The concept of white supremacy governed racial relations in the United States during the antebellum period and as a result, black persons remained subject to an inferior status on which the whites grounded the slave system. Expectedly, even after emancipation, whites retained their position as the superior race while those of African descent remained a disfranchised lot since color segregation took roots in the United States. Still, unlike in the years of slavery, African Americans could finally fight and claim the same privileges enjoyed by their white counterparts. The problem was while some blacks entertained the idea of equality, others were content with their statuses and at the same time, those that agreed to fight for said rights endorsed different methods. Thus said, while the abolition of slavery dictated individual liberties for blacks, the white man's efforts to uphold the color line caused divisions among African-Americans: some blacks voiced their contentment with the inferior position of their race and others opted for a solution albeit with separate methods of achieving the same.
Foremost, the idea of racial equality on American soil was both unfathomable and impossible to obtain just because history proclaimed one race as the dominant one in all levels of society. In other words, from the social to the national levels, Caucasians prevailed at the expense of other racial groups, with particular emphasis on the blacks. Accordingly, multi-racial born Booker T. Washington spoke from experience when he urged blacks to draw a line between “the superficial and the substantial” desires they harbored as black persons in the United States (30). Evidently, Washington’s connection with both the white and black races gave him firsthand knowledge of how relations between the two groups work, and in his opinion, blacks were indeed inferior. Hence, in the Atlanta Compromise (1895), Washington suggested a peaceful coexistence revolving around the “ignorant” black people allowing the “helping” whites to guide them in the paths of social and economic freedom (30-31). Otherwise, the African Americans whose skills relied on hard labor were fighting a lost cause with their misguided notions of being equal to the whites.
Contrastingly, other prominent persons of color, including educated individuals, called for the same egalitarianism that Washington appeared to discourage. In fact, the penning of W.E.B. Du Bois’ Of Mr. Booker T. Washington in 1903 gave a direct response to former man’s assertions of black people being incapable of anything other than hard labor. In the Harvard graduate’s views, Washington and anybody who concurred with his ideas justified the actions of the Southern whites, and that “propaganda” was responsible for the “disfranchisement” of African Americans (33). Accordingly, rather than applauding the apparent flaws in the American Justice system, Du Bois advocated “honest criticism” of the government as a tactic that African Americans can employ to change their situation(34). Since he was a university graduate, Du Bois’ arguments were well founded and appeared to echo those of other African Americans at the time. After all, poetry during the Harlem Renaissance reflected the black heritage and emotions; subsequently, Langston Hughes, a black poet, composed I, Too in 1926 and the work portrayed the African Americans’ desire for respect and elevation in the social status (71).
With the given facts in mind, African Americans were expectedly a discontented lot, and they voiced their demands for changes in the United States. Now, while African Americans supported the idea of Civil Rights for all people regardless of their skin color, there was a problem in determining what methods would move the government into making the necessary Amendments to the American Constitution. On one hand, Martin Luther King Jr. promoted civil disobedience and peaceful protests to draw the States’ attention to the predicament of the disfranchised black persons residing in the United States. In the 1963 delivery of his speech I Have a Dream, the pastor turned Civil Rights activist encouraged “discipline and dignity” during the protests as that was the only way through which blacks would be innocent of “any wrongful deeds” when they achieved their goals (121). On the other hand, Malcolm X argued against the idea of peace as blacks fought for their rights because, as evidenced by the title of his 1964 speech Ballot or Bullet, it was high time blacks employed other methods (123). Notably, Malcolm X voiced his views a year after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his speech and for that reason, it is plausible the former man realized the slow effects of peaceful protests. Hence, while propelled by his position as the leader of a Muslim organization born out of his membership in a Militant group of Black Muslims, Malcolm X considered violence instead of King’s civil disobedience. Apparently, democracy for black people was “disguised hypocrisy” and without action, blacks were bound to have a lifetime of unending struggles (Malcolm X, 124).
Conclusively, the Civil Rights Movement succeeded without violence on the part of the African Americans and for that reason, King’s approach of peace was most useful. In fact, it is possible that Malcolm X’s calls for a last stand would have encouraged an equally violent response from the government. Additionally, Washington was wrong to reject black education because the learning Du Bois support introduced King to Gandhi’s civil disobedience.
Works Cited
DuBois, W.E.B. "Of Mr. Booker T. Washington." 1903. 33-34. Print.
Hughes, Langston. "I, Too." 1926. 71. Print.
Malcolm X. "Ballot or Bullet." 1964. 123-125. Print.
Martin Luther King, Jr. "I Have a Dream." 1963. 121-122. Print.
Washington, Booker T. "Atlanta Compromise." 1895. 30-32. Print.
