MLK vs. Malcolm X
Between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr., we have two huge advocates of the Civil Rights movement, but each had their separate ways of approaching the situation. We have MLK Jr. who preached nonviolent civil disobedience and the complete integration of society. On the other hand we have Malcolm X who wanted to keep the society segregated, but did not want the whites controlling anything the blacks did, and he taught that violence was necessary when approached with violence. The question may be, which leader was more effective in the race toward equality of their race.
The first difference to look over is their approach on violence. MLK Jr.’s peaceful protests, such as the March on Washington, were famous and celebrated and remembered still today. Consequently, with the same nonviolent approach, MLK and his followers had to face a lot of violence down in the south, without fighting back and with no consequence to the violators. Then we have Malcolm X who says that, still, there should be no violence, but violence was allowed if they were first attacked. This would seem logical, why should they put up with violence against them with no ramifications? The goal would be peace, but this peace could be severed if violent acts were committed against them. I would like to think that the second option would seem more logical, but not as effective as the first. In the situations they were in, nonviolent acts would be able to show more effectively that the blacks do deserve all the rights whites have, because they are human alike and can act in a civil matter to fight for what they believe in even when faced with acts against them that are not quite so civil. After demonstrating this, then would they be able to work on the integration of society.
The second difference is their approach on the final outcome of society. MLK wanted a society that would be integrated, where every person had equal rights no matter their race. It was hard to accomplish, yet the goal was pretty straightforward. On the other hand Malcolm X wanted society to remain separated, but he did not want white people having any control over what black people did. His views were often thought of as extreme, but there can always be some sense in every view. With this complete separation, the whites and blacks would never have problems with each other again, and racial inequality would no longer be a problem. On the other hand, there would be no communication between the two groups, which would cause the establishment of two separate nations. Although this could be what Malcolm X wanted, as he repeated himself on how blacks were not Americans. Again, I would say that MLK had a more effective approach on this matter, because completely separating two races would be near impossible, and splitting up a government like such is bound to cause serious problems, much like those that already happened within the civil war. Now the integration of society was much more plausible, because steps had already been taken toward this. There still was much more to go, but this is the way the society and the government were already pressing toward, making it easier to finish what had already been started, rather than to go a new route. Now, who do you think was more effective?