you; this is what Martin conveyed/was trying to convey to his followers, and to all other people who were a part of the civil rights movement. It is interesting to note that even before both Civil Rights leaders died, groups of their followers decided to take action into their own hands, such as the student led sit-in, and the violent tactics used by the followers of Malcolm X. Each group of followers learned how to carry out the beliefs of their leader in the ways in which they were taught, so as to carry on their legacy and teachings to others.
In the end, if Martin and Malcolm had ever decided to agree upon strategies and band their followers together, there might have been a faster turnaround for all of their followers. I do not exactly know what kind of outcome I would have expected if this had happened, but with a following as big as that, Civil Rights could have been achieved faster instead of slowly but surely. Marin Luther King Jr., told Malcolm X’s wife that he did respect what Malcolm was trying to do. The two were never able to get together under civil circumstances to talk about strategies and how the other would be able to work in sync with it, despite Malcolm X’s effort. I stick with the opinion that had Malcolm X continued with his strategies, then the Civil Rights Movement would have turned into a giant war that would have done much more harm than good for the United States.
Looking back on how both activist leaders grew up, there were almost no similarities. Martin was a proud African American man, from the South, who wanted all of his people to embrace their heritage and gain the respects they deserved now they had traveled to a new life in America. Whereas, Malcolm fought to be like his white counterpart in the North. I would like to mention here that African Americans were given more rights in the North than in the South; there was a much larger tolerance with integration from where Malcolm X was from. It is interesting to note that their views on African Americans living in peace with white people stood as they were. For example, I would have imagined, coming from the South, that Martin would lead a violent protest to match how his followers were being treated. On the other hand, Malcolm X would have sought a peaceful treatment. Therefore, after reviewing both their philosophies for equal rights among races, I completely agree that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s strategy is the more valid of the two for many reasons.
During the Civil Rights movement there was a lot of hostility, there is no denying that. With all the tension throughout the South, a violent uprising of angry African Americans would not have done any good to the United States. That would just create a wider space from where Martin’s followers were trying to go with their efforts. Martin knew that in order to gain his God Given Rights back, he would have to go about it in a “friendly” fashion. He also understood that not all his actions would reap benefits right away, and only slowly would his followers see them. Martin tried to convey these ideas to Malcolm, but he was too extreme to agree with the silent protest side.
Malcolm X drew upon a lot of militant forces to support his fight for Civil Rights. He was a man ready for war when the time was right. Martin, on the other side, lived by the bible and drew a lot of his followers through the word of Christ. From my perspective, many people were incredibly invested in their spiritual life then more-so than they are now. I think this approach for Martin was smart when it came down to acting with civil disobedience. The Bible teaches you to not be violent when trying to gain wants, therefore you will attract the response you; this is what Martin conveyed/was trying to convey to his followers, and to all other people who were a part of the civil rights movement. It is interesting to note that even before both Civil Rights leaders died, groups of their followers decided to take action into their own hands, such as the student led sit-in, and the violent tactics used by the followers of Malcolm X. Each group of followers learned how to carry out the beliefs of their leader in the ways in which they were taught, so as to carry on their legacy and teachings to others.
In the end, if Martin and Malcolm had ever decided to agree upon strategies and band their followers together, there might have been a faster turnaround for all of their followers. I do not exactly know what kind of outcome I would have expected if this had happened, but with a following as big as that, Civil Rights could have been achieved faster instead of slowly but surely. Marin Luther King Jr., told Malcolm X’s wife that he did respect what Malcolm was trying to do. The two were never able to get together under civil circumstances to talk about strategies and how the other would be able to work in sync with it, despite Malcolm X’s effort. I stick with the opinion that had Malcolm X continued with his strategies, then the Civil Rights Movement would have turned into a giant war that would have done much more harm than good for the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment