Comparison Of Nonviolent Tactics Of MLK And Malcolm X

Two of the most impactful people in the Civil Rights Movement were MLK and Malcolm X. The Civil Rights Movement was a protest for equal rights. There were many people who affected the movement, but MLK and Malcolm X were the most popular. The question everyone is, asking is ‘who has the better philosophy’? A philosophy is the fundamental nature of knowledge or what they believe in. I personally think MLK’s philosophy made more sense in the 1960s. My reasons for this is his nonviolent tactics, you can't fight fire with fire, and his determination. One of my reasons that MLK’s philosophy was better was his nonviolent tactics. He did things like marches, boycotts, speeches, and sit-ins, which were smart and effective in the 1960s. In document F it says,”There is nothing quite so effective as a refusal to cooperate economically with the forces and institutions which perpetrate evil in our communities.” What MLK is saying is that the most effective way of dealing with a problem is nonviolence. In document L it states,”the Negro would face the same unchanged conditions, the same squalor, and deprivation, the only difference being that his bitterness would be

“You can't keep fighting violence with violence, it just makes more violence.” (Danielle) In document J it states,”Violence may murder the murderer, but it doesn't murder murder.” Violence doesn't solve violence is what this statement is emitting. In document J is says,”Violence may go to the point of murdering that hater, but it doesn't murder hate. It may increase hate. It is always a descending spiral leading nowhere.” Violence leads to hate and hate has no purpose. If the African Americans’ fight the whites with violence, who are already using violence, then it would lead to endless violence. This is why I think MLK’s nonviolent philosophy made more sense than Malcolm X’s violent philosophy in the