by Bobby Brown

Created on: January 21, 2008

Albeit both Martin and Malcolm were very influential leaders of the civil rights era, and despite the fact that it is very difficult to quantify something as abstract as leadership, I would argue that Malcolm was a better leader for Black Americans.

Both men were charismatic and dynamic speakers (though Malcolm's sense of rhetoric far exceeded King's) who could motivate, influence, and inspire. Though both men recognized social injustice (racism) as cancer in our society, their solutions to the problem were very different. It is these differences that cause me to give Malcolm the edge in Afro-american leadership.

Martin's message of non-violent social change (which he borrowed from Gandhi and others) was a message that society (White America) could swallow, though with some difficulty. His message was "turn the other cheek", "love your enemies", "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God." The unfortunate (ironic) thing about non-violent social change is that the proponents are often the victim of violence. The followers of King were sent out like lambs before wolves. Many of these conflicts ended in violence or some sort of public unrest that would undoubtedly make the world news. This, in turn affected the social psyche of the United States, thus resulting in social change. In short, non-violence led to violence led to social change; King's message was more inclined to what America could be and not one of what America was at that time. (I have a dream, etc)

Malcolm's approach was very different. He wanted to remove people of African decent from America all together. Contrary to popular belief, Malcolm was not a violent person but he did recognize that a man had the obligation to defend himself and his family. Malcolm did not preach violence but rather self defense. Malcolm was never involved in or even instigated a single violent act. (Yes he did refer to white people as "devils", a position which he later recanted) Despite this, despite the fact that self preservation is an inherent human right, Malcolm was demonized as being militant, violent and dangerous. (The idea of black people organizing themselves with weapons was disturbing to many white people, I guess) King, on the other hand, is dietized by society. Malcolm saw America for what it really was at that time.

By addressing the problem for what it was (or is) in my opinion, is enough to make Malcolm X a better leader than Dr. King.

Learn more about this author, Bobby Brown.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.