I disagree. You hear more about MLK, especially praise, because white people accepted him more. This was because he was "peaceful" and did not demand immediate change as much as Malcolm X did. I really think Malcolm X did far more for the black civil rights movement than anyone else. Read his autobiography, it's fascinating.
You are highly mistaken. You are right - there is a difference between giving speeches in Harlem and leading boycotts in Alabama - but it's not in the light that you portray it in, depicting Malcolm as a less significant figure. Having been a hustler for many years, Malcolm could speak to the blacks in the ghettos in their own language. It wasn't by accident that he was described as the only man in America 'who could stop a race riot - or start one'.
Is there some reason that being 'more accepted' makes MLK less significant? Or is there some reason his ideology of change through non-violence makes him less significant than Malcolm? I'm not sure what you mean by 'demand immediate change.' Isn't the goal of a boycott 'immediate change?' I have. I don't think saying MLK was more significant makes Malcolm insignificant.
I don't understand what you're implying I'm 'highly mistaken about?' Malcolm could speak to the blacks in the ghettos in their own language.....ok.
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought when you said, "He really doesn't compare to MLK. There's a difference between giving speeches in Harlem and leading boycotts in Alabama, IMO." you meant that the two don't compare because the former action is of less significance.
I did. I'm not sure what tangible effect Malcolm had compared to MLK - maybe this is a good question for the thread.
Was Malcom X really his name? What happened to the good ole names like John and Sue? Nope, everybody must have rapper names now...
By establishment I was referring broadly to both men being killed because they threatened those in power. That could refer to power held by both white and blacks. I am not saying the same people that killed MLK had anything to do with Malcolm X. Their ideas threatened the status quo, whether that status quo was the U.S. government, the Nation of Islam or race relations. I went to parochial Lutheran schools from K-12 and I never heard of Malcom X in school. Malcolm X's is life and his message are just as important as MLK.
That's what I meant then when I said you were mistaken - that "giving speeches in Harlem" was of as much or greater significance than "leading boycotts in Alabama." Malcolm's teachings hit home with the blacks in the ghetto because he was once one of them and he taught them to love themselves. We just don't hear about Malcolm X's impact and significance because Martin Luther King is the preferable alternative to the white establishment. If we do learn anything about Malcolm in our textbooks, his message is demonized under the label of 'militant black nationalism.'
Ok. MLK's teachings hit home with blacks all over the country and taught them to love themselves. How is that a characteristic you can use to gauge significance vis-a-vis each other? I think this is does an injustice to both by constantly summing up MLK's significance as 'the preferable alternative to the white establishment.'
BTW, I completely agree that there's no need to downplay the significance of one civil rights leader to make the other seem more significant, that's not what I meant to do. I have the utmost respect for the Reverend MLK, he was one of the greatest human beings this country has ever produced, he was a man of conviction who didn't take the easy way out when he could've. I merely stated my personal opinion that through my studies of Black-American history, I became convinced the Malcolm X had a more profound effect on the civil rights movement as a whole than any other civil rights leader of his time, but that's not by any means dismissive of MLK's significance in the civil rights movement.
I'm not trying to dismiss the teachings of Malcolm, and I'm not arguing that because king was in the south he had more to deal with. i'm saying pure numbers, martin had a greater influence through a network of churches. martin's influence eventualy resulted in political power that lasted over twenty years. he brought black people in the south together. more than his teachings that was a tangible influence. you have to look at what mlk did in political terms.
Second that. The movie is good but the book gives so much more depth to his life. Alex Haley's comments regarding working with Malcolm X on writing it are also very interesting.
I agree, I alluded to that in my initial post. MLK was somewhat of a 'natural' leader in the sense that he was a Christian, and therefore not only Blacks but also his 'audience' (i.e. the White establishment and White society) were more able to associate with what he said and preached about. In that sense, MLK had a major advantage over Malcolm X, no doubt.
MLK is the more celebrated leader for a variety of reasons. He was much more visible, had a longer career as a leader and his message was far more accepted. If you look at race relations today and the way racial identity is percieved Malcolm X's message has won out. MLK's vision was one of integration and harmony between the races whereas Malcolm X didn't fully by into the idea of integration and believed that equality was important but at the same time blacks needed their own identity and economy apart from the wider culture. He wasn't the first to advocate that idea but he was probably the most forceful and eloquent advocate of that idea. As Tigermission said in many ways they needed each other. MLK used the nonviolent principles of Ghandi to shame America into granting blacks equality while Malcolm X told blacks they could and should be proud in themselves.
That's a part of his story and one that makes it appealing to non-blacks but its not just that God didn't create people to be separate but the realization that you could take pride in who you are without hating others. Before his epiphany in Mecca his message was that blacks needed to be proud of who they are and part of that meant that whites should be hated. What he realized was that blacks could still be proud without having to resort to hatred of whites and a separate black identity need not be defined mostly by its antipathy towards white society.
The comments have been very insightful thus far. I was in high school when Spike Lee's movie came out and had never heard about Malcolm X until then and didn't hear anything else about him until college. I also agree that Malcolm's autobiography with Alex Haley is a must read. I think what separates Malcolm X and, in my view, puts him above other civil rights leaders was his internationalization of the struggle. He linked the struggle of blacks in America with the independence movements and struggles in Africa that were going on at the same time. He also awakened the historical consciousness and awareness of blacks in the US by challenging them to truly discover and examine their African roots. I disagree with his detractors who say that he advocated violence. What he advocated was self-defense. In general, I think the US government still views the thoughts and ideas of Malcolm X as a threat, which is one of the reasons MLK is celebrated more by America. I believe that more blacks in the US can identify and relate more to Malcolm X and his message as oppossed to MLK. Also, in my view, I would say that on a global level Malcolm X is a much more celebrated figure than MLK, especially in Africa and the Muslim World.
