In the struggle for African-American civil rights and equality in the USA, there were two main philosophies/strategies employed: one philosophy/strategy was exemplified by people such as Rosa Parks, SNCC (early), the Freedom Riders, and Martin Luther King, Jr. . . . passive, non-violent resistance ("turn the other cheek"); the other philosophy/strategy was exemplified by people such as Malcolm X, SNCC (later), and the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense ("an eye for an eye"). These philosophies/strategies were also employed by many other people of the USA (and world) seeking equality and civil rights, including women, Chicanos, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and many more.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Famous Letter:
LETTER FROM BIRMINGHAM JAIL (excerpts)
April 16, 1963
MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely". . . .
I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in". . . .
Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds. . . .
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative. . . .
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. . . .
You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation. . . . The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best-known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. . . .
I wish you had commended the Negro sit-inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. . . . One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. . . .
Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Malcolm X's Famous Speech:
The Ballot or the Bullet (excerpts)
by Malcolm X
April 3, 1964
Cleveland, Ohio
. . . Black people are fed up with the dillydallying, pussyfooting, compromising approach that we've been using toward getting our freedom. We want freedom now, but we're not going to get it saying "We Shall Overcome." We've got to fight until we overcome. . . .
Our gospel is black nationalism. We're not trying to threaten the existence of any organization, but we're spreading the gospel of black nationalism. . . . Join any organization that has a gospel that's for the uplift of the black man. And when you get into it and see them pussyfooting or compromising, pull out of it because that's not black nationalism. We'll find another one.
And in this manner, the organizations will increase in number and in quantity and in quality, and by August, it is then our intention to have a black nationalist convention which will consist of delegates from all over the country who are interested in the political, economic and social philosophy of black nationalism. . . . We want to hear new ideas and new solutions and new answers. And at that time, if we see fit then to form a black nationalist party, we'll form a black nationalist party. If it's necessary to form a black nationalist army, we'll form a black nationalist army. It'll be the ballot or the bullet. It'll be liberty or it'll be death. . . .
. . . Last but not least, I must say this concerning the great controversy over rifles and shotguns. The only thing that I've ever said is that in areas where the government has proven itself either unwilling or unable to defend the lives and the property of Negroes, it's time for Negroes to defend themselves. Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle. This doesn't mean you're going to get a rifle and form battalions and go out looking for white folks, although you'd be within your rights -- I mean, you'd be justified; but that would be illegal and we don't do anything illegal. If the white man doesn't want the black man buying rifles and shotguns, then let the government do its job. . . .
. . . No, if you never see me another time in your life, if I die in the morning, I'll die saying one thing: the ballot or the bullet, the ballot or the bullet. . . .
Try an MLK, Jr. video clip to get you in the mood:
Or, maybe a clip from Malcolm:
. . . and now for your homework questions (10 points, due by 11:59pm on 4/19/11, first name, last initial, class period) . . .
1) which man do you think had a more effective strategy in the struggle for African-American civil rights and equality?
2) what specific historical evidence or specific evidence from today do you have to support your answer to Q1?
3) if you had been around in the late 1950s/early 1960s, which strategy would you have supported and why? (create a plausible persona for yourself and then answer this question -- are you: male or female? age? location? race/ethnicity? occupation? etc.)
. . . oh, by the way . . . your Ch. 37-39 MC Test (~67 points) is Friday 4/15/11, and your DBQ (the last one ever in this class is Tuesday 4/19/11) . . . be sad . . . be very , very sad :-(
30 comments:
Personally, I feel that Martin Luther King had a stronger impact on African-American civil rights and equality. In todays world, who do we rememver? We remember Martin Luther king. He was the leader of the civil rights movement and he had a magical way of motviating people and getting people to follow the civil rights movement. he used non-viotlence tactics in order to acheive what he wanted. Everyone in todays world remembers the bus boycotts and also martin luther kings "I have a dream" speech.
If I were alive during the time period I woukld have supported Martin Luther King. This is because I strongly beleive in violence as a last resort. Marin Luther King did not support violecne and neither do I. The fake person I created to answer the , question was a male, age 17, I live in the city of Chicago, I am an african american, and I work as a waitror at the city diner. Because of these reasons I support the philosophy of Martin Luther King.
i feel that Malcom X had the more efferctive strategy for achieving equality for african americans, it's easy to ignore a group of people singing while parading through the streets. it is impossible to ignore a group of people marching through the streets yelling and carrying shotguns. History however, disagrees. we remember Martin Luther King. the peacemaker, the marytr. it's easy to love a poet for what he writes. it's hard to love a soldier for what he shoots.
If i was alive in the '50's and '60's, i would probably have supported Malcom X, for the reasons I brought up earlier, assuming i am the same person then that i am now.
Despite the fact that Malcom X was using more effective means to change the social rights issues of the times, I feel that Martin Luther King Jr. left a greater impact. I think this because A) We do not have a Malcom X Day where I don't have to be in school. B) he offered the more popular, peaceful option rather than the Islam Brotherhood approach.
As a natural born radical, I would have sided with Malcom X, because sometimes change has to be forced.
I believe that Martin Luther King Jr. has left a larger impact on society. I believe this is true because, first of all, Martin Luther King Jr. was always more spoken of and you hear a lot more about him than Malcom X. Agreeing with Natalie, Mratin Luther King Jr. has a holiday named for him, but Malcom X does not. Martin's "I have a dream speech" is very well known, but nobody seems to speak of Malcom X's philosophy. If I was an african american named Laryssa Smith and was 17 years old in the city of Chicago and I had to choose which method is better, I would choose Martin's because he is more enthusiastic about it and you can tell her is passionate. It also speaks more to his audience, and can be relatable.
I think Malcolm X had the more effective strategy. This can be seen by the fact that the FBI tried specifically tried to bring down the Black Panther Party, where as they investigated Martin Luther King, Jr. but did not try to take down his organization. You wouldn't try to take down something that is already failing. If I was a 16 year old black guy living in the city when Malcolm X and the BPP were active I would have supported them. This is because I would see that those guys could protect me. I would rather join a group that actively makes progress towards a goal than a group that enacts methods that make it move slowly forward.
I also believe that Malcolm X was the man who really brought the final crushing blow to opposition of the Civil Rights movement. Although Martin Luther King Jr. had the right start to bring about peace, radical extremist white militia groups had to know that black people were not just going to sit around and let horrible things happen to them around the law. They had to let the Ku Klux Klan, and many other organizations know that if they were going to be unconstitutionally treated, they were going to strike back. Evidence from this is rooted in the successes of the Black Power movement, and the Black Arts movement. If I were a black man living in that time period, I would have sided with Malcolm X. However: if I was a white man living in that time, I believe that I would have joined the military (assuming I am the same person I am today) and I would have done whatever my superiors told me to do (as it is my duty) providing it was in the boundaries of the law.
One thing that I forgot to mention: HOLY CLUSTER MAPS! Mr. Hoffman, you are sure becoming popular around the globe.
Yea, Hoffman, how does this site have more than 17,000 hits?
I definitely believe that MLK had the greater impact. I think that speech and demonstration appeals more to people than violence, and the test of time proves this. MLK is revered and honored while Malcom X is just a figure from the past whose shadow flickers in comparison to Dr. King's. Perhaps this is because in 2011, in a country trying to get past racism, people prefer to admire the pacifist rather than the radical. Either way, I think MLK had a greater appeal and impact. If I were a 17 year old white chick living in Fox River Grove in the 1960s, I know I would be a follower and supporter of Dr. King's movement.
I think Martin Luther King jr. had a more effective strategy towards the struggle for African American qeuality. In cases like this, especially a topic that the whites were not ready to compromise about, a peaceful strategy was a better way to go about it. MLK had many ways to fight for equality without actually fighting, his nonviolent protests were effective without striking up too much conflict. Looking back on the struggle for equality we remember MLK rather than Malcom X. We remember his "I have a dream" speech and we even celebrate a holiday in his honor.
If I were a 17 year old female African American living in Chicago, say my name was.. Kenni Wolow, I would support Martin Luther King's movement, so I could fight for what I believed in without putting myself in danger.
I believe that Malcolm X had a far more effective strategy in the struggle for African American civil rights, as his philosophy debunked the notion that the black man's demands for justice were something that could be easily tossed aside. This invoked fear in the white community, the fear of change and of the angry black man who is both in the moral right and able to defend his position via force. History remembers MLK instead of Malcolm X because X represented the bitterness created by the white man, something Americans tend to be quick to forget. If I was a 16 year old African American in the 1960's, I would have supported Malcolm X in order to create a defense for my rights by force of arms.
I think that Malcolm X employed a much more effective strategy than Martin Luther King Jr. for African American civil rights and equality in that he was not nearly as willing to settle for anything less than absolute equality, as opposed to the Booker T. Washington reminiscent MLK, Jr. Once a time period is over, history tends to glorify martyrs and cast radicals down into a negative light, claiming a lack of morality. But during the time itself, the revolutionary with the gun makes much more commotion than the man with a voice. White Americans could no longer ignore the marches of African Americans when Malcolm X convinced them that guns would force people to pay attention. If I were a mid-20’s African American male at the time, I would have supported Malcolm X because both groups were persecuted nearly equally (if you believe MLK’s nonviolent motives made you safer, look what happened to him), but Malcolm X’s side would have a larger possibility of forcing my equality into law.
I feel that Malcolm X's methods were more effective because peaceful protest could be ignored by the people but Malcolm X's extreme actions and demands drew attention to their cause more than MLK did. And the Black Panther party proved that threatening violence gets you a lot of attention from the people which is what Malcolm X did so as to raise awareness and demand equality. It is true that today MLK is better known but aggressive actions sped up the Civil Rights movement to help get it where it is today. If I was a poor black teenager i would support Malcolm X as i would want action immediately.
I believe that Malcolm X had the more effective strategy socially in the struggle for African-American civil rights and equality. While MLK's method of "turning the other cheek" was effective in getting laws passed, he was still unable to make much of an impact socially on the way blacks were looked at. Malcolm X's practices were deeply rooted into the Black Panther Party, a party that helped gain way for nation respect of the black community. While today MLK is considered to pioneer the way for the black community socially, I don't necessarily believe that to be the case. While MLK's glorious speeches gave way to black rights, it was really the forcefulness of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers that brought social change to the black community. If I was a black 17-year-old boy living in a poverty-stricken black community, I would have supported Malcolm X to the fullest because I would have been tired of the police bullying my community and no social change really occurring.
I believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was a more effective civil rights leader than Malcom X. I say that because MLK Jr. appealed to all types of people and was a respected figure by an entire nation and the world. Malcom X, with his speeches about the evils of the white man, gradually lost respect of the white community. Evidence of MLK's widespread influence is that he was the youngest man, at 35, to recieve the Nobel Peace Prize. If I was in the same situation that I am in now, but this was during their era, I would have been more likely to follow MLK Jr. because he would not have alienated me by calling me evil.
I think that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had the better strategy in the Afro-American civil rights struggle. I think he had a bigger impact becasue people love the peacemaker, and we don't have a Malcom X day of the year. I probably would have supported MLK's work because I'm not a very violent or threatening person, so I would definately go for the non-violent attitude. I am basing this answer off the profile of a 17 year old white female student living near Chicago.
I feel that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's strategy proved more effective in the long run of the civil rights struggle. Malcolm X's strategy was too violent and would scare anyone from wanting to integrate and accept the black population. However, Martin Luther King was open to everyone and had peaceful protest. His march on washington and "I Have a Dream" speech in D.C have been long remembered and his legacy has endured. Martin Luther King's protests were landmark in getting Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act(1964) and Voting Rights Act(1965). Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party only discouraged the government from passing any legislation for civil rights since they were so violent. If I were a 16 year old white female student in the South witnessing these two strategies, I would have followed Martin Luther King Jr's approach to the civil rights struggle because I would have been intimidated by Malcolm X and would feel like he's thinking blacks are too good for whites, which is a little hypocritical if you want equal rights. MLK seems peaceful and open, a trait I would like to share. He also seems more approachable and I wouldn't mind being intergrated with blacks like him.
I think that Martin Luther King Jr.'s strategy was more effective. This is because it was peaceful and although slow would meet less resistance as opposed to a more violent approach. With a more violent approach congress and law makers would be less likely to support them due to the fact that somebody shouldn't get what they want because they have guns. Also MLK Jr. non-violence methods applied to a wider variety of people who weren't so sure on violet actions as can be seen in pictures of peaceful protests of MLKJ where there were not only African Americans but white Americans also. If I was a 20 year old white male in Chicago suburbs i would support Martin Luther King jr. due to the fact that if I would have to support someone but most my age wouldn't. It would be because it is easier to be accepting of peaceful people.
I think that Malcolm X had a more effective strategy in the struggle for African-American civil rights and equality. African-Americans had always been belittled and beaten down by the white community. MLK's approach with non-violence wasn't going to achieve equality while the white man is beating the black man. Many times fighting violence with violence is the only way to get what you want. Although we remember MLK for being a martyr, Malcolm X shouldn't be forgotten because he was able to lead a movement that gained a lot of publicity even though it was violent. The Black Panther Party proved that violence was effective in drawing in support and some resistance. Violence let the people know that the black man wasn't going to just sit around anymore. As a white 17 year old girl in the 1960s in the city of Chicago and assuming that I have the same beliefs that I do now, I probably would have supported MLK for the reasons that he was an advocate of non-violence. I probably would be intimidated by Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party because they weren't afraid to use guns as a scare tactic. And they weren't afraid to use violence.
I believe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's strategy was more effective in the civil rights movement because he was more peaceful in his protests than Malcolm X. Malcolm X angered many whites because his policy was too violent and many people didn't want blacks to integrate into their society as a result. MLK Jr's peaceful protests sent a message to whites that what they were doing was wrong in a more psychological manner. I think more whites felt need for a change when they saw black sit-ins, then blacks carrying around guns. The historical evidence is that the entire black population was in deep sorrow after MLK JR. was shot at the Loraine Motel in Memphis, TN. They had no idea how they could go on, but they continued to follow what their leader preached and it eventually helped blacks integrate into our society. Also, MLK Jr's protests were important in the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. If I were a 17 year old African-American doctor living in Birmingham during this time, I would follow Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. because he knew how to preach and tell whites what they were doing was not okay. Also, I wouldn't want to be involved in all of the violence that Malcolm X was involved in. I feel that the sit-in protests were powerful and would have loved to be involved in one of them.
I would say that Martin Luther King Jr had a more effective strategy because he is known today by pretty much every American citizen over the age of 10. Evidence of this is the fact that probably 9 out of 10 students do some sort of report or project on him during elementary/middle school. He also advocated nonviolent protesting which I believe allowed him to gain as many supporters as he did. If I were a 17 year old female black girl I would be apart of peaceful protesting and nonviolent actions because: 1.violence is never the answer and 2.I have zero arm strength and I'm guessing no one would remotely consider me a physical threat if I were to try and be violent.
I believe that Martin Luther King, Jr. had a more effective strategy in the struggle for African-American civil rights and equality. His peaceful ways of protesting for civil rights left a huge impact on the country and gained a great deal of equality for blacks, whereas Malcolm X's violent strategies and ways of protesting did not gain many rights for blacks, and basically only encouraged more violence to take place in America. When people today think of the civil rights movement, they typically think of Martin Luther King and his "I Have a Dream" speech; they usually don't think of, or even clearly remember, Malcolm X. There are over 730 cities in America with streets named after Martin Luther King, Jr. He also has his own holiday, which takes place during January of every year. If I were a 17 year old white female living in the South in the early 1960's, I would have supported MLK's strategy, because I believe his peaceful ways of protesting were more productive in gaining rights and equality, and I don't think violence is ever the right way to solve problems.
I believe Martin Luther King Junior’s stagey of non violence worked better for the struggle for African-American civil rights. All of his boycotts, sit-ins, marches, and speeches gained the public’s respect. Malcolm X's tactics of violence just made the public fear him and it didn't get anything done. The historic evidence that backs me is the fact on January 21 there is a national holiday called Martin Luther King Jr. day and there is no named after Malcolm X. If I were a northern white male age 27 and working on a farm in Wisconsin I would most definitely support MLK in his quest for civil rights because of the way he conducted himself and his organizations.
I believe Martin Luther King Jr.'s strategy of non-violence worked better to help African Americans in their struggle for civil rights. Peaceful demonstrations using words and crowds have a more powerful positive impact on people than violence. Nowadays anybody running around with a gun is called crazy. Martin Luther King Jr's strategy helped change the Supreme Court’s mind in Brown vs. Board of Education. It also brought about the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. All of these things happened before Malcolm X's methods became popular or widespread. If I was a female black or Northern white girl during that time I would have chosen Malcolm X's method. I know that contradicts what I said above, but if I didn't know that the outcome of MLK's method would be more beneficial I wouldn't have chosen it. I feel as though more violence was directed towards peaceful protestors because the harassers knew that the protestors would not strike back. Even cowards would harass weaponless, passive protestors if they knew they wouldn't have to be afraid of a fight. With that in mind, I'd want all the people I cared for to be in the best situation where we could have protection, yet still protest. So I would have wanted to be a part of Malcolm X's methods and possibly be in the Black Panther Party.
I think that Martin Luther King Jr had a more effective strategy because his actions actually got things changed, as opposed to Malcy Malc that mostly just pissed people off.
MLKJR was also not killed by another black man, like Malkin, so obviously MLKJR had more respect in the black community, so he was better.
If I was around during that time period, I would follow Malcom X because I am always more of a fan of a radical. I don't like boring nonviolence. I want change and I want it NOW! GO BIG OR GO HOME!!!! and I don't plan on going home any time soon!!!
ok sorry. My plausable persona: I am a poor, black, 17 year old with a SICK afro that is living in the grove only the grove is in Oakland. My job is a full time member of the Black Panthers. Is that enough background info to properly set the scene?
1. Personally, I think the nonviolent peaceful approach practiced by Martin Luther King Jr. is the way to go. Violence breeds violence and does not create answers only more problems. Peaceful resistance creates progress and respect.
2. An example of MLK ‘s philosophy in effect today would be in the recent uprisings in Egypt. Protests in Egypt were a main cause in getting Mubarak to step down. While some violence was used ,mostly peaceful protests and threats were the main “weapons”. The police in turn if they attacked peaceful protesters would seem like the bad guys because the protesters were not violent and did nothing to provoke violence. Thus, sympathy would go to the protesters and anger would extend to the government. IN the end they achieved their goal without many causalities. I believe that this is crucial evidence that supports Martin Luther King Jr.’s peaceful resistance.
3. If I was an African American girl in the 1950-1960s I would have supported MLK. I am a firm believer in the feeling that , “ an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” I do realize that sometimes violent resistance is necessary, but I would not support the extreme use of violence as Malcolm X did.
I think Martin Luther King Jr. had a more effective strategy in the struggle for equal rights for African Americans because he was the president of a large civil rights movement called the SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference). Also, he is widely known throughout the country and we even have a day off school in honor of him. His tactics of nonviolence make him well known like Ghandhi and he still inspires people today. If I were a 17 year old female, African American, living in Chicago I would have supported Martin Luther King Jr. because more people in power supported MLK and his beliefs of nonviolence so therefore I would've felt a better chance of equality and integration occurring in society.
As much as I'd love to see violence actually get us somewhere in life, MLK Jr is the winner by knockout in the 4th round. Martin Luther King Junior is the obvious answer to who was more effective (there is a reason his "I have a Dream" Speech is one of the most memorable rhetoric feats of all time). The truth of the matter is Malcolm only gave blacks a bad image to the whites, it should the whites that blacks were "always" violent, and aggressive. My historical facts are the idea that you could down American streets and maybe 1 in 10 people could tel you something significant about Malcolm X, even if its just them reciting "by any means necessary", but 9 out of ten at least would know what MLK's dream was. I would have been a black panther though. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you're not gonna win the fight when you roll over every time you get kicked.
1. I think that Martin Luther King Jr. had the more effective strategy because violence really doesn't solve anything. By applying this policy, MLK Jr.'s civil rights movements were very popular and widely supported.
2. Evidence from today is that we celebrate MLK Jr. day, while there is no Malcolm X day. That shows that MLK had the bigger impact in civil rights movements.
3. I think I would of supported MLK because I'm not a very violent person, so I think his peaceful protests would be a good match for me.
Here is my answer to the blog:
1)I think Martin Luther King had a more effective strategy for civil rights and equality. His non violence strategy was more peaceful, and solved more issues. Malcom fought with violence, and all violence does is create more violence and less communication on how to solve the problem at hand.
2) Malcom was under the impression "an eye for an eye", but nobody really wins or nothing is gained or lost from an "eye for an eye". MLK had such an impact on the world with his "I have a dream" speech, it inspires an extra credit project for this class. MLK even has a special day devoted to him in January.
3)If I was teenage African-American girl in the 50s and 60s I would follow the philosophy of Martin Luther King Jr. because he was non-violent, and with Malcom I would be afraid for my life and well being.
Have a good weekend!
-Caragh C. period 8
Post a Comment