Malcolm X On “That Non-Violent Thing” Essay Example

In 1960, a group of students called the “Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee” (SNCC) began to organize sit-ins with black students who would walk into restaurants throughout the south and sit in places designated for “whites only.” This stirred up a debate between Malcolm X and James Baldwin, who both played a prominent role in the history of the fight against the nation’s racial inequality that led to the Civil Rights Movement. Each of the men had some interesting, valid, and unique perspectives on their thoughts about the sit-ins that were occurring across the south that resulted in the arrests of so many young students who were clearly hoping to make a statement towards a much needed change in society. During this debate, Malcolm X had controversial statements that he made as a member and follower of the Nation of Islam, a black Islamic group organized by Elijah Muhammed. Perhaps it was his association with the group that encouraged the position he had taken on the sit-ins and how effective they may or may not have seemed to him. The following analysis of the argument between the men and what Malcolm X “brought to the table” is the topic of the paper.
As the debate began, Malcolm X begins to express his dislike for the sit-ins as a viable solution to addressing the racial problems that continued to occur in the United States. From his perspective, the sit-ins were a rather passive approach to a very serious demand that should have been fulfilled a very long time ago. One would have to agree with the way Malcolm X describes the nonviolent approach of the sit-ins to be another submissive act of the black American population to once again beg for their equality with the white American. Rather than expressing their outrage at the unjust ways of white America against black Americans, these sit-ins were seen yet again as a weak and lesser method of accomplishing a very serious task. The response against the unjust, cruel act of slavery that had been imposed upon the black people of America deserved a bold demand for a severe offense that continued to take place in the United States of America.
It appears that Malcolm X was pointing out to the public that the effective movements led by white men always involved force and violence to attain their goal. As a matter of fact, the violent approach taken by most white citizens of the world to fight for what they wanted was admired. Why then were the black Americans embracing the nonviolent approach of sit-ins? The argument he presents about the ineffective approach of nonviolent sit-ins as another way of subservience to “the master” is entirely understandable.
However, one cannot agree that the only method of attaining the goal for freedom, justice, and equality would have to be an aggressive one. As stated by Malcolm X,
if they’re willing to lay down their life, tonight, or in the morning, in order that we can have what is ours by right, tonight or in the morning, then it’s a good movement. But as long as their willing for the white man to make up his mind that they are qualified to be respected as human beings, then I am afraid that all their waiting and planning is for naught.
It appears that he was very open to the idea of this particular movement if the outcome was one that should have been resolved a long time back. The problem from Malcolm X’s perspective is that black people should not have to ask white people or anyone for that matter for the basic human rights that should be awarded any human being. If after these nonviolent sit-ins, the outcome remains the same, ultimately with the punishment of the nonviolent crime being against the black youth participating in the movement, then the entire approach was in vain.
The position presented by Malcolm X as far as the effectiveness of the sit-ins was entirely valid. What did not seem to make much sense was the extent to which he felt that black America needed to sort of separate from white America. Although one could understand the anger and sentiment that he must have felt as a black man who had known the terrors of life in America during these volatile periods in history, the solution could not come via a complete separation of the two races. This approach tends to seem illogical and an emotionally driven solution to the race problem.
If the ultimate goal was of complete freedom, justice, and equality, then that is what needed to happen. Creating an entirely separate society would not bring an end to the broken relationships between white and black Americans. Even if anger and upset fueled the idea of a separation of the two races, logic was missing from this suggestion. If perhaps Malcolm X’s suggestion was taken seriously, there would still be tension and ongoing problems between the two groups that would eventually lead to a civil war type situation in the future.
Surely the fact that the black American had no solid link to a native land, language, culture or traditions is a reality that could not be fathomed by most people, but the solution was not through having two Americas. The wrongs done against those who were robbed of their land and people when slaves were first brought to America and families torn apart could never be properly corrected. The only option at that point was to create opportunity that would uplift black people to stand on equal footing with white people. The alternative presented by Malcolm X would not truly serve the citizens of the nation because it would perpetuate the separatist attitude of referring to one’s race as a factor in deciding where people belong. It would defeat the purpose of sincere integration that was lacking and still falls short in 2016.
The overall conclusion about Malcom X’s argument about the nonviolent sit-ins was a fair concern that he presented. Ideally the nonviolent approach would result in the desired outcome, but his skepticism was also entirely justifiable considering the long questionable history of white America against black Americans. For so many years there were false promises made that were not honored, which is why Malcolm X’s suggestions and disapproval of the sit-ins made perfect sense. Obviously there was a deep rooted frustration and anger that was felt by many great black leaders that were unable to see the nonviolent method of fighting for racial equality as a workable option. Time and time again black citizens were left disappointed with the way they continued to be disenfranchised by the government that had promised freedom, justice, and equality only to fall so far short of it.
Baldwin’s sentiment about black men not needing to follow in the footsteps of the mistakes and the wrongs made by white men is an important take away point in the argument between the men. Most of the opinions and concepts presented by Malcolm and Baldwin were valid, however there was also the reality that these two races (along with many others) had to learn to live in and share the nation in complete fairness. It was no longer acceptable to keep falling short of the white man’s promise to black Americans. If these men were able to sit here in 2016 and observe the progress or lack of progress made by the government and people of America, one could say that there would likely be mixed feelings about how far the nation has come. In some regards there have been great advances with Obama’s two terms of a presidency as a black American, yet at the same time when 1 out of every 3 black men are more likely to end up in prison than college, there is still much to be desired in fulfilling the dream of great leaders like Malcolm X, MLK, and James Baldwin.