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 4/20/12, 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 (~65-70 points) is Wednesday 4/18/12, and your DBQ (the last one ever in this class is Friday 4/20/12) . . . be sad . . . be very , very sad :-(
31 comments:
1) As to who had the more effective strategy when dealing with the struggle for African American equality, MLK definitely had a greater effect. By peaceful protest and "turning the other cheek", he attracted sympathy from moderate whites. In addition, he had to have been more effective because the Black Panther movement came after, and created fear and controversy rather than respect and sympathy.
2) Historical evidence exists to say that MLK had a stronger impact on Civil Rights than the BPP, Malcom X, SNCC, etc. MLK's assassination attracted sympathy, because martyrs are a great tool in any societal change. Rosa Parks' refusal to submit to white authority was also inspirational. BPP deaths were more plentiful, and the white media also portrayed their deaths as self-inflicted due to resisting authority. To this effect, more moderate whites probably turned against equality because of the BPP's (supposed) actions. Whether or not the media's image of the real actions was accurate is not important- the people believe what they are told to believe. And unfortuantely, they were lied to.
3) If I was a 16 year old male African-American in Chicago during the Civil Rights era (50s and 60s) I would have supported the efforts of MLK, and silently supported the BPP. Being that the police have a hard time shutting down peaceful protest without racial profiling, I would feel safer among the crowds of MLK. While the white police always found a way to racially profile without "racial profiling", such as claiming the crowd is disturbing the peace, it is not hard to imagine why the police blatently shut down movements by the BPP, who toted guns and occassional violence. I would have admired their refusal to be ignored and masterful use of the Constitution to uphold the legality of their actions, but carrying guns around openly in crowded areas is a glowing red target for the police that says "arrest me".
1) I think that Martin Luther King Jr. had the more effective strategy in the struggle for civil rights. MLK's strategy of non-violent civil disobedience appealed to both blacks and moderate whites, which allowed the government to publicly support and act on many of his proposed reforms. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers endangered their own cause by antagonizing police officers as well as the local and federal government.
2) I would cite the universal reverence that MLK is still held in today, as opposed to the relative obscurity and controversy of Malcolm X. Also, many of MLK's goals, such as civil rights legislation were accomplished, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In contrast, Malcolm X's strategy of militant resistance has had no noticeable effect on our lives today, except for continued inner-city violence and racial hatred.
3) As a teenage white male in 1960s Chicago, I would definitely have supported MLK over the BPP. MLK had reasonable grievances and he went about protesting in an orderly way that I can sympathize with. However, I would have a much harder time supporting self-proclaimed "revolutionaries" that patrolled the streets of African-American neighborhoods with guns and called white society and our lawfully elected leaders racists intent on oppressing African-Americans. That sort of rhetoric and aggressive actions would make me more likely to dismiss Malcolm X and the BPP as crazy and dangerous men, who the police needed to crack down on.
1) I would say that MLK had a more effective strategy. It was obviously calmer than Malcom's strategy. Malcom used stronger verbal language and was more 'impure.' Peaceful protests are generally more favored than violent ones (are violent protests even ever favored?) and as such they attract more public appeal.
2) Evidence to suport my answer simply lies in the fact that MLK is known better than Malcom X, SNCC, and the BPP. Most people would know MLK, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speach and would also know MLK as a result. I never even knew about the BPP until last Friday. Also building onto Brian's idea, MLK was assasinated which brought up a bunch of support, while many BPP members were killed relatively often. This only supports my idea that MLK was and is the more popular choice.
3) If I was a white seventeen year old male in Chicago, I would have supported MLK. I am a very nonviolent person and the facts that the BPP's HQ was obliterated and Fred (that important guy that was killed which we saw today in class)was killed would have had a negative effect on me. I greatly would've favored MLK's nonviolent approach as opposed to the other more aggressive strategies.
1. MLK definately had the more rightous idea about challenging the racial issues that were plagueing America. His turn the other cheek idea is though of as a movement that all great leaders gave, including people like Gandhi and Jesus. His method is one that was used in the past, and will be used in our future. Malcom X, though fighing for the right cause mostly, did not attract liberals eyes too keenly due to his radical ideas.
2. Evidence to support my answer can be found by simply which figure was talked about more, but nmore factually as our school system. How often is a Malcom X speech read in our school over the intercom? Also, it can be seen that we favor Martin Luther King Jr. more so in the fact that we get the day off of school, wheras Malcom X day is inexistant.
3. Though i believe MLK Jr. was a better leader, i believe that at the time if i was a black 20 year old man, i would have to agree with Malcom X's radical views, and join up with groups like the Black Panthers, due to the belief that actians speak louder than words, and i would want to take part in getting results from the "man" as quickly as possible.
1). I believe that MLK Jr. had the most effective and righteous strategy. The peaceful idea of “turn another cheek” had a greater chance of earning white sympathy. Fighting back only gave the whites a reason to fear the blacks. The government could also show support to his cause because he wasn’t aggressive in the way he broke law, not only that but he cooperated with the police. That alone showed that he wanted to work with the whites not against. He believed that the two races could get along.
2). The fact that more people know about Martin Luther King Jr. seems like proof enough to say that his movement made a larger impact. Schools also teach about Martin Luther King Jr. which shows that his peaceful methods were preferred over Malcolm’s more violent methods.
3). If I was a black twenty-year-old female I would have definitely supported MLK Jr. I don’t like violence and his way of thinking makes the most sense to me. Fighting back would only make the whites hate us more. Any age white female or male I would support him as well. Like I mentioned before, I believe in MLK Jr.’s way of protesting.
1.) I think MLK had a more effective strategy. Prior to this class I had never even heard of the Black Panther Party once and I think that says a lot. Ultimately, MLK's turn-the-other-check strategy, although it took much time and he had to be very patient, gained him the admiration and respect the African-Americans of our nation needed.
2.) My evidence from today that MLK's strategy was superior is simply that I know far more about MLK than the BPP and our school system teaches children about MLK and his peaceful methods from the moment they are in kindergarten. This shows that in the long run, MLK earned the respect of the white people of America much more profoundly and it stuck.
3.)If I was a black 17-year-old boy living in a rather large city in the southern part of the nation in the late 1960s, I would have probably supported the BPP because I would have been young and riled up and looking for a cause to cling on to. I would be living in an area where I see much white violence against innocent black people everyday and would have been really fed up; and the BPP would offer the self-confidence and self-worth that I was looking for.
1) The passive approach definitely got the Civil Rights movement in motion. To gain any ground in the political world, the movement had to receive support from the white government. While the "eye for an eye" concept may have made a larger impact on the public as a whole, turning the other cheek actually allowed the movement to move forward in a... Civil manner.
2) History is written by the victors, and it is also meant to be remembered in the greatest possible way. MLK is the "big one" in grade school education. Most children can tell you exactly what he did and what happened to him, while the same could not be said for Malcolm X. The reason for this may be the desire of a positive and nonviolent image of the Civil Rights movement, but it also happens to speak about what truly stands the test of time. The nonviolent protests and inspiring speeches ended up having effects stretching into modern society.
3) My own personality in check, I feel like the movement would be somewhat lacking until the BPP came into play (in my 1960s opinion). I might like a more peaceful solution, but I definitely would feel that a peaceful solution was not going to work. Being a northern white male, I would have supported the Civil Rights activism to some degree, but I really would have wanted to see results. Sometimes results take a little force.
1. I think that Martin Luther King definitely had a more effective strategy. I think that though Malcolm X's idea might have provided a quicker solution, it would not be a permanent one, for it would lead to future conflict between the white and black societies. Martin Luther King was creating a lasting solution that, though slower to implement, may have saved us a whole lot of trouble.
2. As the Supreme Court said in Brown vs. Board, separate is inherently unequal. You cannot have two separate societies in the same nation, both created in some way by fear, and expect for everyone to be okay with it.
3. If I were a white female at age 19, going to college in Pennsylvania, I would have wholeheartedly supported MLK. My ancestors were Quakers, and though my family no longer is Quaker, the ideals of peacefulness and equality still form a major backbone for our beliefs. Also, if you protest non-violently, you become the hero, and people who had previously not taken sides on the issue would be more likely to choose yours.
1. I believe that Martin Luther King, Jr. had a much greater impact on the civil rights movement and society, and was more effective in fighting for these rights. By promoting peaceful resistance he also gained more support from whites than did Malcolm X who proposed a militant strategy.
2. MLK is clearly remembered in history, as is clearly shown by Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, a national holiday celebrated every third Monday in January. By being assassinated, as terrible as it sounds, MLK was immortalized as a non-violent martyr for the black people, forever gaining him international respect and acknowledgement, unlike Malcolm X (even though he was assassinated as well).
3. If I were a young black man living in a large city during this time, I definitely would have been more supportive of the Black Panther Party, and probably would have joined them. Although I feel that MLK was the better and more influential figure in the civil rights movement, I think that the BPP was important. If no blacks had ever taken violent action, it is quite probable that whites would have continued to ignore African-American goals for equality and complaints about discrimination for an even longer time.
1. There is no doubt in my mind that MLK had a more effective strategy for the Civil rights movement. MlK’s non violent approach for the most part upset less people with ultimately the same amount of success.
2. 2. One huge reason why MLK was more successful is MLK’s I have a dream speech. His speech has gone down in history as one of the greatest speeches of all time. To this day if you talk about this speech almost everyone will know what you are talking about. Also there is no doubt that overall MLK is more recognizable because he was more successful during the Civil Rights movement.
3. I am an 18 year old male fresh out of High School. I am African American and to be honest I am quite antsy about the whole Civil Rights Movement. I am working at a shoe factory making minimum wage in Chicago. Things aren’t looking great for me, and I want to do something to make a difference. A couple of my buddies and I decided to head to Washington D.C and watch MLK give a speech. My life has been changed since that moment and I am now an active participator in non violent protests, and I truly believe that this is the way to earn my true freedom.
1) Martin Luther King Jr. Had a more effective strategy to gaining rights for African Americans. White people and other races respected their approach more, I'm assuming, because they were nonviolent and said what they wanted. The Black Panther Party and groups like them scared white people and they hated them.
2) Martin Luther King Jr., from historical evidence, had a stronger impact on the Civil Rights movement. Martin Luther King helped get laws passed, helped many see the dream he had through his inspiring speeches, and now we even have MLK day, but no Malcolm X day.
3) I am a 22 year old black man living in Compton, and I am a construction worker. I have constantly been let down by the system and how I have been treated. In my case, I am so sick and tired of it, I get pissed off and want to fight back. Screw the nonviolent protest, I deserve my rights, we deserve power, and I will fight back if necessary I would follow Malcolm X and black nationalism.
1. I think Martin Luther King Jr. and other peaceful protesters had a larger impact on the civil rights movement.
2. The nonviolent protest can clearly be seen as more effective due to all they accomplished with their protests. Schools were integrated (eventual), public transportation was integrated, Pole taxes were removed, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was passed, and much more was accomplished by these non-violent protesters. No such accomplishment can be attributed to the BPP. They never achieved their goal of creating a black society, and scared most people who would be sympathetic to their plight by arming themselves with guns. Further proof can be shown by asking any six year old: "Who is Martin Luther King Jr.?" then asking him "Who is Huey Newton?". Nine times out of ten, he'll tell you who MLK is, but not who Huey Newton is.
3. As myself (White middle class male aged 16 living in the mid-west) living in the '60s, I think I would have supported the nonviolent protests because I could respect their methods, whereas the BPP would just scare me, and I wouldn't respect them for their lack of patience and violent methods.
1. I believe that Martin Luther King's approach to the situation was much more effective compared to that of the Black Panther Movement and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King wanted to work WITH the system and attempt to integrate, not force people to get along, while Malcolm X simply wanted people to see it his way, no if, ands or buts.
2. Looking in the past, we can see that MLK's approach was much more effective. For one, via MLK's responses and actions, crucial legislation was passed (Civil Rights Act of 1964 & Voting Rights Act of 1965) while during the BPP era, violence simply ensued and little was actually accomplished. Additionally, individuals (white people) seemed to respond negatively to the actions of the Black Panthers and the like (i.e. the Oakland Gun Toters) thus making them less receptive to change.
3. White Male; Early 30s; Congressman; Washington, DC: I would favor MLK's approach hands done. MLK and leaders under his command attempted to work with the government to resolve the issues while not creating further issues like the BPP did. Additionally, I would be impressed with MLK's candor as a leader even under duress.
1. I believe that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had a more effective strategy than Malcolm X. He was able to be a strong and reliable force within the black community and easily won over many people through his preaching of love, acceptance, and firm justice. Malcolm X preached of Black Power, which was frightening to most of the white community and even some of the black community.
2. Martin Luther King Jr. is definitely the more respected of the two men. We have an entire day dedicated to him and we continue to spread his legacy of good will towards others and complete justice and equality to society.
3. If I were a sixteen year old Caucasian female living in the Midwest, I would definitely support Martin Luther King Jr. I think the ideas that Malcolm X and the Black Panther Party had about how to best attain “Black Power” is frightening and “anti-white.” Martin Luther King Jr., although fighting for black rights and equality, has a better way of inspiring respect and acknowledgement through his words and ideals in a less threatening way, making me uncomfortable, but not feeling endangered.
1.) I feel that Martin Luther King, Jr. had a more effective strategy for the advancement of the African American civil rights movement. MLK, Jr. was not a feared individual because he promoted non-violent methods in gaining equality. His strategies were also longer lasting than those of Malcolm X.
2.) One piece of evidence from today that supports my response for question one is the fact that we have a holiday dedicated to Martin Luther King, Jr. to honor his legacy. This in and of itself is powerful evidence that suggests his methods were more effective. Also, there is a Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial in Washington, D.C., amongst many other memorials honoring some of our country's greatest heroes.
3.)If I was an unemployed African-American male, age 25 living in Birmingham, Alabama, I would've supported Martin Luther King, Jr.'s strategy of non-violent protest. I would've even joined in on the sit-ins and boycotts during the Birmingham Campaign in 1963.
1) I believe that Martin Luther King Jr. had a more effective strategy for winning African American rights. I think that King's strategy was perfect for the time, and for the people. King made the movement about peace and reasoning. If the first leader had come into the civil rights movement with guns blazing, everyone in the United States would have been seriously scared.
2) Martin Luther King has been remembered as the principal civil rights leader. We have a holiday to remember his efforts and many of us watch his speeches when learning about this time period. I didn't even know who Malcolm X was until I was a freshman.
3) If I had been a white teen male living in Alabama at the time of the civil rights movement, I would have supported Malcolm X. This, however, is only because I would only want to make the movement look bad because I'd be a terrible racist myself. I would want the blacks to be seen as a threat to the United States.
1. As for who had the more effective strategy in the struggle for African-American rights, I think it depends on who you ask. Martin Luther King's nonviolent approach to the extreme violence and hatred by the white population of the south appealed to many Northern whites, and made them sympathetic. But many blacks, who were actually under the oppression of the whites down south, more identify with Malcolm X. Malcolm X got his people on their feet, acting against the tyranny they had faced for 100's of years. That in it's own sense is very powerful.
2. Some evidence that Martin Luther King appealed to whites is very simple - I didn't hear about Malcolm X until well into my schooling, and Martin Luther King was all we heard about all through elementary school. MLK's story teaches us about compassion to your enemies, similar to Jesus. This is something that, in elementary school, is very important to put in kid's minds. As for Malcolm X's support in the black community, I quote the late (?) Tupac Shakur: "No Malcolm X in my history text, why is that? / Cause he tried to educate and liberate all blacks." Many other rap records include references to how Malcolm X helped liberate the black people, and he is referenced several times more than Martin Luther King.
3. If I had been a male, 25 year old black person in Chicago, I most definitely would have supported Malcolm X's beliefs. I would have been in the middle of a legitimate powder keg of pent up emotions, and I hope that I would have been involved in some of the protests in '68. For me, it'd be hard to sit idly by while my people get disgraced in many ways. I would have been one pissed off kid, let me tell you!
1. I think MLK had the more effective strategy. Although the BPP was pretty cool, you cannot be friends with someone if they fear you. MLK had a more lasting effect. To this day young children learn and celebrate MLK Day but much fewer know about the BPP until they take APUSH.
2. As I stated above, MLK is more well known. He has a holiday and is celebrated in America. Martin Luther King Jr. also won the Noble Peace Price, a great accomplishment. Anybody that wins that will never be forgotten.
3. I would have supported the peaceful way. I like the "kill them with kindness" vibe, and I think it speaks a lot to a person's character. People will be more likely to accept you if you are a king person rather than one threatening them with a gun. I would be a black college student (about 20), somewhere in the south, maybe Birmingham. I would participate in the sit-ins at the lunch counters.
1)I think that Martin Luther King Jr. definitely had the more effective strategy. His methods of peaceful,non-violent resistance were unarguably quite effective in getting the attention of the whites and their philosophy of turning the other cheek, at least early on, seems like it would be more effective in getting the whites to partner with the civil rights workers.
2) Evidence I have to support this would be that the epochal ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that separation was inherently unequal, thus overturning the Court's previous declaration in Plessy vs. Ferguson took place in 1954. The "turn the other cheek" strategy of Martin Luther King Jr. was more prevalent during the earlier days of the civil rights movement and quite a few huge stepping stones to equality took place during the late 50s and early 60s.
3) If I were a 17 year old young African-American lady in the late 1950s/early 1960s, I think I would support the philosophies of Martin Luther King Jr. His ideas about nonviolence really appeal to me and although the whites were behaved despicably towards the African Americans anyway, it is generally much harder for a person to hate another person if you shower them with niceness and ideals about everybody just getting along for once.
1. I say that MLK had a more effective approach to attaining civil rights. Malcolm X's way of going about things was too harsh for the time and startled the American people and government as opposed to MLK's gentler approach and understanding that the American people may not be ready to change as quickly as Malcolm X wanted.
2. MLK was prominent in the civil rights movement, the government and courts were on his side. Eisenhower sending troops to support Little Rock was an example of how MLK's peace tactics pay off for the Civil rights movement when MLK was around. Also the brown versus board decision , Civil Rights Act, and voting rights act were all ways that the government supported MLK and his following. Malcolm X on the other hand had virtually no support from the government or courts, with many of his friends and other black leaders being found guilty all over the nation for violence and other crimes. The government started the COINTELPRO agency which cracked down on X and essentially stopped his movement from getting anything done.
3. Personally I think I would have been a supporter of the BPP and Malcom X, because not having rights would enrage me and being a short tempered and perhaps an easly enraged male, I would be more susceptible and swayed by the BPP and Malcolm X's more emotional and fiery speeches.
1) I think that MLK had a more effective strategy during the Civil Rights era of the 1960s as opposed to Malcolm X. I think whites took him more seriously and gave him greater respect because he was very educated and constructive with his appeals. Malcolm X's use of violence was giving his race a bad reputation and MLK earned more sympathy overall.
2) My support for this lies both within MLK's larger prominence today and also his track record. He was awarded the Nobel Peace prize for his work, and posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional gold medal. The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the highest honor a civilian can receive. Malcolm X is not as decorated, so I have to assume he was not as influential a leader as MLK was.
3) If I was a middle aged African-American man who lived in Chicago in the early 1960s, I would have supported MLK. I would not like Malcolm X because he was too radical, and could give blacks a worse view in the eyes of the whites. At this point in time, the nonviolent protests would have just begun so I would not have known how ineffective they could be as well. Finally, MLK is a Dr. and leader of an organization (SNCC) so he seems like a person with some credibility.
1. I believe that the "turn the other cheek" was the better method to fight for equality. I believe that more whites respected Martin Luther King Jr. because he was adamant in his belief. I also believe that people were scared of Malcom X, and that any peace would have tension because the bitterness of violence lasts for a while.
2. I feel like MLK was much more successful in his efforts based on the legislation passed before the more prominent militant groups came out. The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the 24th amendment were all ratified before the Black Panther Party, the first big militant organization, came into existence. After they came around, nothing really that significant happened, except for the California Legislature becoming more racist.
3. If I were a black male in 1967 in Birmingham, Alabama, I would have wanted to support MLK's theories on how to attain equality. I would have believed that through repetition, the white men will get bored of putting us down, or see that we really are equal. I would have been too scared to join a militant organization for fear of violence, trouble with the law, and a bad reputation if things didn't go well. I would not have wanted whites to hate me for what I did, I would want them to respect me for what I endured.
1) I believe that Malcolm was more affective in gaining Civil Rights. While MLK was more famous and led more protests, Malcolm called for quick action, and was effective in his ways.
2) The "Black Power" movement started under Malcolm X, and has influenced many other power movements throughout history. His approach was so effective that others began to copy his message in their own causes.
3) If I were a black teenager in the 1960s would have supported Malxolm X's approach. Especially as a young person, all that is meaningful comes quickly and gratification is instant. Black power provided that instant success and would have been appealing to me.
1) I believe that Malcolm X and the BPP had a more effective approach in the Civil Rights Movement. Although I prefer the methods used by Martin Luther King Jr, the nonviolent way was getting old. Yes, there was a massive support for it, but you can only endure police brutality for so long. I think that the BPP had a stronger approach in that they used both retalation tactics and the tactics of "free breakfast" to appeal to the people. Whites needed to be shown that the Black people were not going to put up with this any longer.
2) I feel like the BPP's method was more effective because it scared the government. During MLK's time, the government liked him, they did not see him as a threat, and if they did, he was not nearly as scary as the BPP. J. Edgar Hoover even thought that the BPP was the number one most dangerous terrorist movement. COINTELPRO tactics were used against the BPP because of their wide appeal to alot of people. If the head of the FBI fears you, then I would say that your strategies and exectutions are pretty effective at gaining public opinions.
3) I would have supported the tactics used by Dr. King. Violence, although more effective, would not be the answer to me. No one should have to die or be injured just to show that all men are created equal. And yes, I would protest in a nonviolent way until the police had abused us for so long that they look like the bad guys. It would have been worth it to finally have equality in the supposed "land of the free". For too long they had to wait for their rights, but I never believe that violence can solve any problems, and I was wrong. The BPP definately had the edge on this one.
1) In my opinion, MLK had a better strategy overall. The more radical approach certainly appealed to a faster resolution, but the MLK "Gandhi" approach with non-violence captured the hearts of so many people. His message is still strong today, and that's what's really more important as an end result.
2) To support my claim I have one main piece of evidence. This year, I got off school for Martin Lunther King, Jr. Day and not Malcolm X Day or BPP Day.
3) My 1968 name is Michael Jordan and I live in Chicago (no relation to the famous Michael Jordan born in 1963). I am 22 years old and I work in a factory in Chicago. I support the BPP and Malcolm X because African-Americans like myself have been oppressed for far too long and it's due time we take to the streets and demand respect. I would join forces with anyone willing to fight for their civil rights and anyone willing to finally take action for black power.
1) Martian Luther King Jr.
2) As seen throughout the time peroid of the late 1950s and 1960s the Civil Rights movement was succesful due to MLK's actions. During his time of leadership Congress passed Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and other legislation that gave Blacks more equality. In contrast Malcolm X's stance on Black rights, "Black Power", did not prove to be sucessful in creating positive legislation for Civil Rights. Due to the advances in Black equatilty MLK had the best approach to Civil Riths Movment.
3) I am Joe Brown who is a white 16 year old boy living in southern Alabama during the 1960s. I would like MLK's stance on Civil Rights. MLK did not cause retaliation due to violence rather it was my people that created chaos in retaliation. I do see some points of his on why a person should be equal. My parents dont, but as a part of school intagration i do not have a problem with Blacks fighting for their rights peacefully.
I think Martin Luther King had the better strategy to fight for civil rights. Although his methods would take a long time i believe Malcolm X's strategy was only provoking the opposition.
Martin Luther King was heavily involved in the Montgomery bus Boycott and i think it supported his strategy well. The Bus Boycott was able to succeed in only 384 days.
I am a 20 year old lack man living in the 1960s. I have worked on my families farm my whole life and have not retaliated once against white folks setting fire to my crops and im really getting sick of it. Ive decided that continuing to be peaceful is not going to do anything so i would support Malcolm X. Although in hindsight i know MLK was more successful i have had enough of of my crops being burned and want to do something about it.
1. I feel that Martin Luther king Jr had a greater impact on the equal rights movement and the message for all men to be created equal. This is because he had more followers that branched into other races as well. Although Malcolm X may have had a rather large following of black youth who were for the aggressive push, he failed to convince the white public of his intentions. Instead, he instilled fear into the public that caused for tighter regulations and worse relations.
2. The above statement can be easily compared to the actions of the BPP. Although their message was good, they made the public fear them. To stop this fear, the government pushed for tighter regulations. Gun control got sticky, and even the BPP free breakfasts were getting shut down and described to the public as dangerous gatherings. In my opinion, while they may have helped much, these events just shows that although they tried, they created a lot of negative publicity.
3. I would be a 16 year old black female living in the heart of Chicago. Being in this area, I would want the visions of MLK to live through. While on the outside I would want peaceful protest, however, I would still hope the BPP's message would come through. Being that I was of a later generation, The opression and discrimination would get to a point where I would no longer be able to stand watching it happen. It's been a long time, people, and we need our rights!
1). I believe that Martin Luther King Jr. had the more effective strategy during the Civil Rights Movement because he is more known to people today than Malcolm X is. Not only that, but more people participated in his peaceful protests and his motivating speeches than there were people who were in the BPP and ran around with guns.
2). The Black Panther party, at its peak in 1969, only had 10000 people, whereas Martin Luther King Jr.'s March on Washington had 250000 people alone.
3). I would have supported MLK Jr. because, being a 16 year old black individual, I would have been filled up with a lot of rage if I had to experience the racist events. Letting out my anger in the BPP and walking around with guns would not get me anywhere because that just makes me a target for the police to come after.
a) i would have to say that MLK had a much more effective strategy for Black Rights than Malcolm X did.
b) the reason i say that is MLK march on Washington is one of the most well known protests ever. most people in America know at least on part of his famous speech, "I Have A Dream".
c) if i were a young black student in Chicago in the late 1950s i would have followed Malcolm X because i would be so angry and immature that i feel violence is necessary. as a 16 year old i know that i wouldn't believe MLK's strategy would work because the white people didn't listen to words, they were just hateful and violent.
1. MLK definatley had the more effective of the two strategies. He was able to alter people's mindsets in a way that X would ave never been able to. While the BPP was holding guns and yelling for equality, MLK was peaceful and expressed his emotions and thoughts in a civil and appropriate manner that is much more effective in "getting things done" in politics. Also, MLK drew alot more attention from the white community because e was seen as a civil man who understood that integration would take time, and X was seen as a maniac who was demanding and violent.
2. When MLK was assassinated, the entire country went into mourning. They understood and more importantly respected what MLK was trying to do. THOUSANDS of people attended the funeral or MLK which proves that he touched the heart of American society far more than X would ave ever dreamed of doing. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/martin-luther-king-jr/martin-luther-king-funeral-procession.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.history.com/photos/martin-luther-king-jr/photo14&h=412&w=605&sz=102&tbnid=J-WCma_JYsBpdM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=132&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmlk%2Bfuneral%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=mlk+funeral&docid=qSbiTUUI2izVTM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ghurT77TAZCi8ATg4bga&sqi=2&ved=0CFcQ9QEwAA&dur=252 When members of the BPP were killed, the white community had a "well, they were asking for it" mentality.
3. If I was a white male, age 25, I would have definitely supported MLK. I would have know that violence is never the answer and that MLK was going about the matters of racial conflict the correct way. I would have just seen Malcomb X as a lunatic wit a gun who was just asking to be shot.
Post a Comment