Fist or Feather We all have common enemies in life: the common oppressor, the common explorer, the common discriminator. With these commonalities we can unit with each other to serve a better purpose for all present and to come.(Malcolm X 1) Malcolm X and Martin luther King Jr. Where both two great advicts of the civil right movement each having there own way of strategy and thought. Malcolm X tended to lean on the side of violence for the right of defence while stating “If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad in defence of her”.(Malcolm X 3) While King Jr. took a more subtle approach to the civil rights movement believing that nonviolent direct action was the best way to go.”The purpose of direct action program is to create
…show more content…
and Malcolm X both had the same end goal, racial equality for black americans. While the end goal is racial equality both viewid the integration of whites into the freedom movement differently. Should one invite their enemy into the fight for the cause that said enemy is trying to enforce and hold? or should we just leave them out of the equation entirely to fight own are own? This is one of manly differences Malcolm X and King Jr. faced between them. Malcolm X strongly believed that white people need to be excluded from all that is the freedom movement as they are the ones the blacks were in battle with. Malcom X says “Once they excluded the white man, they found that they could get together. Once they kept him out, everybody else fell right in and in line.”(Malcolm X 1) Without the enemy present more people would feel comfortable participating in discussions and protest for their freedom. Also by including white people in to the movement you would be inviting the murders, bomber, and lynchers of the community's very children and family. Even when blacks were sent to war to fight for America and most did not get reconish for the time when it came to the civil right movement. I for one never enjoyed having my corporate leaders show up at work because I knew then, my perfectly good day was about to go blasting down the …show more content…
approach towards the civil right movement, because I am not a very violent person. But I will defend myself when it is absolutely necessary. Being said if both sides were to have more intagration then a better solution could have been used to create a more rapid result with the civil right movement. King Jr I believe is more effective about getting his point across because he himself stands on the front lines marching thru the muck.While in the background he consistently provides the means to accomplish goals and supports the people that follow his example. In my opinion Malcolm X is more of a talker than a doer. In his article he discusses different subjects without one outstanding goal he is trying to achieve. Like when he talks about revolution he stats “I’m telling you, you don't know what a revolution is. ‘Cause when you find out what it is, you’ll get back in the alley; you’ll get out of the way.” (Malcom X 2) Then he proceed to discuss the subject for the next page and a half just about the meaning of a revolution. Some might call thing being thorough but to me it is just unnecessary information, no one I know would appreciate Malcoms lack of
and Malcolm X both had the same end goal, racial equality for black americans. While the end goal is racial equality both viewid the integration of whites into the freedom movement differently. Should one invite their enemy into the fight for the cause that said enemy is trying to enforce and hold? or should we just leave them out of the equation entirely to fight own are own? This is one of manly differences Malcolm X and King Jr. faced between them. Malcolm X strongly believed that white people need to be excluded from all that is the freedom movement as they are the ones the blacks were in battle with. Malcom X says “Once they excluded the white man, they found that they could get together. Once they kept him out, everybody else fell right in and in line.”(Malcolm X 1) Without the enemy present more people would feel comfortable participating in discussions and protest for their freedom. Also by including white people in to the movement you would be inviting the murders, bomber, and lynchers of the community's very children and family. Even when blacks were sent to war to fight for America and most did not get reconish for the time when it came to the civil right movement. I for one never enjoyed having my corporate leaders show up at work because I knew then, my perfectly good day was about to go blasting down the …show more content…
approach towards the civil right movement, because I am not a very violent person. But I will defend myself when it is absolutely necessary. Being said if both sides were to have more intagration then a better solution could have been used to create a more rapid result with the civil right movement. King Jr I believe is more effective about getting his point across because he himself stands on the front lines marching thru the muck.While in the background he consistently provides the means to accomplish goals and supports the people that follow his example. In my opinion Malcolm X is more of a talker than a doer. In his article he discusses different subjects without one outstanding goal he is trying to achieve. Like when he talks about revolution he stats “I’m telling you, you don't know what a revolution is. ‘Cause when you find out what it is, you’ll get back in the alley; you’ll get out of the way.” (Malcom X 2) Then he proceed to discuss the subject for the next page and a half just about the meaning of a revolution. Some might call thing being thorough but to me it is just unnecessary information, no one I know would appreciate Malcoms lack of