The Civil Rights Movement: Separatists And Integrationists {type) To Use As A Writing Model

No two black leaders stand out during the civil rights movement of the 1960s as much as Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. Whereas the two men were polar opposites in achieving their respective ends – equality for African Americans – they both died much too young as the result of an assassin’s bullet. Malcolm X, best known for his separatist ideology, wanted “black power”, and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s integrationist ideology preached peace, and the brotherhood of all men, regardless of color – conflicting philosophies that yielded both desirable and undesirable results.
Certainly, these two civil rights leaders’ respective childhoods played a significant role in the philosophical approaches they used to guide their actions, and lead their adherents. Interestingly, the militant Malcolm X was born the son of a black Baptist preacher (Ladenburg). Born in 1925, Malcolm Little was sentenced to ten years in prison, where he learned about his true heritage from Black Muslims (Ladenburg). For example, Little learned that his surname was his slave name, and that whites were “devils” who stole the true identities of his ancestors, and prevented African Americans from learning their true history (Ladenburg). Moreover, under the mentorship of Black Muslims, Malcolm Little adopted Malcolm X as his name, and was encouraged to be proud of his African heritage, and resist adopting the customs and attitudes of white people (Ladenburg).
Doubtless, Malcolm X’s separatist ideology was an outgrowth of this indoctrination by Black Muslims during his prison sentence. Malcolm X is probably most well-known for his statement, “by any means necessary” – a not-so-subtle condoning of black violence in response to white violence – violence that included lynchings, shootings, rape, and other horrific crimes committed by racist whites against powerless, disenfranchised black Americans. “Black power” was a fundamental aspect of Malcolm X’s overarching philosophy that urged separate but equal rights for blacks – separatist power that included national sovereignty and self-direction by blacks for blacks, rather than appeals for equal rights to the white powers-that-be (Ladenburg). Thus, Malcolm X’s attitude towards whites was cast during his formative years – a childhood that even included the murder of his father by racist whites (Ladenburg). Malcolm X himself may have agreed with the Old Testament’s “eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” brand of so-called fire-and-brimstone morality.
On the other hand, Martin Luther King, Jr. grew up in a middle-class – albeit segregated -- neighborhood in Atlanta, as contrasted with the mean streets of Malcolm Little’s Lansing, Michigan. King excelled in theology and oratory, eventually receiving his Ph.D. from Boston University (Ladenburg). As a child, King simply did not experience the psychologically-disturbing (and traumatizing) effects of racial discrimination. He excelled in academics, and was well-grounded in the Baptist faith. In other words, Malcolm and Martin’s childhood experiences were as different as day and night – and would later forge radically-different philosophical approaches to the problem of racial discrimination in the US. King’s approach to civil disobedience could be summed up in Christ’s admonishment to Peter “to turn the other cheek”, i.e. nonviolent resistance, such as Rosa Parks’ courage to refuse to move to the back of the city bus, in 1954.
In spite of their ideological jousting, both Martin and Malcolm were keenly aware of the necessity to avoid race riots, which could become an outright bloodbath. According to Carson, Malcolm X wrote to King about his concern over the possibility of the eruption of violent race riots. Thus, while Malcolm “stood up” for black militancy and separatism, he was savvy enough to realize that such a philosophy in action spelled out violence and chaos in race relations. As a matter of practicality, Malcolm X realized the necessity of non-violent protest, while he had yet to formally change his public pronouncements, as well as change his divisive rhetoric that pitted him against King himself (Carson). Thus, both Malcolm, Martin and the entire African American community were sitting on a powder keg, and unity among all blacks was a key priority.
Doubtless, the two men’s interpersonal relationship was fraught with conflict, criticism, and rivalry. However, the mass media often portrays their relationship – and opposing philosophies – as irreconcilable, but such a claim is untrue (Baldwin). While they did sit at opposite sides of the spectrum on the nonviolence issue for quite some time, especially from 1957 to 1963, the relationship between the two civil rights leaders mellowed after Malcolm X’s trip to Africa, a trip that followed his official departure from the Nation of Islam, and his one-time mentor, Elijah Muhammed (Baldwin). His trip to Africa included a pilgrimage to Mecca, as well as visits to several African nations (Baldwin). As a Haji, Malcolm X’s views about non-racist white people, people he prayed and ate with, changed dramatically (Baldwin). For example, he no longer used the term “white devil” to refer to whites, and his mind also opened up about the struggles of the African-American with respect to struggles of third-world peoples everywhere (Baldwin). At the same time, King was undergoing a similar transformation, one that also saw him become more sophisticated, and even more radical, as he was less afraid to refer to the necessity for “Black unity” – a unity that included blacks all over the globe (Baldwin).
In other words, both men moved closer towards a common ground, especially the more-marginalized Malcolm X, who had suffered due to his abandonment of Elijah Muhammed, and the militant Nation of Islam (Baldwin). Malcolm came to see racism in America through a broader, globalized context after his African voyage. After Malcolm’s assassination in 1965, King, surely, must have felt a deep loss. Indeed, letters to Betty Shabazz, Malcolm’s widow, show that this was the case (Baldwin). Not only did King express admiration for Malcolm’s point of view, but he also expressed appreciation for Malcolm’s ability to diagnose the underlying cause of a problem, such as racism (Baldwin). Nonetheless, the African Americans’ battle for civil rights in America had to go on, despite the tragic loss of one of its most outspoken leaders.
Indeed, more than 50 years after Malcolm X’s appeal to blacks, and minorities in general, in his “Message to the Grass Roots”, the battle for civil rights in America is still raging. As Malcolm X poignantly asks: “How can you justify being nonviolent in Mississippi and Alabama, at the same time when your churches are being bombed and your little girls are being murdered, and at the same time you are going to get violent with Hitler and Tojo, and somebody else you don’t even know?” (Malcolm X). Racism still deeply divides America, long after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and long after the Voting Rights Act of 1965. His sentiment about the use of violence (although he changed his viewpoint on this matter after his pilgrimage) may have been misguided, but neither Malcolm nor Martin are here to help the oppressed cast off the chains of racism that most of us have come to blindly accept without question.
A new chapter is being written in the civil rights struggle, and those who follow Malcolm X’s separatist ideology, and its “black power” rhetoric may have missed out on what both Martin and Malcolm ultimately stood for: equality and justice for blacks everywhere. Unfortunately, few people are aware of the transformation that Malcolm went through during the last 11 months of his life, a transformation that represents his lasting legacy, and his enduring contribution to peace between people of all colors on earth.