Heather White Rough Draft, Synthesis Writing 2, Sarah Hirsch 5/7/07 The Differing Ideologies of Martin Luther King Junior and Malcolm X The fight against institutional racism is a lofty, complex task, and the Civil Rights movement manifested itself in various stances throughout the twentieth century. Some Civil Rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King Junior, preached a doctrine of integration and non-violent civil action. Others, including Malcolm X, believed this approach to be futile, and instead proposed the idea of autonomous black communities. The ideologies of Black Nationalism and integration-based civil rights clash substantially, and both King and Malcolm X were concerned with the undermining of their own movement by the rhetoric of the other. In his monumental text, "Letter From Birmingham Jail," King offers an eloquent explanation of the philosophy that drives his choice of non-violent civil disobedience. Although Malcolm X shares Kings discontent with the situation, his methodologies and ultimate vision are distinctly different. He dismisses negotiation with the instated United States government as futile, and his speech "The Ballot or the Bullet," he decries nonviolence and integration, and instead preaches a doctrine of Black Nationalism, of fighting fire with fire. Although both men brought important issues to the foreground of the approach towards racial equality, Kings approach of negotiation, direct action, and integration more realistically approaches a stable and just multicultural society than the potentially alienating rhetoric of separatism and self-defense that Malcolm X supports. In his speech, Malcolm X attacks the failures of democratic leaders in achieving racial equality, and urges the tactics of black nationalism upon his audience. He criticizes various elements of the current government that support racial inequality, including the lack of registered black voters in Southern states, the inclusion of the Dixiecrats in the Democratic party, and the practice of gerrymandering electoral districts across racial lines. He then suggests a variety of tactics to fight these racist infrastructures. He tells the community to appeal to the United Nations for human rights infringements upon black people. In the fight within the country, he explicitly condones actions of violence in self-defense. Then he outlines the philosophy of black nationalism, describing philosophies founded on the ideal of economically and socially thriving independent black communities (1964). In "Letter From Birmingham Jail," King addresses many of the arguments made in the clergymens statement, and questions the morality of such a stance, coming from religious men. He emphasizes the urgency of direct action, arguing that until action occurs, progress does not follow. In the name of such progress, he distinguishes between "just" and "unjust" laws, stating that one must follow the just laws but one is equally obligated on a moral level to break the unjust ones (1964, p. 218). He condemns the complacency of "the white moderate" who would happily maintain the status quo of an unequal society (1964, p. 202). This condemnation is then extended to religion, and the failure of "the white church" to support the civil rights movement, and expresses his disappointment in the clergymen who issued the statement (1964, p. 203). Both men articulate a sense of urgency towards the situation at hand. They have grown impatient with the sluggishness of the government to step forward against racist institutions, and reject further temperance and dawdling. Martin Luther King defends the ,,timeliness his actions, in response to the declarations of local clergymen, stating that "justice too long delayed is justice denied" (1964, p. 217). Furthermore, he eludes to the desparation and rage of his people at this continued denial of justice, saying, "there comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair" (1964, p. 218). He also speaks of Black Nationalism as a dangerous potential outcome of further sluggishness from the government, warning that "millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black-nationalist ideologies a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare" (1964, p. 222). Indeed, it is partially Malcolm Xs impatience and recognition of the necessity of immediate action that drives him to abandon hope in America, democracy, and integration. He chides the Democratic party for their inaction, stating, "four years in office, and just now getting around to some civil-rights legislation" (1964, p. 27). Indeed, the American government took its easy time in passing the Civil Rights Act, but nonetheless, it had already been proposed to Congress at the time of Malcolm Xs speech. Yet Malcolm X will not acknowledge the fundamental progress being made, due to its tardiness, and thus perhaps preemptively abandons all hope in an equal, multicultural American community. In their texts, both men explore the contradiction of disobeying the government for the sake of higher causes. Malcolm X avoids the use of moral language, stating, "whenever you demonstrate against segregation... the law is on your side, and anyone who stands in the way is not the law any longer" (1964 p. 33). King uses different language to make a similar point, distinguishing between just and unjust laws, and stating that "a just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God," and that, as a member of society, "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" (1964, p. 218). Both men recognize that a higher calling of human rights and morality supercedes ones obligation to the laws of the state. However, they differ in the process by which laws may be broken. King states, "over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends" (1964, p. 225-226). To King, violence could only harm the cause of his people. In describe the process that he undertook prior to leading the demonstrations, he says, "we began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?"" (1964, p. 216). To King, this self-discipline was absolutely necessary, and indeed, the Birmingham demonstrations might have turned into massacres if nonviolent ideology had not been deeply instilled in the protestors. King articulates his fear of the consequences of violent civil disobedience, stating that "if this philosophy [of nonviolence] had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood" (1964, p. 221). Conversely, Malcolm X shuns nonviolence as a generalized stance in demonstrations. Instead he refers to "an uncompromising stand," such that "you should never be nonviolent unless you run into some nonviolence" (1964, p. 33-34). He does not advocate senseless violent acts, but he believes that violence is entirely justified against police officers when acting in self-defense. His perspective is ideologically not unsound, as a person is entitled to protect the sanctity of his body. However, a violent rhetoric would hinder the lofty goal that drives Black Nationalism: the goal of functional, self-governed black societies within the United States. Autonomous black communities could not be established without the cooperation of the instated government. Without government participation, such bureaucratic issues as community lines and separate police forces could not be resolved. However, no government would seriously negotiate with a movement that condoned violence against police officers. Surely, Malcolm X realizes this, and indeed throughout his speech he derides negotiation with the instated government, claiming that the possibilities for negotiation have been exhausted. He states that democracy has failed the black community, and that the officials of the Democratic party, elected in part by the black voting population, have not upheld their promises (1964). Nonetheless, one must wonder what progress can be made without negotiation. No Black Nationalist state could be established within the United States without some cooperation. King strongly supports negotiation, and perceives it as a goal of the demonstrations in Birmingham. He states, "the purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisispacked that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation... Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue" (1964, p. 217). For King, demonstrations are a tool with which to open conversations, they are an element of power in a downtrodden community which holds too little political power. Malcolm X and King perceive the United States in different ways. King retains much faith in America, despite the wrongs done against his people. He retains some sense of Americas promise and better future, saying, "We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with Americas destiny" (1964, p. 225). He perceives the black community as deeply entrenched within American identity, and retains hope for the future embodiment of the American dream within the black community, referring to freedom as "the sacred heritage of our nation" (1964, p. 225). Also, he feels a strong unity tying all members of the country together, stating, "anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds" (1964, p. 215). However, Malcolm X speaks very differently of members of the black community in America. He considers himself to be an outsider, asserting, "no, Im not an American. Im one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism. One of the 22 million black people who are the victims of democracy, nothing but disguised hypocrisy" (1964, p. 26). Malcolm X has abandoned hope for Americas cooperation and acceptance of his people. He cannot forget the crimes of slavery committed, nor the crimes of segregation and racism still occurring daily in his time. However, an abandonment of all hope for a country leaves one with few options for ones own people to amalgamate into society. Amalgamation, though, may hold little appeal to Malcolm X. Black Nationalism, instead, seeks autonomous, thriving black communities wholly separate from the otherwise white society. He seeks a nation within America, yet apart from America. How could such a thing be obtained? The Civil War demonstrated the bloodshed that can occur from an attempt at succession. If a less radical separatism than complete succession could be obtained, how could the process occur without the direct negotiation and participation of the instated government? Martin Luther King Junior expects a more reasonable, temperate goal that of integration and mutual respect. He speaks poignantly of a future without racial inequality. "Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep forg of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty" (1964, p. 226). Overall, Martin Luther King Juniors vision of multicultural America through a phasing of nonviolent, focused demonstrations and dialogue between the divided communities would eliminate racism in many places, and played a role in the Supreme Court decision to ban segregation. By contrast, Malcolm Xs approach leads down a precarious path whose end result is neither clearly realistic nor fully coherent with the goals and needs of individual African-Americans. Rationality and love are crucial characteristics in a leader of a movement of people who have been deeply wronged, as there is a natural call for revenge and revolution from within such a movement. However, these actions could often cause more bloodshed and destruction to ones own people, perhaps without accomplishing any of the movements goals. Only with temperance, communication, and faith in a better tomorrow within the current society could black people attain the future of respect and dignity from which they had been so dearly deprived. Works Cited X, M. (1964). The Ballot or the Bulllet. In G. Breitman (ed.), Malcolm X speaks (2244). New York: Grove Weidenfeld. King, M. L. Jr. (2005). Letter from Birmingham Jail. In S. McLedo (Ed.), Writing about the world (pp. 212-226). Boston: Thomas Wadsworth.