MLK Jr

by Tom Koecke

Created on: January 26, 2008   Last Updated: April 25, 2011

When we think of the injustices Dr. King suffered for the cause of equality, it does not compare with the injustices Malcolm X endured simply because he was black.

Both Dr. King and Malcolm X spent time in jail. Dr. King was jailed for organizing civil rights protests. He was fairly well known, which lent his face to injustices black people suffered. Malcolm X was just a poor black kid when he was imprisoned. Dr. King studied Ghandi in college. Malcolm X learned on the streets and in prison cells.

Both men are significant in American history, and are comparable as black spiritual leaders who were active in the black civil rights movement during the 1950s and 60s, and who were assassinated for the messages they were spreading.

The debate is which of these two significant figures was a better civil rights leader for black people. My argument that Martin Luther King Jr. is the was a better civil rights leader for blacks will include considering how each relates to "better," "civil rights," and "leadership," and then to determine if that would hold true from the perspective of black people.

BETTER

When I think of "better," I think of that which I would rather see:

* Dr. King grew up in a better environment than did Malcolm X. Dr. King's environment emphasized formal education for prosperity. Malcolm X's environment emphasized street education for survival. I would rather see children grow up in environments with emphasis on formal education for prosperity.

* Dr. King learned lessons by studying Ghandi while experiencing injustice in society. Malcolm X learned by experiencing injustice in society while studying lessons on Islam and black power. Both men spoke their beliefs with sincerity their messages were true and valid, but the messages each spoke was contrary to the message of the other. I would rather see leaders calling upon all people to search their consciences for the cause of equal liberty and justice for all.

* Dr. King called for anyone to be civilly disobedient for the cause of racial equality. Malcolm X called for black people to fight back and attack for the cause of black power. I would rather see people unite peacefully to force social changes through civil disobedience.

Black militancy is not only a logical consequence of black injustice, it was significant in the struggle for black civil rights. The militancy was not only in confrontations if necessary, it was also in economics. The message that black people needed to protect the interests of black people, and the message that we all needed to live together with equal rights, were both valid and important. However, when we compare Dr. King's and Malcolm X's childhood environments, sources of lessons, and audiences and purposes, each was better for Dr. King.

CIVIL RIGHTS

The beautiful line "with liberty and justice for all" that concludes the Pledge of Allegiance has been recited in various forms since the late 19th century. It was codified as the official pledge by a Congress that considered the lynching of black people as each state's issue. Much of the violence against black people occurred in the South, but black people who migrated to northern cities to find freedom found white society there equally segregated, oppressive, and unjust to them.

There have always been white people who have been sympathetic for the plight of black people in America. However, throughout most of American history, most white people have regarded black people morally inferior to justify denying them equal rights and accommodations. The notion hopefully seems rightfully preposterous today, but it seemed reasonable to white society for nearly 300 years.

Both Dr. King and Malcolm X addressed these social inequalities, calling upon their audiences to take actions.

Dr. King called for actions of civil disobedience through boycotts, demonstrations, and marches. His message was always one of equality for all people through recognition of equal civil rights for black people. He welcomed participation from all people, and called upon black followers to welcome those who represented the conscience of white society.

Malcolm X originally called for actions of any means necessary to demonstrate black power through his high pulpit in the Black Muslim faith in America. Malcolm X's message was not sent to America to search its collective conscience for equality, but rather to black people to assume and fight for equality. Many black people in America were converting to the Muslim faith for many reasons. For some, conversion was for the underlying message of militancy.

Though black militancy was significant in the struggle for equal civil rights for black people, the retaliatory message was intended for black people against white people. The call for black people to stick together against white society in economics, equality, and justice brought significant social changes in America. However, sticking together is voluntary segregation. Its impact was highly noticed, but the message was "black people have power" not "black people are equal."

Enlightened on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and disgusted with church leadership behavior, Malcolm X began speaking of different means for black people to bring social change with white people. Until then, his message to not accept social injustice and inequality was not a call to social conscience, but to black people to fight for it if necessary.

Dr. King consistently called out to the social conscience of America to give black people equal rights given white people. Instead of assuming equality, Dr. King assumed inequalities he drew attention to should not exist.

Despite the significance of Malcolm X during the civil rights era, his message was not for equal civil rights. It was to retaliate because of unequal civil rights. Dr. King's message was always for equal civil rights.

LEADERSHIP

Both Dr. King and Malcolm X were dynamic leaders. Both were gifted orators, and used their skills to persuade people to take action against the social inferiority black people experienced. Both were highly regarded by those they persuaded, and both were considered threats by those who were not persuaded by their messages.

It is not in the vast difference in numbers of people each persuaded that one is a better leader than the other. Dr. King was a second-generation civil rights leader whose demonstrations were overt. Malcolm X quickly rose in power in a grassroots movement the tactics of which were mostly covert. We might say the size of the fight in Malcolm X's dog was a match for the size of the dog in Dr. King's fight.

However, it is one thing to attract many followers. It is another thing to lead them in the right direction.

Dr. King believed he was leading people in the right direction. His directions were consistent: bring change peacefully through civil disobedience. Dr. King was loved by people who followed him, and hated by others who beat, jailed, and eventually murdered him.

Malcolm X also believed he was leading people in the right direction. However, directions to his followers changed as a result of enlightenment of equality, and disgust of power. Malcolm X was loved by people who followed him, but was most likely murdered by those who followed him when his directions changed.

Both men exhibited leadership skills, but Dr. King was the better leader because he always led those who followed him in the right direction.

PEOPLE AND BLACK PEOPLE

We can consider the black perspective then by considering the perspectives of those who are today sending messages about treatment as second class citizens. We can identify the various ethnic groups as those that have spokesmen for civil process and disobedience, and spokesmen for change through any means necessary.

One of the injustices blacks suffered was inordinate poverty. If we consider poverty and justice, it is still better to be guilty and rich than innocent and poor. The rich and guilty can fight their cases with paid counsel. The guilty and poor go to jail whether by trial or plea. The innocent and poor, however, are often compelled to accept pleas with fees rather than face trial processed by inadequate counsel. Overloaded public defenders are up against prosecutors who regularly agree to standard pleas for certain charges.

Nobody cares about the poor and innocent as long as they complete whatever justice serves to them, and they do not cause the problems they did not cause in the first place.

The messages both Dr. King and Malcolm X conveyed then are still valid and important today, though not for the exact same purposes. Malcolm X softened his stand after a pilgrimage to Mecca. It is speculated that the softening of the message was the reason he was assassinated. Much the same as with a seemingly inordinate number of rap artists these days, his murder was never solved. If the speculation of his murder is true, however, it is difficult to envision how that is "better," considering the message was sent by those he once led.

Ultimately, Dr. King's example for all people, which obviously includes black people, was to assemble to spread the message of equality for all people, regardless of their races. That wisdom is applicable agelessly. Seeking power through any means necessary by any race with legitimate gripe is merely logical consequence of injustice.

It is in the ageless relativity of Dr. King's message that makes him a "better" leader for civil rights for all people, which obviously includes black people. That would be true today; it was true then, also.

Learn more about this author, Tom Koecke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.