Compare the Roles of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X

Despite this we can easily come to the conclusion that it was Martin Luther King and Malcolm X’s upbringings that aided there philosophies and were largely responsible for their distinctly varying responses to American racism, that X’s promotion of violence was born out of a frustrating and violence childhood, underpinned with nationalism, and Kings pleasant, yet staunchly Christian upbringing laid the foundations of his positivism and pacifist stance. King declared himself that “It is quite easy for me to think of the universe as basically friendly mainly because of my uplifting hereditary and environmental circumstances. It is quite easy for me to lean toward optimism than pessimism about human nature mainly because of my childhood experiences’. This notion is too shared by Malcolm X in his autobiography he stresses that in order to realise why he is the way he is we need to review his life from birth as all aspects fuse into his personality.

It is Martin Luther Kings and Malcolm X’s contradictory beliefs and messages that highlight how different these two men were and how different their roles were. Both men were fighting for civil rights, yet had very different ideas as to what civil rights meant. King preached for people of all ‘races, creed and nationalities to live as a beloved community’. Such teaching stemmed from his Christian faith that teaches that there is no difference between people that we are all one in Christ. King believed that only through peaceful demonstration could such racial equality could be achieved. Malcolm X on the other hand once stated that “Coffee is the only thing I like integrated” and that integration was a trick by the white man to keep black people in their place. Kings Christian message of peace and love very much contradicted X’s teaching stemmed from the indoctrination of the nation of Islam that black people should use ‘whatever means necessary’ to rise up and protest against their ‘white enemies’ to accomplish a separate nation

Despite their obvious differences in beliefs, both men’s roles within society at that time were to be representatives for the two differing views expressed in the black communities in American society. Malcolm X, gave hope to those African-Americans who were influenced by Marcus Garvey, believing in black power and Martin Luther King provided a voice for Intergrationalists that wanted to be a part of the American Dream that promised ‘equality of opportunity’. Life for blacks’ in the urban north ghettos of the United States was one of frustration and despair, James Cone argues that blacks expected to find the freedom which eluded them for so long a time in the South, instead they found themselves crammed into the ghetto sections of the cities and that they received no more respect than they did in the South. Cone continues by saying that the blacks’ were becoming disillusioned with Christianity, which now seemed ‘too white’ removed from a southern context. This lead the black people to look to black leaders, instead of Jesus. Cone furthers this statement by arguing that this was the reason why Malcolm X and the nation of Islam was so successful. As Martin Luther King’s dream was developed in the context of black peoples fight against racial segregation in the South, Malcolm X’s was shaped in the context of blacks fight for ‘dignity and respect’ in the North. Both of the roles were to provide a voice to the two differing views within the American black community, Cone states that King (at least during the first stage of his civil rights activity) did not understand the depth of the problem of racism in the northern ghettos of America and Malcolm who often referred to the American dream as an ‘American nightmare’ couldn’t have given the optimistic speech that King delivered to Washington D.C. in 1963 both men was nothing without they other, together their roles were the same, they fought for freedom, but individually they  “symbolised opposite ends of black political thought”

Generally there is an affinity to drain the radical message of a dynamic activist into an abstract icon, by this I mean to replace radical content with a pure image. People have often frozen King’s ideological and political development in the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the march of Washington 1963, King’s “I Have a Dream” speech and his pacifist tendencies inspired by his Christian faith and others before him like Ghandi. However King’s final years are the ones that are often forgotten or obscured; his commitment t to the struggle against the war in Vietnam, Kings policies became more radical in the latter years of his public life, whereas people often amount Malcolm X’s role in his blunt verbal militancy where he urged black people to subvert those ‘blue eyed devils’.  Similarly with King, people often forget that after his break with the Nation of Islam, X was beginning to lean towards Kings Intergrationalist teachings. As a result when weighing out the differing successes and influence King and X had, Kings peaceful methods are often praised and Malcolm X’s are often tinged with negativity. However how reliable are these stereotypes?

No one has communicated the idea of the American dream with greater oratorical power Martin Luther King, Jr. His expression black people’s struggle for freedom in the “I Have a Dream” speech captured the imagination of America and established him among the pantheon of America’s leaders. He

Kings admirers frequently refer to him as the dreamer. Whether this has negative or positive connotations is questionable, James Cone expresses in his book ‘Martin & Malcolm and & America’ that it was negative by arguing that Malcolm X saw the limitations of Martin’s dream. It can be argued that Martin Luther Kings dream was narrow minded, particularly in the beginning stages of his civil rights campaign. Which began with the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955 and ending with the Voting Rights Bill of 1965, when we look at what King actually set out to achieve in theses years its clear that King was concerned with legislation and creating equality in society, he often protested against different aspects of legislation. From this We can conclude that King’s thinking and view on civil rights was more narrow-minded than that of Malcolm X who when compared could be described as more of a visionary. As Malcolm X realised earlier that King that changing legislation will not further the civil rights cause, because every aspect that society sees things is underpinned with prejudice views. Therefore society is what needed to be changed before attempting to change the fruit of society. X believed that Bills is passed ‘would never be enforced’, he urged that ‘you can legislate good will, that comes through education’. However when we look at the latter stages of Kings

Louis Lomax argues that both men were unsuccessful in the fact that they were are time hypocrites and contradicted there own beliefs. Lomax states that both men urged African-Americans to forget their difference and unite ina common struggle for justice and freedom, yet they themselves did lead by example by joining forces in a black united front. Lomax’s argument has little weight as despite the fact that they didn’t actively join forces, inwardly they did. When we look at the latter stages of both of their movements there is plenty of evidence to suggest that both men were edging closer to the others visons, with King realising that simple legislation would do little to achieve his American dream, King also realised that he was ignorance of the northern states in America was ostracising them from joining in with his vison, he actively set out to change this by moving him and his family to Chicago. Malcolm X also was letting go of his anti-intergration theories influence by the indoctrination of the nation of Islam and stated that he will throw himself ‘into the heart of the civil rights struggle’, which he decided was equality and white and blacks living amongst each other in harmony.

Despite their differing ideologies, successes and influence we can conclude that both Martin Luther Kling Jr and Malcolm X ultimately became towering icons of contemporary African-American culture. Instead of comparing them and pitting them against each other we should realise that their roles had a great influence on black Americans and the civil rights movement as a whole, the fact that we are still talking about them four decades after their deaths is evidence of this fact. Both are remembered as leaders who committed their lives to fighting for a change in a society each believed was unjust. Both men tried to instil within black people of America power and strength so that they could rise above the hatred that had surrounded them since the establishment of black slavery centuries before. Regardless of their obvious ways in promoting their message, they both had the same role in 20th Century America, the same goal in mind; to stress the importance of black respect and pride.  Malcolm X and Martin luther King both ahd important individual roles in society at that time, as they were necessary ingredients in the African-American struggle for justice. Both leaders made important contributions to the civil rights campaign. Without each other there is a possibility that King would have just been a harmless national hero, and X a hero for the blacks’ and ostracised by the whites’. King was an advocate for the South, and X for the North together they helped further the civil rights cause. In life they never joined forces, but death they are one in the common foundation of men who struggle and die for a cause bigger than themselves.