King was a very non violent man, everyone knows that. He saw that there was a problem with the way things were being done in America and he approached it very wisely. He had the motives of Ghandi on his mind. He was all about civil disobedience, if the law was unjust, it shouldn't have to be followed. Although, when you are disobeying a certain law, it must be unjust and it must be done in a civil manner. Through like friendly protests, sit-ins, and boycotts; not by violence.
Malcolm X on the other hand was almost on the opposite spectrum of Martin Luther King Jr. They were similar in that they both wanted the same thing for African Americans; freedom.
Malcolm was a devout Muslim and he believed in peace but also standing up for ones self. If a law is unjust, disobey it no matter what; violent or not.
They also both believed in peace, but had different views on how to achieve said peace.
They have the same goals, obviously. They both saw something wrong with how things were being done and they stepped up and did something about it. Whether it was violent or non violent, they made people open their eyes to what was going on in the streets.
Personally, I think Martin Luther King's approach was more effective. That's just me though. I don't believe fighting/violence to get a product. If you force someone to do something, they won't do it. If you treat people the way you want to be treated, they'd listen a lot better to what you have to say.
It was more mature, I'm not saying Malcolm's was immature, I just thought that MLK's approach was better.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment