Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Malcolm was a necessary balance. At a time when every civil rights leader (including Martin) advocated unconditional love for an enemy that had no capability of love, Malcolm urged black solidarity and self defense. He believed that the problems of black people could only be solved through black unity and "begging" the white man for a seat at his table hindered true progress. He made black people look at themselves as true masters of their domain. He urged progressive thinking.
Ultimately it was the power he wielded that did him in. Liberal and conservative whites feared him, passive resistant blacks despised him, and blacks who looked at Elijah Muhammad as a living god envied him.
To answer the original question, neither was better than the other. Both of their messages were necessary and if anything they complimented each other. They basically advocated the same goals but had different methods about how to achieve them.
That is true, but racism begat racism. Malcolm X was certainly bright. He was a product of his time, when fire hoses and clubs were used on peaceful demonstrators. All the Elijah Muhammad stuff was a lot of hooey, but perfectly understandable since Christianity had been used in support of slavery.
Malcolm X accused and critizied White-America in a racist way.
King was SMARTER.
Malcolm spoke out against the white establishment and those that supported it. Some of his comments may have been a little over the top but nothing he said was untrue. Now if you view this as racism then that says a lot about you.
King wasn't necessarily smarter. His methods were just less controversial.
King wasn't necessarily smarter. His methods were just less controversial.
And more effective. Of course both men being cut short we don't know how things would have progressed had they lived.
I find it interesting that King was murdered when he got involved in labor issues. In other words who rides where on the bus and who uses what drinking fountain didn't cost the powerful any money but unions do.
well, i've studied the two men and I can safely i'd go with Malcolm X. His philosophy did not allow for oppression. He had moved from the regular talk about false integration that past leaders from Washington to king had advocated for. For that reason he posed a threat to white America. Pressed with fear and not knowing how to dear with someone as brilliant as malcolm white America quicly realised they were better off dealing with Martin King who could at least accomodate them with their bigotry. Malcolm was simply too complicated fof white America to tolerate him. He could potentially organise the most effective movement against white supremacy and all the ills that hindered black America. His assasination served his enemies, those in the Nation of Islam, to some extent certain civil right leaders and white America well. He was a great threat and his elimination could not have come at a better time for anyone who was anti- the progrss he advocated for this country. I could go deeper inrto their differences but i have no time today since i have a long essay to wirte about both men that is due tomorrow. One more thing to remmember though..both men's philosophies were well informed by the trajectories they had taken in their lives... to say in a way..they were, like many, victims of their own biographies....
It no contest. They each paid the same price for their principles. Malcolm X after his conversion realized that injustice was not just about color. He and King together was a combination that scared the crap out of the powers that be. They each had a powerful world presents equal to and respected by leaders around the world.
Both men were articulate, sincere, and highly-motivating speakers. But as a white man, I always preferred MLK to Malcolm because he was more of a uniter, not a divider. MLK advocated equal rights for the black man through peaceful means, while X advocated civil rights by any means necessary, up to and including violence.
Just my two cents.
Peace.
how about this: both men were a contribute to something in american history and they both have their different ways of thinking and believing
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
