At what point does an ordinary person become extraordinary? Historical figures are often portrayed as intimidatingly saint-like. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. are certainly no exception to this rule. Jeff Stetson’s The Meeting and Katori Hall’s The Mountaintop both fictionally delve into two immensely important moments in history. One being the meeting between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. and the other being Martin Luther King Jr.’s last night alive. A new perspective is introduced through setting, dialect, and the actions of King and Malcolm. Hall and Stetson turn two admired leaders into two regular men with remarkable purposes.
The Mountaintop is set in a typical motel room. This particular setting is modeled after the
…show more content…
room Martin Luther King Jr. spent his last night alive in. It is often difficult for the general population to imagine a public personality in such an ordinary location, especially one as dingy as a motel room. Hall forces the viewer or reader to view King’s paradoxical situation. He is so recognizable that he must be holed up in a dreary area. Because of his fame, the staff is incredibly accommodating. He calls for a simple cup of coffee and is asked for his autograph. When Camae arrives with the coffee, she mentions that “folk down there say it’s on the house” (7). Hall is illustrating that King is treated with more importance but is still able to remain humble and gracious. After learning he is going to die, King complains while talking to God on the phone: You got some nerve. Dragging me here to this moldy motel room in Memphis. To die. HUH! Of all places! Well, I am angry. There have been many a’ nights when I have held my tongue when it came to You. But not tonight, NOT TONIGHT. (33) King best describes the motel room in this passage. It is a fine place to spend the night, but it is not a favorable place to die. The modest and historically-accurate location assists one in envisioning King’s life behind the fame. Two civil rights legends meet in a hotel room in The Meeting.
Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. have underhanded debates, arm wrestling matches, and tender moments in a simple room that a normal person vacation in. There are moments that remind one of the characters’ fame such as when Dr. King complains about Malcolm making him “take the back stairs” (10) when he was staying on the seventh floor. The location of the hotel is incredibly significant as well. It is in Harlem, New York City, an incredibly active city during the Civil Rights Movement. Harlem is especially known for the Harlem Race Riot of 1964. It is also where Malcolm would later be assassinated three years before King. The location of their imagined meeting seems to have been chosen by Stetson with much consideration.
Katori Hall took a much different approach to writing King’s personality than Stetson. Hall’s King was much more crude and flawed while Stetson’s was generous and charming. When speaking to Camae, King was flirtatious, suggestive, and completely different from any Martin Luther King Jr. the public had been shown. In a moment of frustration, a violent approach to his cause is suggested by
…show more content…
King: Ooooo! They got me so tired, Camae. All this rippin’ and runnin’, rippin’ and runnin’, around this entire world and for what? FOR WHAT? White folks don’t seem to want to listen. Maybe you’re right. Maybe the voice of violence is the only voice white folks’ll listen to. (18) This is quite a thought-provoking moment as it drives one to wonder just how patient King was with racism in America and what he truly believed about significant issues behind closed doors. Hall’s version of King is very different from the loving, patient pastor everyone is so accustomed to. In regards to King being perceived as an intimidating figure, Camae recalls how she was assigned to the task of accompanying King to the afterlife and she “thought that [King] was gone be perfect” (37). This sentiment has been shared by many as King has been portrayed as saintlike throughout his lifetime and even afterward. Hall challenges it by personifying King’s legacy and turns him into what he was- just a man. King’s dialogue in The Mountaintop, whether it be with himself or with Camae, is both refreshing and intriguing. His character’s dialect offers an invigoratingly contemporary perspective concerning King’s personality. As aforementioned, Jeff Stetson’s King is much more reverent than Hall’s. He remains even-tempered through all of Malcolm X’s badgering and antagonizing while also going out of his way to display acts of kindness to Malcolm. A pivotal moment in The Meeting is when Malcolm asks Dr. King if “people will remember [them] as ‘men’ and only ‘men’” (28). Malcolm’s question introduces the self-awareness of two very important figures that were viewed as much more than just men. Often times, historical personalities are exposed to the point of dehumanization. They are seen as everything but just people. To have two incredibly important characters discussing how they are viewed is certainly a fresh angle. Stetson does not only explore how these two men see themselves but how they see each other in relation to both the public eye and as acquaintances. When Dr. King and Malcolm warm up to each other they immediately begin discussing the differences between their ideologies. Their viewpoints are easy to see, as they have both publicly stated theirs in speeches and interviews. Both Dr. King and Malcolm prematurely know the basics of one another, but through their debates and discussions regarding their policies they learn more about one another as individuals. Malcolm is commended by Dr. King: Just walk out there on those streets.
The eyes of the dead come alive in your presence. They believe in you, and because of that they are beginning to believe in themselves. They respect you. And, yes, Malcolm, I respect you. (32)
Mutual respect is a major theme in The Meeting and without it, King and Malcolm’s conflicts would never have been resolved. There is also an underlying theme of brotherhood, an incredibly important aspect in the fight against racism and segregation. Toward the end of both of their lives, Malcolm and King developed similar ideals and Stetson displayed that through their conversations. Many forget that they were both fighting for the same cause. Society frequently picks apart high-profile figures until all they are is whatever they are known
for. The actions of King in The Mountaintop are far different from the actions of King historically and publicly. King did smoke and was unfaithful to his wife but tried to hide both from the majority of society. He succeeded until the truth was revealed after his death. The smoking and suggestive flirting are not huge surprises if one has researched King. However, the drinking, bodily functions, and fear are quite uncharacteristic of what is known of King as portrayed through the media. King is known for being patient, loving, and kind- the perfect recipe for a renowned pastor. Hall ironically portrays King writing a speech preaching these three characteristics, all while making snide comments about racist Americans. In the midst of this unorthodox depiction of King, he also gets up and is heard urinating- the most effective way to represent humanity. When one imagines Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., normal bodily functions are the last things to enter the mind. Another thing King is not known for is being afraid. In his last speech, he even mentions not being afraid of any man. Yet, on his last night Hall portrays him as being wholly afraid of the storm outside. She emphasizes the fact that he has basic emotions, contrary to popular belief. She depicts him feeling everything from lust to frustration. King is integral to America’s history and he was indeed a leader, but he was also a human being. Stetson paints a picture of two men with completely opposite beliefs coming together and respecting one another. In the course of debating whether or not their ideologies are better, Malcolm and King engage in two arm wrestling matches- Malcolm wins one and King wins the other. When they have come to respect each other’s ideals, they agree to a third match. Their match comes to a head and they decide to call a truce. Afterward, Dr. King ponders what they “could have accomplished, if only [they] had joined hands and pushed in the same direction” (31). Stetson diffuses the friction between two ideals and proposes the idea of joining together to accomplish more. He uses the development of two very different characters to illustrate the possibility as two extremes such as violence and nonviolence being able to conjoin. The arm wrestling is a metaphoric tool used to depict his proposal.
Malcolm Gladwell once said, “...people who are outliers—in men and women who, for one reason or another, are so accomplished and so extraordinary and so outside of ordinary experience that they are as puzzling to the rest of us as a cold day in August.” The author, Wes Moore, of the book, The Other Wes Moore, is considered an outlier through the “Gladwellian” lens based off of Gladwell’s book, Outliers. Wes’s story demonstrates objectives that define him as an outlier with the contributions of where he’s from, his advantages, and also his attitude over his ability. These contributions therefore define him as an outlier through the “Gladwellian” lens.
As Chris McCandless once said, “I now walk into the wild,” a phrase that not only represents a future with unknown mysteries, but a phrase that finishes the puzzle of his and Martin Luther King, Jr’s life. When looking at a historical or inspirational person, you may notice they operated outside the usual bounds of society to achieve a particular purpose. Such is the case for McCandless and King. Although Chris McCandless and Martin Luther King, Jr both shared a fatal death, these men had many similarities and differences between how they reached success, encountered obstacles, and left an impact towards people's lives.
King gets his point across, that segregation is unfair and morally not right, and that man has a responsibility to act against unjust laws, by using many different strategies throughout the letter. He uses logos, pathos, and ethos to do so. While using these devices he shows emotion, gives logic to his reasoning’s and gives credibility as well. First and foremost, King calmly responded to the statement from the clergymen that his non-violent direct action was “unwise and untimely”. King logically does so by describing the situation where the negro leaders tried many times to negotiate with the city fathers to remove racial barriers, but the promises never held true.
In his letter, Martin Luther King is trying to persuade his readers to understand his action and point of view of an African-American living in this era. He did so all while replying to the public published statement and criticisms written to him by the eight Alabama clergymen. This illuminating work of art that King had created was filled with heightened terminology which was gratified by his precise framework. By King writing this response letter with such high dialect, it reflects off of his determined and highly educated mentality immensely. In this letter King directly tries to build a connection
King had gained respect from some audience because of his soft tone. He established his ethos to readers, especially to the white, by saying, “I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state” (King, Martin Luther, Jr.). To connect his idea to the real world, he used the image of Apostle Paul left the village to carry the gospel of Jesus Christ as it’s his duty to carry the gospel of freedom beyond his hometown.
The world as we know it today, is one very different to the world even 50 years ago. Technology has advanced, frontiers have been reached and surpassed, and people are more free than ever. The catalyst for a large percentage of human freedom in particular was the African-American Civil Rights movement, from the mid 1950’s, to the late 1960’s. Headed by multiple prominent figures throughout its duration, the following essay will be comparing and contrasting Martin Luther King Jr., and Stokely Carmichael, and then determining which of the two was a more effective leader. If the definition used were to be “The act of leading, or the ability to be a leader”, (Webster 2003, p.264) then both Carmichael and King would finish in a similar position,
This book was intriguing, fascinating, and balanced with a unique writing style. It’s a book that highlights every important aspect in Kings life, especially his work with the ministry, his vision of racial progress, and the important person he became. After reading this book I have come to the conclusion that the purpose for writing this biography was to convey the truth. To tell the truth of what actually happened in MLKs life from a fair point of view. From someone who would not judge or show bias in their writing toward King.
In history we know that no two men are alike but, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were phenomenal people and leaders. Both had visualized some type of change in the future, yet were not literally able to see it. Both Dr. King and Malcolm X set out to bring a sense of confidence to blacks all over the United States. Their main purpose was to help instill black’s power and strength so that they could overcome racial disparity and prejudice that surrounded them, but both of them had very unique and distinct different ways of promoting their message. Martin was more geared and focused on equality and wellness of the world as a whole, a Malcolm X’s personal interpretation of the world was very well blinded by anger, bitterness, and the desire to get revenge at the expense of the world that he thought treated him unfairly.
Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. African Americans are fortunate to have leaders who have fought for a difference in Black America. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X are two powerful men in particular who brought hope to blacks in the United States. Both preached the same message about Blacks having power and strength in the midst of all the hatred that surrounded them. Even though they shared the same dream of equality for their people, the tactics they implied to make these dreams a reality were very different. The background, environment and philosophy of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were largely responsible for the distinctly varying responses to American racism.
The autobiography of Malcolm X is most widely accredited for its inspirational incentives and exceptionally intense life experiences; the novel itself is a show-stopper. Malcolm X structures his craft through his untold stories and background through the behavior of style and substance. Malcolm creates more than a scene and feel of the novel, but allows the audience to accommodate a tight grasp on his emotions and disposition the life of a young African-American male during a racist time in history.
Through making the audience realize this, he also gave them hope for a world reborn without racism, without segregation, without discrimination, and without hate. King wanted his children to live in a world without judgment of race, but with the consideration of personality, for nobody should not endure judgment because of the way that they look. He spoke of his own children, which introduced a reinforced emotional attachment to the audience; this gave many parents a scenario to relate to because no parent wants their child exposed to the horrid crimes of discrimination.... ... middle of paper ... ...
He agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that it would take both blacks and whites to combat racism when he says in The Autobiography of Malcom X that “both races, as human beings, have the obligation, the responsibility, of helping to correct America’s human problem” (HAAL 3090). Unlike Martin Luther King, Jr., in his younger years as a Muslim led by Elijah Muhammad, he believed that white people were devils. He negatively portrays the whites that truly wanted to see blacks treated equally. He said that “white people who want to join black organizations are really just taking the escapist way to salve their consciences” (HAAL 3090). He also said “I never really trust the kind of white people who are always so anxious to hang around Negroes, or to hang around in Negro communities” (HAAL 3091). He uses a violent nature when he talks about whites that the reader can see when he says he could suddenly die because of a white racist but that the white man “will make use of me dead, as he has made use of me alive, as a convenient symbol of ‘hatred’ – and that will help him to escape facing the truth that all I have been doing is holding up a mirror to reflect, to show, the history of unspeakable crimes that his race has committed against my race” (HAAL 3094). By always reflecting on the past and not moving forward, this shows that he is not interested in blacks and whites being united, instead, he seems to keep reminding
Scott King, Coretta. My Life With Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
One of the world’s best known advocates of non-violent social change strategies, Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK), synthesized ideals drawn from many different cultural traditions. Recent studies of him emphasize the extent to which his ideals were rooted in African-American religious traditions which were then shaped by his education. The image of a social activist and leader was the result of extensive formal education, strong personal values and licit ethics. This excellence in leadership can be traced to his character which is shaped by his moral values and personality. We look at MLK and these traits to reveal the rationalization of his rise to transracial leadership in our society. Through studying the life and example of Martin Luther King, Jr., we learn that his moral values of integrity, love, truth, fairness, caring, non-violence, achievement and peace were what motivated him. King is not great because he is well known, he is great because he served as the cause of peace and justice for all humans. King is remembered for his humanity, leadership and his love of his fellow man regardless of skin color. This presence of strong moral values developed King’s character which enabled him to become one of the most influential leaders of our time. Integrity is a central value in a leader’s character and it is through integrity that King had vision of the truth. The truth that one day this nation would live up to the creed, "all men are created equal". No man contributed more to the great progress of blacks during the 1950’s and 1960’s than Martin Luther King, Jr. He was brought up believing "one man can make a difference", and this is just what he did. Integrity has a large effect on what we think, say and do, it is through King’s thoughts and actions that enabled so many people to have trust and faith in him. Through King’s integrity he believed that America, the most powerful and richest nation in the world will lead the way to a revolution of values. This revolution will change the way society views itself, shifting from a "thing-orientated" society to a "person-orientated" society. When this occurs, King believed that racism will be capable of being conquered and this nation will be "Free at last." King’s unconditional love for all humans was another value that strongly influenced his character and allowed him to have such excellent leadership ability.
The purpose of the speech was to address the issues of segregation and racism as a whole. King speaks about the issues of racism and segregation in America during the 1960’s. He encourages the use of non-violent protests and to fight for equality to help America solve the issue. King begins his speech by referencing important historical documents such as the Constitution of the United States and the Emancipation Proclamation. This is emphasized when he states, ”Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation.