Martin Luther King and Malcolm X: Different Men With the Same Goal
Martin Luther King jr. and Malcolm X are still highly controversial African-American leaders. Martin, a Christian integrationist, and Malcolm, a Muslim nationalist have been a powerful force against racial injustice. Each man sacrificed his life for the freedom of his people; however, Martin and Malcolm had taken very different approaches in achieving equality and identity for African-Americans in the land of their birth.
In order to better understand why King and X took the course of action each took, one must take into account a little bit of their background. Martin Luther King jr., was born in Atlanta, Georgia into a middle-class family. The church was his source of leadership development and it helped provide him with moral values. Home and church were the most important influences in the early life of King. In both contexts, he was introduced to the integrationist values of protest, accommodations, self-help and optimism as they were related to the religious themes of justice, love and hope. He was introduced to the value of education as a potent way of helping him assert his self-worth to become a church and community leader and to fight racism in the larger society. “King’s basis for his campaign of nonviolence originated in the highest type of love - love for people who hate you. King preached that the combination of agape (spiritual love) with nonviolent action would elicit change”(Walton 78).
It is quite easy for me to think of a God of love mainly because I grew up in a family where love was central and where lovely relationships were ever present. It is quite easy for me to think of the universe as basically friend...
... middle of paper ...
... cowardice. For many blacks nonviolence was the only option because violence would have cost them their jobs, their homes, and even their lives. It was a creative way that an African-American could fight for freedom and at the same time avoid genocide, the logical consequence of racism.
Works Cited
Goldman, Peter. The Death and Life of Malcolm X. 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1979.
Hamilton, Charles V. The Black Experience in American Politics. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1973.
Samuels, Gertrude. “Two ways: Black Muslim and N.A.A.C.P”.New York Times Magazine, 12 May 1963, pg 87.
Walton, Hanes Jr,. The Political Philosophy of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Greenwood Press, 1971.
X, Malcolm and Alex Haley. The Autobiography or Malcolm X. New York: Ballantine Books, 1973
Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were both African American civil rights leaders wanting to bring freedom to black people during the 1960s. Even though both leaders wanted to liberate black people; their philosophies were drastically different. Malcolm X was wanted racial separation, while Martin Luther King wanted to both races to coexist. Religion is also a major part of this situation because most African Americans including MLK in America were Christian while Malcolm X’s goal was to turn all people who follow his path to convert into Muslims. Martin Luther King’s philosophy would’ve made more sense to 1960s America because most people who wanted freedom in society would rather consider coexisting than more racial
This paper is written to give my personal reflection on a book entitled The Autobiography of Malcolm X. It is one of the assignments for EDC3360 Course, Social Work for Community Service. We were asked to read this book because the content of this book has relation with the course we are taken for the current semester.
From 1954 to 1968 the Civil Rights movement was growing at a fast rate. During this time segregation and racism was alive and in full effect. More African- American people were starting to stand up and believe in the rights that wasn’t giving to them, and that they should be treated as equals. Although African-Americans had some freedoms the constant mistreatment, verbal and physical abuse was enough and it was time to take a stand to make a change. Great leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Malcom X made a path way for the moment and even though the two had different views of handling the situation at hand. Malcom X was more of a fight fire with fire type of protester, and that the only way changes were going to be made was if we fight back. On the other hand Martin Luther King Jr. was all for peaceful protesting and that they can make a difference just by speaking words of encouragement to the people.
Philosophers have developed many different theories to explain the existence and behavior of “free will.” This classical debate has created two main family trees of theories, with multiple layers and overlapping. It all begins with Determinist and Indeterminist theories. Simply put, determinists believe that our choices are determined by circumstance, and that the freedom to make our own decisions does not exist. Indeterminists, for example Libertarians, believe that we are free to make our own choices; these choices are not determined by other factors, like prior events. In class, we began the discussion of free will, and the competing arguments of Determinists and Indeterminists, with the works of Roderick Chisholm, a libertarian who made
The Civil Rights Movement is one of the most important events of the history of the United States. Although many people contributed to this movement, Martin Luther King, Jr., is widely regarded as the leader of the movement for racial equality. Growing up in the Deep South, King saw the injustices of segregation first hand. King’s studies of Mahatma Ghandi teachings influenced his views on effective ways of protesting and achieving equality. Martin Luther King’s view on nonviolence and equality and his enormous effect on the citizens of America makes him the most influential person of the twentieth century.
Many modern day scientists argue that humans construct the concept of free will rather than free will actually existing. The dialogue on this matter will likely continue for more years. While these scientists devote time attempting to prove their theories on the issue, other scientists research the effect on people when they believe their decisions are pre-determined for them. These studies prove that, regardless of the validity of the idea, people who call free will an illusion have lower moral standards than those with a belief in free will.
Free-will, the ability one has to act without the constraint of necessity or fate. It the power a person has to act at one’s discretion. Do we really have the freedom to experience what we want, when we choose? Some would say yes while some others will say no, philosophers have argued about this topic and there hasn’t been any particular conclusion yet. It is the ability a person or animal has to choose his or her course of actions. Although most philosophers suppose that the concept of free-will is very closely connected to the concept of moral responsibility.
When thinking about the topic of free will I personally think it is the ability to make decisions that we WANT to make, and not being forced to do so. Susan Wolf explores the idea of our independence by looking at three different views exploring our freedom and responsibility. The first view Wolf talks about is The Real Self View (RSV) which explores the idea that, we are ultimately free when we act on our inmost values whether they are “right” or “wrong”. The next view she explores is The Autonomy View (AV), this view states that “we are free when we act on our own” (Wolf 206). The last view Wolf talks about is The Reason View
Hoyt, Charles Alva. “The Five Faces of Malcolm X.” Negro American Literature Forum 4 (1970): 107-112.
To conclude, Thoreau believed that people should be ruled by conscience and that people should fight against injustice through non-violence according to “Civil Disobedience.” Besides, he believed that we should simplify our lives and take some time to learn our essence in the nature. Moreover, he deemed that tradition and money were unimportant as he demonstrated in his book, Walden. I suggested that people should learn from Thoreau to live deliberately and spend more time to go to the nature instead of watching television, playing computer games, and among other things, such that we could discover who we were and be endeavored to build foundations on our dreams.
John A. Kirk, History Toady volume 52 issue 2, The Long Road to Equality for African-Americans
The effects of marijuana are minimal. The high has a feeling of euphoria, peacefulness and well-being. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the active chemical in marijuana. It’s estimated that a person would have to ingest a dose 20,000 to 40,000 times the average dose before death would occur. In the early 1990’s sophisticated research on marijuana began. The scientists discovered THC stimulates special receptors in the brain. Researchers have now isolated a natural substance that appears to produce the same effects as THC in the brain. Recently the medical uses of marijuana are being more and more accepted, and many marijuana smokers wonder how it can be harmful if it helps/treats patients.
I want to argue that there is indeed free will. In order to defend the position that free will means that human beings can cause some of what they do on their own; in other words, what they do is not explainable solely by references to factors that have influenced them. My thesis then, is that human beings are able to cause their own actions and they are therefore responsible for what they do. In a basic sense we are all original actors capable of making moves in the world. We are initiators of our own behavior.
t is intriguing that when a person is presented with the ideas of free will or determinism, they usually jump rather quickly to the conclusion of free will. Most people appreciate the genuine freedom that accompanies choice, but do we really possess it? Complete free will would mean that our decisions would be unrelated to other factors such as the environment or genetics. In reality, our free decisions are based on factors that are beyond our own control. When exercising certain choices, we conclude that we have acted freely and distinguish our actions from situations in which we believe were not in our control. The events that are not in our control are pre-determined for us, which lead us on a path to a determined life. Even though we may be making our own unique decisions, they all connect to form a single planned outcome.