Compare And Contrast Malcolm X And Martin Luther King

Same Dream, Altered Focus
In the time surrounding the 1960s racial equality was a far off concept. In addition to blatant racial oppression, “Jim Crow” laws were in effect, barring African Americans from classrooms, bathrooms, train cars, theaters, and even legislatures. The civil rights movement began as an effort to end racial segregation and discrimination evident during this period. Civil rights activists, Martin Luther King and Malcom X, delivered speeches through their subjective rhetoric and different perspectives to violence within its relevance to the movement. King and Malcom establish credibility, emotional effect, and appeal to the audience’s values to establish a connection with them in efforts to persuade their spectators to

take a stand in unity; whether it be in the ways of the violent or nonviolent approach.
Martin Luther King Jr., a known nonviolent civil rights activist, delivered his I Have A Dream speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. to reach audiences of blacks who were discriminated, the average whites who harbor the typical thoughts of the time, and militant blacks who believed that violence was the sole answer to equality. King believed that in order to become equals, they must obtain their rights peacefully. He asserts his credibility within the second sentence of his speech alluding to Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation which took place one hundred years ago on the exact ground he spoke. He declares:
Five score years ago. A Great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. (King, 1-2)
Lincoln is known as one of the most admired men and leaders of all time in American history. He supported and advocated for the freeing and equality of the black people. Furthermore, the fact that it has been one hundred years since Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation and racial equality has decreased instead of increased, preys on the audience’s values and asserts his authority. He goes on to state, “We must forever conduct our struggle to the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to generate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.” (King, 2) King emphasizes, “we must” through the use of repetition of the phrase, or anaphora. He makes it apparent that he desires to fight for equality through peaceful methods and to bring the violence, which was prominent and beginning to be a Hallmark of the movement, to a halt.
Conversely, Malcom X in his speech, Message to Grassroots, asserts that the only way to achieve their goal is through a revolution of bloodshed.

Malcom states:
We have a common enemy. We have this in common: We have a common oppressor, a common exploiter, and a common discriminator. But once we all realize that we have this common enemy, then we unite on the basis of what we have in common. And what we have foremost in common is that enemy – the white man. He’s an enemy to all of us. (Malcom X, 2)
Through the use of anaphora, he motivates his audience into a state of united hatred and gives them a common enemy, the white man. This leads to his conclusion that the only way to gain independence is to revolt through violence, a destructive and dark path. Malcom had lost all hope for equality and concluded that rather than fighting for the right to sit next to a white man on the bus or even go to the same bathroom as a white man, they should fight for the right to a country of their own through a bloody, and violent

revolution.
Malcom uses emotional effect to persuade his listeners to stand up and fight; that nonviolence is not the answer.

He questions, “How can you justify being nonviolent in Mississippi and Alabama when your churches are being bombed and your little girls are being murdered, and at the same time you’re getting violent with Hitler and Tojo and somebody that you don’t even know?” (Malcom X, 4) Malcom points out the incongruity of a dispute for nonviolence when the very nation of which they live in responds with violence whenever they feel threatened or provoked even in the slightest. He stirs up an emotional reaction talking about “your little girls” being murdered and makes the statement relatable. The white oppressors of the time could be seen as a “Hitler,” and he feels the only way America responded to him was through violence, so they should do the

same.
Similarly, King sets up feelings of anger through the use of hypophora, rhetorical device of asking questions and answering them to prove a point. King states, “There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, ‘When will you be satisfied?’” (King, 3) He responds that they will not be satisfied until there is no more racism. He uses this question to ignite anger inside all of his onlookers, anger for their mistreatment and racism and detonates the want or hope for a better and equal America in which there is racial equality, and it is beautiful.
Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were both fighting for the end to racial oppression and discrimination; they merely had different views on how it was to be solved. Malcom believed that suffering peacefully was not the answer and that the only way to accomplish their end objective was to fight in a bloody revolution. Dissimilarly, King advocated for the peaceful rebellion to obtain their equality. Their rhetoric convinced their audience that no matter what, they must fight. Whether it is violently or through nonviolence. As a result of their excellently delivered speeches persuading people to fight for their equality, the Civil Rights Act, outlawing discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion or national origin, was issued just a little over a year later thanks to Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr.’s voices.