Malcom X vs. King

The following is a discussion response to a prompt on Malcolm X vs. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Civil Rights movement was birthed after two world wars that devastated the first half of the twentieth century. Martin Luther King, Jr. had seen the effects of the war, and had been astounded at the inhumanity of man. King recognized that, for centuries, men had been discussing the possibilities of peace. "But now, no longer can they just talk about it," said King, who recognized the need for action. But unlike Malcolm X, who called for blacks to adopt every available means - even violence - in order to address and curb the problem of racial inequality in America, King embraced nonviolence: "It is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence in this world; it's nonviolence or nonexistence." (Source 1)

In King's final speech, "I've been to the Mountaintop," King describes some of the successes the Civil Rights movement had by using nonviolent methods such as boycotting, peaceful "sit-ins", and protest marches. For example, in Birmingham, Alabama, hundreds of supporters of the Civil Rights movement would participate in peaceful marches. Bull Connor, Commissioner of Public Safety for Birmingham, ordered police dogs and water hoses to be used to control the crowds. But that did not stop the march: "...we just went on before the dogs and we would look at them; and we'd go on before the water hoses and we would look at it, and we'd just go on singing 'Over my head I see freedom in the air.' And then we would be thrown in the paddy wagons, and sometimes we were stacked in there like sardines in a can. And they would throw us in, and old Bull would say, 'Take them off,' and they did; and we would just go on in the paddy wagon singing, 'We Shall Overcome.' And every now and then we'd get in the jail, and we'd see the jailers looking through the windows being moved by our prayers, and being moved by our words and our songs. And there was a power there which Bull Connor couldn’t adjust to; and so we ended up transforming Bull into a steer, and we won our struggle in Birmingham." (Source 1)

In terms of King's rationale for how to address violence vs. Malcolm X's, I would have to say that King adopted the more effective, rational, and revolutionary method in nonviolence. After millions had been killed, the world had seen enough violence. Radical behavior, like that of Malcolm X, only hindered the coming social change rather than help it; however, Malcolm X did present a good argument when he criticized the hypocrisy of the United States in advocating violence as a means to social change abroad while desiring nonviolence at home. But it was through the steady, determined focus of thousands of supporters that blacks were given equal access and privileges in American society. The social change took a full century as pre-Civil War ideas were passed through the generations.

Would violence have worked in bringing about such social change? No. During the century it took for blacks to earn equal access in society, new ideas about human rights were adopted. If those involved in the Civil Rights movement had concentrated on violence as the means to convey their message, much of this progress would have been undone. It would have been destructive to the movement.

The idea does address another question: Is violence ever justified in dealing with social issues and if so, when? Making an antislavery statement, John Brown led 21 men on a raid of the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859. He was captured, tried, and hung. (Source 2) Brown believed what he did was right and before his death claimed “I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children, and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments.” (Source 2)
While many antislavery supporters did not agree with Brown’s aggressive approach, they did praise him for taking a stand. Of Brown, Henry David Thoreau said: “No man in America has ever stood up so persistently and effectively for the dignity of human nature.” (Source 2)

In a sermon delivered following Brown’s death, Pastor J. Sella Martin of Joy Street Baptist Church in Boston was addressing a crowd of around 4,000 abolitionists. Martin gave a secure and moral answer to the prevailing question of whether or not Brown’s means were justified for his cause. It was concluded that in light of the deplorable “cancer” of American slavery that gave rise to Brown’s decision to operate in order to rid of the “cancer,” Brown chose the lesser of two evils.” (Source 3) Martin also addressed the War that had just taken place to free white men from British oppression. Bunker Hill and Concord were just two of many historical examples where Americans had used violence as a means to bring about social change. Brown, thus, was doing the same thing by fighting for the black men. (Source 3)

It is difficult to determine whether or not violence is the best means of bringing about social change. The answer comes depending upon the situation demanding action, the severity of the oppression on the oppressed, and the cultural belief system of those acting. There will always be someone who wants to use violence as a means of destruction; however, the purpose of bringing about social change is not to destroy, but to mend what has broken. Thus, depending upon the circumstances, the limits of violence might vary; however, the value of human life and the human rights that exist for all humanity should be of careful consideration to those taking action. For example, as raping women, genital mutilation, and human trafficking are violations of human rights and should not be tolerated.

Because of the relativity of violence as a means of social change, I cannot adequately provide an answer for what means is best unless I am given a particular situation to research. I personally prefer the peaceful route; however, experience and history provides enough evidence that violence is not necessarily an evil, but can be used to bring about good.




Source 1: http://www.afscme.org/about/1549.cfm
Source 2: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p1550.html
Source 3: http://chnm.gmu.edu/lostmuseum/martin.html