Belechak 1

Joanna Belechak

Miss Burke

Honors English 11

January 26, 2017

Martin Luther King Jr. Versus Malcolm X

Americas civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s was a fight against racial

segregation and discrimination against African Americans. Two of the most important leaders of

the movement were Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. Both men dedicated their lives to

overcome the racism and injustice faced by the African Americans. In this time of racial division,

there was debate over whether it be solved in a violent or nonviolent manner. Malcolm X

believed that violent protesting was the only way to get a point across, while Martin Luther King

Jr. believed that nonviolence would have a more positive and successful impact. In my opinion,

Martin Luther King Jr.s nonviolent approach to racial equality and justice for African Americans

was a more convincing method than a violent approach.

Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X saw the civil rights movement in vastly opposite

ways. Dr. King was a pacifist. He way influenced by Gandhi and hoped for racial equality.

Malcolm X was more of a warmonger who hoped to achieve black supremacy through violent

methods. Violent methods came with undeniable unpredictability. As said in Malcolm Xs

speech, The Ballot or the Bullet, Itll be liberty, or it will be death There were only two

outcomes that could play out when fighting with threatening actions. Dissimilarly, in Dr. Kings
 Belechak 2

Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom, he made clear that not a single person has been

killed in a nonviolent demonstration. If the African Americans shed the blood of the white men,

the white men would retaliate ruthlessly. Progress could be made without risking the lives of

those fighting.

The nonviolent movement was also far more thought out and designed for success. In his

speech, Martin Luther King Jr. states, What is needed is a strategy for change, a tactical program

which will bring the Negro into the main stream of American life as quickly as possible. The

nonviolent protestors set goals for what they were trying to achieve. Demonstrations were

tactical, so that any ill feelings would not intensify and a more peaceful vibe would remain. A

non-confrontational demonstration showed that the African Americans simply wanted to live

equally. On the other hand, violent protests were simply centered around hurting those who were

racist or discriminatory. Their actions were rash and led to more hostility and enmity. They

would give off a feeling of the African Americans being anti-white, though Malcolm X clearly

states in his speech that it doesn't mean were anti-white, but it does mean were anti-

exploitation, were anti-degradation, were anti-oppression.

When a movement is peaceful, there is more of a willingness to listen to what the

protesters have to say. As soon as it gets violent, resentment grows towards the dissenters. Those

on the other side of the protest will begin to close off and become unwilling to make any

compromises. This was clearly seen at the most recent presidential inauguration. A series of

protests erupted throughout Washington D.C. and turned violent quickly. If it would have

remained peaceful, police forces would have respected the peoples right to protest. Instead

tensions heightened, turbulence increased, and people ended up injured and arrested. It is
 Belechak 3

reasonable to express opinions and to oppose others. Remaining peaceable in a borderline

volatile situation will lead to many more compromises and favorable outcomes, as seen through

the actions and results of Martin Luther King Jr.s nonviolent approach to racial equality.