Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were the two major leaders in the Civil Rights Movement of mid 20th century. While both leaders had similar goals of demanding recognition and protection of African American liberties in society, their respective backgrounds, approaches, remained widely divergent. Concurrent sections of this essay shall highlight these differences and their impacts on the Civil Rights Movement. Both short-term and long-term impacts of the two approaches will be investigated.
The differences in both leaders’ backgrounds had significant impacts on respective civil rights struggles. Malcolm X was born of a Baptist father who had been a major champion of the Universal Negro Improvement Association (Karim). Malcolm’s father’s intense involvement in movement activities resulted in being at loggerheads with law enforcement. This placed his family in danger and thus embarked on constant relocation from one part of the country to the other before settling in Michigan. Malcolm’s father was later run over by a streetcar. His mother was later declared insane and sent to the mental care facility. These were sad times for the young Malcolm, who started living with foster families while attending various reform schools (Ogbar, 203). He later moved to Boston and got engaged in criminal activities that led to his confinement. It is during this imprisonment that Malcolm came to learn of Elijah Mohamed’s Islamic teachings and henceforth decided to become a Muslim, as well as being seriously involved in civil rights issues. Malcolm’s background is the opposite of that experienced by Martin Luther King (MLK). MLK was born of Baptist parents; his father was a minister, a post inherited from his father (MLK’s grandfather). This provided MLK with a strong religious foundation that would later influence his teachings and practices. After attending elementary school in Atlanta, MLK was admitted to the Pennsylvania-based Crozer Theological Seminary and later Boston University, where he received a Ph.D. in systematic Theology in 1955. He immediately took the ministerial role at Montgomery’s Dexter Avenue Baptist Church (Stanford University) and became increasingly engaged in civil rights issues.
The influence of both leaders’ backgrounds can be seen in the methods applied in their respective leadership roles. On his part, Martin Luther chooses a nonviolent approach in achieving movement goals. Without a doubt, the choice of his approach was influenced by the extensive theological teachings he had received since his childhood. Despite the pressure from some quarters within the movement to push for speedy agitations through violence, MLK relentlessly preached and practice a nonviolence approach. Many civil rights movements participants, including Malcolm X, had concluded that MLK’s approach would take longer to achieve the intended goals (MLK Online) but Martin was ready to wait. Malcolm X was on the view that armed violence was the best measure to meeting civil movement goals. The difference between both approaches led to disagreements between the two leaders to point that they could not merge and strengthen their ties. Each group thus retorted to continuing with putting pressure on the government using the means they so fit: Malcolm X continued with agitating for armed approaches whereas MLK kept preaching peace and nonviolence approach. Though both leaders had similar goals of having African American liberties becoming more recognized and protected by authorities, there were some other little differences regarding specific short and long-term goals of the Civil Rights Movement. On his part, Martin Luther King was determined to have African Americans being treated as equal under the rule of law with their white counterparts. In this regard, MLK intended to have greater integration of American people despite their race, religion, or sex. Luther’s goals, therefore, extended beyond the African American population in the country—he had all minorities included in his long-term goals. Malcolm would hear none of this; instead, he saw the complete “separation from the white man” as the best measure to address the crisis (Howard-Pitney 120). For sure, such a hard stance could not have been incorporated with Martin Luther’s non-violence approach.
Martin Luther was concerned with positive impacts in American society, not just African Americans. This meant that peaceful co-existence between the races had to be a prerequisite, and hence the non-violence approach. On the other hand, Malcolm X was seemingly concerned with short-run results on African American lives. These differences did not stop either of the leaders to achieve certain goals. Martin Luther achieved the integration of American races in both public and private sectors. In addition, his movement saw the segregation that had characterized lifestyle start to wane (Karim). Though Malcolm X did not live to achieve his goals, his followers were instrumental in the rise of Black Power as an authority in the civil rights movement in the 1960s and 70s (OAH 12). However, Black Power’s activities were in the authorities’ spotlight, which resulted in to decline in its membership and relevance in the civil rights fraternity.
The above analysis has compared two of the most dominant civil rights movement leaders. It has been established that the differences in respective approach styles developed from the leader’s upbringing. Martin Luther’s religious background was instrumental in his nonviolent approach. Malcolm X’s hardship in life resulted in the agitation of armed resistance. Martin Luther was, however, the one who was most successful in meeting the goals—Malcolm died before attaining his goals. His followers were also unsuccessful in reaching their fallen leaders’ aspirations.
References
Howard-Pitney, David. Martin Luther, Malcolm X and the Civil Rights. New York: Bedford, 2004.
MLK Online. MLK Bibliography. mlkonline.net. 2008. Web.
Karim, Imam (Edt.). Black Man’s History. Malcolmx.org. 2009. Web.
OAH. “MLK and Malcolm X.” OAH Magazine. 2005.
Ogbar, Jeffrey. Black Power. JHU: Baltimore, 2003.
Stanford University. King Bibliography. Stanford. 2009. Web.