Recognition for civil rights

  King had a view that the “Christian ethic of love is the best weapon available to Negroes for this struggle for freedom and human dignity.” This differed greatly to Malcolm X’s ideology. As the chief disciple of Elijah Muhammad, prophet of the Black Muslims who rejected Christianity as “the religion of white devils”, Malcolm X was opposed to the integrationist views followed by people like King and the NAACP. He followed a line of separatism – stressing self-help for the blacks rather than collaboration with white liberals. These two ideas were mutually exclusive; and although black nationalists did not outwardly advocate violence, they were prepared to use it in their methods of speaking out, which was not the case for King’s followers.

  It should be noted that their contrasting ideas developed from differing circumstances, hence the roles they played being significant in different ways. King’s movement was set in a context of desegregation in the South in nearly all walks of life, including public schools, and also the fight for black people’s right to vote. Previous efforts by the NAACP were barely successful, and although there were attempts to desegregate schools in the South, institutions and white parents found ways of bypassing the laws. King’s efforts started in a response to these racial problems. Malcolm X, on the other hand, rose as an influential figure as a black nationalist much later on, interestingly enough after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It can be argued that much of Martin Luther King’s work influenced the passing of this act. However, the civil rights movement previous to the act did not focus on the plight of urban blacks, and this is how Malcolm X came to prominence. Riots and violence spread throughout the cities in the North, initiated by blacks themselves whose beliefs shifted away from the moderation of King and the NAACP. The gains made from the Civil Rights Act did not satisfy the blacks in these areas, and in retrospect it is clear to see why. Neither the right to vote nor legal guarantees of equal opportunity did anything to directly better their economic condition. The black unemployment rate was still twice the national average, and nearly a third of all blacks lived below the poverty line (compared to 13 per cent of whites). Black schools and housing were almost universally inferior. It was through these conditions that Black Nationalist groups began to rise up, such as the Black Panthers, and the SLNC departing from it ‘non-violent’ and interracial character.

  ‘Black Power’, the slogan adopted by the black nationalists, and particularly Malcolm X, was a vague and ambiguous concept. To some, it was simply an assertion of black consciousness and pride, to others a demand for black control of businesses, schools and political offices, to a handful it even meant a call for guerrilla warfare. King’s March on Washington in 1963, although extremely moving and influential, was accused by Malcolm X as a sell-out to the racist system. Malcolm’s denunciation reflected many black militants’ sentiments. It could be argued, however, that Martin Luther King’s was able to have such an influence in his lifetime precisely because the white liberals were able to accept him (at least, until his far-reaching critique of America’s foreign policy in the last part of his life). His goals and methods were not radical. As King explained in his ‘Letter to Birmingham’, he represented a middle course between two opposing groups in the black community. There were those who had resigned themselves to segregation for dignity, or for the minority of blacks, to keep their middle-class status, and there were those who were (according to King) the promoters of “bitterness and hatred” who came “perilously close to advocating violence.”

  King always regarded the doctrine of black supremacy as evil as the doctrine of white supremacy. He dismissed separatism as a “nihilistic philosophy”, but although Malcolm X’s principles were often based on violence and hyperbole, he did have two main positive effects on the civil rights movement. Despite the fact that only about 15% of all blacks at the time labelled themselves as separatists, it did help African Americans to take greater pride in their racial heritage. It was him, in fact, that encouraged black people to call themselves ‘African American’, as a symbol of pride for their backgrounds, and as a spur to learn more about their history as a people. Malcolm X pointed out that prolonged slavery and institutionalised racism had eroded away the self-esteem of many American black people. He, as well as others, helped blacks appreciate their African roots and their American accomplishments. This can also be said of Martin Luther King’s work to some extent, but his ‘middle way’ could have alienated many disillusioned blacks who were made to feel inferior. After all, the Civil Rights Act did not make a significant difference to many northern blacks’ lives. The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Act). The phenomenon of Malcolm X, as well as other black nationalist leaders, also forced King and other mainstream leaders and organisations to launch a new stage in civil rights to focus on the poor, inner-city blacks. Both King and Malcolm X pointed out these people needed jobs and decent housing as well as legal rights.

  Towards the end of their lives, Malcolm X’s and Martin Luther King’s beliefs and methodologies started to bear similar traits. After a visit to Mecca, Malcolm returned with a less aggressive attitude to white people and separatism, and eventually broke away from the Black Muslims to form his own Organisation for Afro-American Unity. King was also becoming more critical of legislation and policies regarding civil rights, and particularly of John F. Kennedy, who did not have any real convictions regarding the issue. At the start of the Vietnam War, both leaders were adamant in their reproach of the use of black soldiers in the fighting that, as King put it, sent blacks to “guarantee liberties in South East Asia which they had not found themselves in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem”. Before the two leaders together could make potentially a bigger difference to the state of civil rights in the country, opposition assassinated them both – King in 1968, Malcolm X in 1965.

  Although Malcolm X did have any direct effect on legal changes in America for civil rights, he did have a profound effect on the American blacks, through his work with the Nation of Islam. He did countless talks and speeches all over the northern part of the country, as well as in other countries in Europe and the Middle East. A few weeks before his death in February 1965, he addresses the First Congress of the Council of African Organisations in London. Although he perhaps did not succeed in converting many blacks to Islam, (which could be seen as a potential failure for him as a spokesperson) these talks still spread the word of black pride, and black consciousness against unfair treatment.

  It is difficult to say if one of the two men was a “better” activist for civil rights than the other. In comparison however, it does appear that Martin Luther King made an overall greater difference on the country’s civil rights campaigns. His efforts lasted over a longer period than Malcolm X’s did, and his famous ‘I Have A Dream’ demonstration speech is one of the most memorable of this century. One only has to look at the outcome of his work – integration of white and black people became increasingly widespread during the late 1950s and the 1960s, and this was clearly visible. As said before, the majority of blacks (and many white people) could identify with King’s goals and dreams. Only a proportion of blacks supported the separatist militancy that Malcolm X advocated. Yet, this doesn’t undermine his achievements. The Negro protest in the North might not have been able to develop in the way that it did as a major force in American politics, without Malcolm X and his supporters raising the issues that were previously ignored. An indirect collaboration towards the end of their lives meant that they were both fighting for similar issues, and it was then when their differences started to erode.

  In conclusion, it is valid to say that both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were pioneers concerning civil rights in the 1950s and 60s. During their careers, they upheld different ideologies and methods of gaining freedom and equality for black people. It could be argued that, as Martin Luther King was the more distinguished and “acceptable” of the two to generic America (he did win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964), he would have had a much broader impact across the country. Resistance through love and understanding was a powerful way of increasing integration between blacks and whites. It was Malcolm X who pointed out, in the North, the problems that integration was ignoring. It was through this mutual link that real change began to take effect for civil rights.