• Home
  • About Us
  • Journals
  • Submissions
  • Catalyst

Week 6

10/10/2014

15 Comments

 

Why nonviolence? MLK Jr & Malcolm X

Within the civil rights movement there were two major camps regarding the most effective strategy to deal with overtly racist policies. For many years Martin Luther King, Jr. sat at one pole of the nonviolence question while Malcolm X sat on the other. While one would profess the importance of humility and forgiveness of those that wrong us the other believed in self defense by any means necessary.
In addition to your regular reading for the blog post this week I would like you to read Malcolm X (Ballot or the Bullet speech) and Martin Luther King Jr. (Nonviolence and Racial Justice). Answer the following questions in your post.
  • What were three major themes that stood out to you as you read the material? Describe the conditions in society that both MLK Jr. and Malcolm X were responding to in their speech/essay.
  • Explain their rationale for their chosen strategy to address racist and classist oppression in the United States.
  • What strategy would you employ if you were subjected to the conditions highlighted by Martin & Malcolm? What would be your rationale?
Requirements for BLOG POSTS
  • You must write 250 words each post (due Thursday @ Midnight), Responses to two other students 50 words each (due Friday @ midnight)
  • Students must post during the week the blog is assigned or it will not be graded.
15 Comments
Alex Diaz
10/16/2014 12:39:21 pm

Three major themes that I saw in the Martin Luther King and Malcolm X articles are protests, injustice, and inequality. The reason that I choose these as the major themes is because they both brought up the problem of injustice and inequality, but they are both using different methods of protest or reaching the point in which change will be brought upon the African American community.
Martin Luther King brought up the issues of African Americans being put down by many different techniques. He also spoke about segregation and the equal, but separate law. MLK brought up many points about how African Americans are treated or know as "property". MLK addressed these injustices because he felt that the population needed to know where they came from and why they felt less than than the whites or "supremacists". MLK told them about there new progress and to not allow anyone to tell them where they're place is, but to rather choose it. History repeats itself wars after wars and revolutions after revolutions. They needed to approach this situation in a non-violent way just like Ghandi had done for his people and his successes. In a non-violent protest you do not humiliate or destroy your enemy, but become his or her friends and learn to live together.
Malcolm X had a different way to protest. He spoke of all the injustices and how the government that so many African Americans died for has only killed them or harmed them. He spoke that the democracy was in the white mans hands, but they could change it by either allowing African Americans to vote and take control or through force just like they KKK had done to suppress his people. He said that change is very much needed and that they'll get it by any means necessary. He spoke about groups that were outnumbered but still managed to win and come out on top.
MLK and Malcolm X both used these approaches because both were fed up with injustice and inequality, but both allowed racism to shape them in a different way. MLKs house was bombed and he believed that retaliating would only show they were just as much as savages and that the African American race was "bad". From childhood friends turning away from him and a bombed house he felt that he could one day have blacks and whites be friends. On the other hand, Malcolm X was incarcerated where he read books and learned about the injustice and decided that he would not allow for it to happen to any of his people to suffer any longer. Both had different experiences which shaped the way in which they protested. If I was an activist at the time I truly have no idea what my approach would be. In reality MLK and Malcolm X were both necessary. They both helped each other.

Reply
Kim Shaw
10/16/2014 04:33:45 pm

The first thing that stood out to me after reading both the speech and the essay is the tone that each article gave. Malcom X’s speech was strong, powerful, and intense, let’s take action, move now, quickly, and don’t hesitate. Also what I got was it can be peaceful if you want to talk in peace but at any moment it can and will turn violent. What I got from Martin Luther King’s essay was peace, let’s talk through our concerns, differences, there is a way to solve this without anyone else getting hurt. There was no threat of violence in Dr. King’s essay, it gave the turn the other cheek feeling. The other thing that came to mind was change for the betterment of black people. They both spoke of the in just and abuse that black people had suffered due to slavery, segregation, exploitation etc. They agreed that it had been going on for a long time and it is time to change. They talked about the approach to change, what needs to be done and how to do it. They both agreed that marches are away for people to come together then and now to get a change. However in order for a march to be effective the purpose must be known by the people marching to make the change and the people whose attention you are trying to get. What happens after the marches that are held today? What was the purpose of the Occupy movement? The third thing that got my attention is the government now and the government then. There is not much difference in the government. They still go through the back door most of the time. They say they are for the people but really are they? If I as involved in those marches back in those days I think I would be a little of both. I’m all for talking things through and trying to come to a solution. However if I turn the other cheek and you hit that one also then I have to defend myself. It’s easier said than done to love your enemy.

Reply
Juan Flores-Rodriguez
10/17/2014 03:07:48 pm

The comparisons between the Occupy Wall Street Movement and the Civil Rights Movement are night and day. We were ready for Occupy, I think it was time to shake things up and gets some real positive change. Unfortunately, what I saw, was a cause without a cause. Looking back to the Civil rights movements, you're right, It's hard to judge what approach towards change is best if you truly believed in the cause.

Reply
Dulce Fajardo
10/17/2014 03:49:03 pm

Yes, you're correct in the fact that the government does not improve. In fact it looks like it is only getting worse and harder for people to fight for their rights. People get arrested over protests ans such. Dr. King's nonviolent persepective is a more peaceful way and it would work but what if people still do not manage to make a change. It makes us think what else do we have to do in order to achieve anything when standing up for our rights.

Reply
sharon clark
10/20/2014 08:04:13 am

i agree the government has not improved and im sure they don't plan on making a change either. they seem to be set in there ways that improvement is not key.what a strong support system we have right?times are getting more complicated and harder i think that is one of the strategy for us to let go of what we worked so hard for.it almost feel like our best isn't good enough..but mine is forget the government...lol

Sarah salaxar
10/17/2014 06:41:42 pm

I completely agree with you that the way they describe the government at that time is what we see today. We always hear politicians making promises and assuring us a better future and more justice. However, once they're elected, their priorities change until their term is almost over. Like you said it's easier said than done, and maybe that's the problem, or it can also be I say, you vote, I turn my back until I need you again.

Reply
Juan Flores-Rodriguez
10/16/2014 04:41:12 pm

In reading these two opposing view on how to handle inequality in the United States, there are many themes that both Dr. King and Malcom X are trying to address. First of which is the exploitation of non-whites, in particular African Americans. Malcom X argues that although this country had a long history of using African American slave labor and routinely sending African American soldiers to war, African Americans are treated as second class citizens. He feels that although they sacrificed a lot for this country, African Americans were never properly compensated and accepted what was given to them. Dr. King to a large extent acknowledges this fact, and tries to explain, it could be seen as a time of “peace that was no peace” in America.
A second theme then arises, ignorance is oppression. The mindset that plagued the African Americans plantation workers came to a change “when circumstances made it necessary to travel away from the plantation field. When his economic life began to rise, his crippling illiteracy began to decline.” This meant that the African American population began to reevaluate their value and began to fight for what should have been their fair share of this country. As Dr. King points out, education was key. To echo how ignorance leads to oppression, Malcom X argued that African Americans in the 60s were being tricked into agreeing with policies that don’t benefit them and electing politicians who didn’t have their best interest in mind.
Lastly, the solution. Both Dr. King and Malcolm X believed there was a solution to this mutual problem. Malcom X had a “take back what’s yours” tone in his speech. He argued that when government acts illegally against you, you can act illegally against the government, and use force when force is being used against you. He didn’t mind violence to combat violence, but was also open to using nonviolence when the opposition is nonviolent. Dr. King offers violence as a possible option but warns that it’s pointless, “solves no social problem and creates more complicated ones.” The reason Dr. King believed that love would be a better alternative is because it avoids the negative repercussion of hate and war. Where it could be seen as a weak stance that can easily be pushed over, Dr. King argues that this isn’t the case at all.
Based on the ideologies alone and how they are presented, I certainly would chose Dr. King’s approach to solving the issue they dealt with. I could understand the points that Malcom X is making, and perhaps under a different perspective, I would choose his ideology instead. Taking a non-violent approach though seems like a more evolved way of handling a problem. Tackling human injustice should not come at the expense of being unjust. It seems that by taking a coercive approach, it only leads to oppression of a different class in the future.

Reply
Dulce Fajardo
10/17/2014 04:56:06 pm

It's very particular for Dr. King to speak so peacefully and promote peace as a way of solving matters and moving along to protest to end all the injustice being done on the African Americans during that time. Now it's a mix of both Malcolm X and MLK's views because even though the people want to act peacefully, assemble peacefully, the government comes in with violent force and of course people try to defend themselves. It's interesting how both Malcolm X and MLK have similar points to address but they do it in different ways. Both of their approaches are understandable and knowledgeable though.

Reply
Sarah Salazar
10/17/2014 06:36:57 pm

I agree with you when you say that solving injustice shouldn't be at the expense of being unjust. However, I think that at some point fighting back is necessary. I would love to believe that government and society could change with simple picket signs and sit-ins, but mostly it won't. As Malcolm X stated, the U.S. didn't use its bombs on Russia for fear of Russia's bombs and vice versa. In most cases that's what works and that's what creates "peace." It's not the peace we all picture, but no one dies because of the bombs.

Reply
Dulce Fajardo
10/17/2014 06:52:32 am

Three themes that stood out from Malcolm X and MLK Jr.'s were social degradation, exploitation and oppression. Both MLK Jr. and Malcolm X made various points arguing how African (Americans) were looking down upon in the late 50's, mid 60's.
Malcolm X wanted all African American community to come together no matter how different they might be and fight for their rights no matter what it would take. He also argued that he's not American, and neither are those 22 million African Americans, because if they were truly American then they would automatically get their rights and wouldn't need to be fighting for them. He also stated that a way the government oppressed this community was by the Democratic party pretending everything was good and they would give their all to the community, but when they were in office then the promises were all gone, it was all a "government conspiracy." Malcolm X brought up race in his es'say/speech stating that there's "more racial hatred, more racial violence today in 1964, than there was in 1954. Where is the progress." He is right, because of social degradation things could only get worse and without and organized form of protesting, then nothing could get solved.
Martin Luther King Jr. also spoke about race and how the white had treated the negroes as property since the very beginning. MLK Jr. spoke mostly about nonviolence resistance and how the American negroe should not let him/herself "succumb to the temptation of using violence" because future generations would only be worse off and the legacy left by previous generations would be bitter. Malcolm X's points were exact and rational and straight forward and would work, but the strategy that would be more rational is that of MLK Jr. MLK Jr. is more passive in the way to resist against the government and it still motivated (still motivates) many to stand up and do something; violence would only create more violence. These essays/speeches make one understand more of what the African American community was facing and how radical they both were when fighting for their rights.

Reply
Juan Flores-Rodriguez
10/17/2014 02:57:13 pm

Social degradation is an interesting theme. I often hear how things were better in the old days. I often wonder how true this is. It's somewhat of a matter of perspective. This is why when Malcom X said that it was worst in 1964 then it was in 1954, I wonder how he was measuring the increased oppression. I wonder if he would ever say that it was worst in 1954 then it was in 1854 for the average African American, honestly I don't think he would.

Reply
sharon clark
10/20/2014 07:58:45 am

i feel like social degradation is very much interesting. there comes a time where things are going to be built to be broken down so that is where social degradation takes play you have people that are jobless and looking for work but the opportunity is not there is an example of social degradation.it is a true concepts that's happen everyday, everywhere.the worst social degradation standpoint is the cops i consider them a form of government because they seem to have the power of the president or something wit the things they do and get away wit. smh

Sarah Salazar
10/17/2014 06:27:34 pm

Three major themes in both of these speeches were injustice, resistance, and a better future. Both Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X described the injustices in society that Black society was facing during their time. MLK Jr. uses the example of Plessy v Fergusson. He talks about how instead of the outcome being "separate but equal" it is "separate without the slightest intention to abide by equal." MLK also describes how during slavery Black society lost faith in themselves and were content with the "place they were assigned" and that made the white men happy which in some way brought racial peace. However, now that the Black man wants to have to place they deserve, the white man is not allowing it, and the racial peace has turned to racial violence. His method for addressing these injustices were nonviolent because he thought the befriending the enemy was better than defeating him. Malcolm X's speech was completely different. Even the title "the ballot or the bullet" suggests for some violence. Malcolm X's strategy was action on all fronts by whatever means necessary. If at some point violence was necessary, it's ok because violence was used against him and other Black men too. In his mind, you should fight back however you're being fought at. In many ways I agree most with Malcolm X's approach because if someone has a gun, and all you have is a knife, your opponent will win because his weapon is more destructive. However, MLK's idea that violence creates more complicated problems is true. I'd say that MLK's tactics are nicer and sound prettier to me, but Malcom X's tactics made more sense and were probably more effective.

Reply
sharon clark
10/20/2014 07:50:40 am

the three major themes that stood out to me was at the church in new york Adam Clayton takes part in the political struggles to try and bring about rights to the black people in this country.the second theme was fighting for the civil rights of black people in this country lastly being deeply involved in the school boycotts to eliminate segregated education. Malcolm x was responding to the victims of Americanism. victims of democracy basically a hypocrite disguise.you had white people trying to invade the so called "negro community"also setting a year for just white political crook...give me a break!the white politicians basically is selling us blacks false promises, building up our hopes, and then tearing them down.he enforced not to let anybody tell what odds you are against as well i feel like Malcolm was trying to create an equal chance for the people. now MLk Jr. refers to the crisis is in race relations dominates the arena of american life.the crisis has been precipitated by two factors: the determined resistance of reactionary elements in the south to the Supreme Courts decisions outlawing segregation in the public schools, and the radical change in the negro' eval of himself. their rationale for there chosen strategy was after the emancipation in 1863 the negro still confronted oppression and inequality.while the army of occupation remained in the south and reconstruction ruled, he had a brief period of eminence and political power. Malcolm was quickly overwhelmed by majority whites.this is where a new slavery step in to play during the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. "separate but equal "came about as an supreme court doctrine as well as a result Plessy doctrine plunged the Negro into the exploitation where bleakness and nagging happened.i would probably take the same stand in trying to change what wrong and unjust to right.i would expect a positive and just outcome in changing things.

Reply
Sorasak Prasertsri
10/23/2014 07:55:56 am

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    POSCI 1 Students

    This blog is for COA POSCI 1 students.

    Archives

    October 2014
    September 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS
​
​SUBMISSIONS

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Journals
  • Submissions
  • Catalyst