Martin Luther King & Malcolm X

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Both of these, black equality leaders in the American 1960s, both shot dead. Two contrasting ways, one same goal.

It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.

Sitting at the table doesn't make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate. Being here in America doesn't make you an American. You have to enjoy the fruits of America, you have not. You have enjoyed the thorns, the thistles.

I don't believe in forcing brotherhood on those who do not want it. We should not try to love somebody who doesn't love us.

You call him God, we call him Allah, Jews call him Jehovah. Since the white man, your friend, took your language during slavery, you only know God. When he puts a rope around your neck, he calls for God and you call for God, and you wonder why the one you call for doesn't answer.

So, as you see, Malcolm X, the Muslim, was an "extremist", in the way that he did not force love or brotherhood, whereas Martin Luther King, the Christian, was the loved, peaceful one. Is this the right way to look at it? I am all for Martin Luther King, he was a great man, with rhetoric skill, good values and great philosophies, but why is he more recognised than Malcolm X? Why is Bhaghat Singh less popular than Mahatma Gandhi?

[rez]

because modern society praises diplomacy and peace over violence and war

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Where does Malcolm X condone violence and war?

[The White Knight]

Where does Malcolm X condone violence and war?

Malcolm X was a 'black superiorist' in the beginning, meaning he condoned hatred towards white people for sure. But at some point in his life he became much more moderate, yet we didn't see much of the moderate Malcolm as he was assassinated not much later after his 'conversion'.

A correcter answer for your question would thus be: 'Because modern society praises diplomacy, tact and peaceful ways of reaching a goal over hate-mongering superiorist/extremist talk. (Though I don't know if this is entirely true.... *sigh*)

[removeduser_426582376423734]

He was never a black "supremist", he was for black equality in America. I think you mean the Nation of Islam, who Malcolm X worked for in his early years. He did, however, turn away the help of white people.

[danzig]

He was never a black "supremist", he was for black equality in America. I think you mean the Nation of Islam, who Malcolm X worked for in his early years. He did, however, turn away the help of white people.

Sorry he died too soon for us to judge whether his change was real. Im not sure you can classify him anything other then a 'supremist' before his change of heart however...whether he truly changed we'll never know because he was killed. The reason why MLK is held to higher view is because MLK pretty much always had his views, you knew where he stood and he was sincere while X had no such credibility.

[the_mango55]

I don't see your point or question. Malcom X was a vocal member of the black supremist Nation of Islam. the Nation of Islam can hardly be described as Islam at all, and is more political in nature than religious. He eventually saw them as shams and converted to actual Islam, but soon after was killed. For this reason he did not leave the same kind of lagacy of benevolence that King did. Perhaps he didn't get a chance to prove himself, but that could be said for a lot of people.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

My question was :-

So, as you see, Malcolm X, the Muslim, was an "extremist", in the way that he did not force love or brotherhood, whereas Martin Luther King, the Christian, was the loved, peaceful one. Is this the right way to look at it? I am all for Martin Luther King, he was a great man, with rhetoric skill, good values and great philosophies, but why is he more recognised than Malcolm X? Why is Bhaghat Singh less popular than Mahatma Gandhi?

However, I agree with you, he did not have the time to voice his views enough.

[VandalCarthage]

Martin Luther King is more thought of then Malcolm X simply because his views were moderate enough for them to ring true with both sides. Malcolm X was his people's advocate, not necessarilly just equality, where as Martin Luther King was a true Christian in the sense of the adjective, and even many of those less passionately devoted to his cause could have their subconscious browbeat them into acquiescing in any protest. If Malcolm X had had more public appeal, he probably would have been killed sooner, as he was nothing if not inflammatory.

Bhaghat Singh is less known then Gandhi simply because he was a vocal Marxist and Atheist. His life was also less of a clear shot then Gandhi or Martin Luther King, his bombing and the accidental murder of a Deputy Police Superintendent for example.