Compare And Contrast Martin Luther King Jr And Malcolm X

Although Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were two of the most influential civil rights activists, their philosophies on how to approach the pursuit of equality greatly differed—especially in regards to the idea of otherness. King was a huge proponent of nonviolent protest in order to attempt to peacefully integrate blacks and whites without any unnecessary bloodshed. Malcolm X on the other hand believed that brute force and violence was the only feasible way to initiate the process of integration. From their vastly different ideologies about how to create change, they developed a difference in mindset about otherness and what the goal of their respective movements were. While King and Malcolm X both agreed upon the fact that blacks were

This is where the differences in approach stem from for the most part, as Malcolm X embraced violence as a means to achieve his goal, not necessarily caring as much about integration as he did about pure equality. Malcolm X accepted his otherness as part of who he was, and it became what his movement represented. He felt as if by protesting to be a part of those who had kept him down was counterintuitive to the movement, and giving in to public pressure to some degree. His hatred for the situation may have outweighed his ability to pursue equality in a more logical, rational manner. Malcolm X’s concept about what otherness meant to his cause was formative in his argument about what civil rights meant to him and his followers. He wanted to accept the fact that he didn’t fit in, and continue to embody the black man in his daily life, as well as his approach to activism. He was attempting to fight the power, as opposed to trying to become one collective group belonging to its reign. King and he on the surface had very similar roles in the civil rights movement, as leaders attempting to make a change in terms of breaking racial barriers, but their mindsets on how otherness molded the black race created a separation of thought and action dependent on their respective