Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Social Science
History
Civil Disobedience ("Good Trouble") Difference #1 Difference #2 Smiliarity Black Nationalism/Pan-Africanism

Civil Disobedience ("Good Trouble") Difference #1 Difference #2 Smiliarity Black Nationalism/Pan-Africanism

icon
Related questions
Question
CIVIL RIGHTS MAINSTREAM IDEOLOGIES Read the 2 ideologies on the classwork handout and complete the graphic organizer. 1. List at least 2 differences between the ideologies. 2. List at least 1 similarity, if any.
The Philosophies of Malcolm X and Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X are frequently seen as opposing forces in the struggle for civil rights and against white supremacy; King is often portrayed as a nonviolent insider, while Malcolm X is characterized as a by-any-means-necessary political renegade. But author and Black Power scholar Peniel Joseph says the truth is more nuanced. He says that King and Malcolm X had "convergent visions" for Black America - but their strategies for how to reach the goal were informed by their different upbringings."Malcolm X is really scarred by racial trauma at a very early age," Joseph says. "King, in contrast, has a very gilded childhood, and he's the son of an upper-middle-class, African-American family, prosperous family that runs one of the most important churches in Black Atlanta." Malcolm X Malcolm X says that racial separatism is required because white people do not want Black people to be citizens and have dignity. And if they did, you wouldn't have to protest and experience police violence and police brutality: small children trying to integrate Little Rock High School, young people trying to integrate lunch counters, and they're arrested and brutalized, sometimes people were killed, of course. He argues separatism, separation isn't segregation, it is Black people having enough self-love and enough confidence in themselves to organize and build parallel institutions. Because America was so infected with the disease of racism, they could never racially integrate into American democracy. Malcolm X's vision of "by any means necessary" asserts that Black people have the right to self-defense and to defend themselves against police brutality. He argues that the Black revolution in the United States is only going to be a true revolution once Black people start utilizing self-defense to end the racial terror they're experiencing both in the 1950s and '60s, but historically. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. King argues that nonviolence is both a moral and political strategy. The morality and the religious argument is that Black people could not succumb to enemy politics. He claims that, when we think about white racism, by fighting back with violence, we would become as bad as the people who are oppressing us. Politically, he says, well, then there aren't enough Black people, even if they arm themselves to win some kind of armed conflict and struggle. Still, Dr.King firmly believes that non-violence would be used to transform the United States of America against its own will. Malcolm had criticized the March on Washington as the "farce on Washington," because he said that King and the movement should have paralyzed Washington, D.C., and forced a reckoning about race in America. By 1965 though, King says, in an essay, that what he's going to start doing is use non-violent civil disobedience as a peaceful sword that paralyzes cities to produce justice that goes beyond civil rights and voting rights acts. Their Merged Legacies Now, with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, Joseph says that King and Malcolm X's visions have converged: "What's really extraordinary is that the Black Lives Matter protesters really are protesting for radical Black dignity and citizenship and see that you need both. So Malcolm and Martin are two revolutionary sides of the same coin, and really the BLM movement has amplified that."
Transcribed Image Text:The Philosophies of Malcolm X and Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X are frequently seen as opposing forces in the struggle for civil rights and against white supremacy; King is often portrayed as a nonviolent insider, while Malcolm X is characterized as a by-any-means-necessary political renegade. But author and Black Power scholar Peniel Joseph says the truth is more nuanced. He says that King and Malcolm X had "convergent visions" for Black America - but their strategies for how to reach the goal were informed by their different upbringings."Malcolm X is really scarred by racial trauma at a very early age," Joseph says. "King, in contrast, has a very gilded childhood, and he's the son of an upper-middle-class, African-American family, prosperous family that runs one of the most important churches in Black Atlanta." Malcolm X Malcolm X says that racial separatism is required because white people do not want Black people to be citizens and have dignity. And if they did, you wouldn't have to protest and experience police violence and police brutality: small children trying to integrate Little Rock High School, young people trying to integrate lunch counters, and they're arrested and brutalized, sometimes people were killed, of course. He argues separatism, separation isn't segregation, it is Black people having enough self-love and enough confidence in themselves to organize and build parallel institutions. Because America was so infected with the disease of racism, they could never racially integrate into American democracy. Malcolm X's vision of "by any means necessary" asserts that Black people have the right to self-defense and to defend themselves against police brutality. He argues that the Black revolution in the United States is only going to be a true revolution once Black people start utilizing self-defense to end the racial terror they're experiencing both in the 1950s and '60s, but historically. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. King argues that nonviolence is both a moral and political strategy. The morality and the religious argument is that Black people could not succumb to enemy politics. He claims that, when we think about white racism, by fighting back with violence, we would become as bad as the people who are oppressing us. Politically, he says, well, then there aren't enough Black people, even if they arm themselves to win some kind of armed conflict and struggle. Still, Dr.King firmly believes that non-violence would be used to transform the United States of America against its own will. Malcolm had criticized the March on Washington as the "farce on Washington," because he said that King and the movement should have paralyzed Washington, D.C., and forced a reckoning about race in America. By 1965 though, King says, in an essay, that what he's going to start doing is use non-violent civil disobedience as a peaceful sword that paralyzes cities to produce justice that goes beyond civil rights and voting rights acts. Their Merged Legacies Now, with the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, Joseph says that King and Malcolm X's visions have converged: "What's really extraordinary is that the Black Lives Matter protesters really are protesting for radical Black dignity and citizenship and see that you need both. So Malcolm and Martin are two revolutionary sides of the same coin, and really the BLM movement has amplified that."
Civil Disobedience ("Good Trouble") Difference #1 Difference #2 Smiliarity Black Nationalism/Pan-Africanism
Transcribed Image Text:Civil Disobedience ("Good Trouble") Difference #1 Difference #2 Smiliarity Black Nationalism/Pan-Africanism
Expert Solution
steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer