Usually when I see MLK and Malcolm X mentioned together, it’s with a view towards painting MLK’s ability, eventually, to make some progress, as showing that more militant approaches like Malcolm X’s were the wrong way to go about things after all.
I personally have always suspected, though, that the threat represented by a militant approach helped the more peaceful approach to achieve its aims, by way of a sort of accidental (I assume!) “good cop bad cop” dynamic.
What do you think? A complete mangling of the facts? Or so well known as to be obvious? Or debatable?
You mean as opposed to the rights we got due to Dr. King’s efforts? 'cause he wasn’t working in a vacuum. I wasn’t there but my parents and their siblings were and they all have different ideas about what should/should not have been done.
For me, I have to separate his message before his travel through the Middle East and that after. After he separated from the Nation of Islam and started his own thing/religion his message was much more in line with MLK. Had he lived together I can see their messages almost complimenting each other.
Okay, if we star by assuming black Americans ALWAYS had the right to vote, say, what did Malcolm X do to make that abstract right a reality for his people?
I know what Thurgood Marshall did. I know what Dr. King did. What did Malcolm do to remove barriers to black voting?
What did Malcolm do to end housing segregation? Again, I know what Thurgood Marshall did and Dr. King did. What role did Malcolm play in ending segregation?
I wasn’t being picky. My point is Malcolm, Ralph Abernathy, Hosea Williams, Medgar Evers and many, many more people, white and black were influential in the Civil Rights Movement. You can’t say MLK got anyone’s rights recognized any more than any other person. They ALL worked hard and they all suffered for it. Some more than others to be sure.
I don’t believe MLK could have been as successful without the Nation of Islam playing the role they played. Or Marcus Garvey before him. The changes were coming, a lot of people had different methods on achieving similar goals.
I don’t think the two major ideals complemented each other but I think both were necessary.
“I’ll say nothing against him. At one time the whites in the United States called him a racialist, and extremist, and a Communist. Then the Black Muslims came along and the whites thanked the Lord for Martin Luther King.” - Malcolm X
This sums up my feelings on Malcom X’s overall contribution to the Civil Right’s movement. He was a reminder to the country of what they COULD be dealing with if it wasn’t willing to listen and work with the “mainstream” Civil Rights movement headed by Dr. King. I feel that the Black Panther Party were useful as a warning in that respect as well.
MLK was a national figure for a long time. Malcom X was a national figure for a very short time and then got assassinated. His Autobiography made him more important in his death than he had been in life. Before he left the NOI Malcolm X’s message was completely the opposite as King’s.
You could say the same thing about Dr. King, if you want to look at it that way. In what way did King concretely contribute to the Civil Rights movement? He wasn’t a member of government, so he had no actual involvement in passing the Civil Rights Act. He just went around the country, making a lot of speeches, organizing a lot of marching, and generally getting people beat up on national TV.
So far, the consensus of the thread is that he helped MLK to accomplish the things that MLK accomplished. So basically, he accomplished everything that MLK did.
No everyone bought into non-violence as the best tactic during the civil rights movement. There were plenty of Black Americans who felt that they shouldn’t have to be victims to violence to further the movement, and had just as much right to defend themselves with force if need be as any other American, and that Black people were also capable of improving their lives through self sufficiency (and that was the only way it was ever going to happen). Malcolm X, (and to a lesser extend, the NOI), the Black Panther Party, Stokely Carmichael, and other more radical members of the movement were an outlet for those folks. And the US Government were definitely concerned with their ideology and influence, which made Dr. King that much more approachable and desirable to work with. That’s a real contribution, even though it isn’t as tangible as some people would like it to be.
Malcolm’s defenders are trying to claim that white America passed civil rights legislation because they were deathly afraid of Malcolm and the Nation of Islam. I think that’s laughable.
By definition, one is nuts when they differ from the norm significantly, so it’s definitionally impossible that the consensus would be nuts. The person who disagrees with the consensus however…
I can’t speak to who you’ve been arguing with but I’ve never heard any credible person claim that.
I’ve heard some outliers say it and they’re probably about the same ratio of white Americans that actually felt that way. Which is to say, VERY few.
You do know that many black people believe Elijah Muhammad and/or Louis Farrakhan had Malcolm X assassinated right? No sane person will argue Malcolm X was black people’s best hope and then turn around state he was killed by his own people.
I don’t feel this helped at all. The Black Panthers were a segregationist’s wet dream. They were doing exactly what the most inflammatory whites claimed all along, rising up and killing whitey. Even northern whites would not blame them for crushing a movement like that, violently. I think it’s still true today…
The BPP were not “rising up and killing Whitey”. I suggest you do some reading on Black Nationalism and the effect it had on the Black American Psyche during the Civil Rights movement. Here’s a good start:
