The question is how do I see the different struggles (gay rights, women’s movement, anti-Vietnam, Chicano movement) playing out, whether it be through radicalism or assimilation, in social movements. When it comes to the Chicano movement, according to Rodriquez (1996), it seems far from radical and much more passive. Even though the modern Chicano movement started in the 1960’s, it was not unified at the time due to the “lack of historical memory, regionalism and sectarianism, but also government efforts” (Rodriquez, 1996, p. 1). I think this trend will continue if the universities make choices as they have in the past to hire professors that actually hurt the Chicano movement instead of strengthening it (Rodriquez, 1996, p. 5). Through movements like CSU Northridge and their efforts of making change through political action and Proposition 187 demonstrations, the Chicano movement has shown that social protest through non radical means is possible. Today, it is critical that the Chicano movement protest in a non-radical method because of the sensitivity to illegal immigration.
Dr. King and Malcolm X both held different strategies in how they viewed the appropriateness of the social movement for racial equality. It is hard to say that one leader over the other leader had a better strategy because both leaders came from distinct different backgrounds. Malcolm X grew up with white hatred being more prevalent in his family; he was touched and moved by it. His grandmother was raped, his father presumably killed by white supremacists, and he finished his youth years as an black outcast in a white world. King, on the other hand, new love and racial pride and was followed by Christians. The auras of the two are completely different. Although both leaders shared the same “sense of dedication to the struggle for racial advancement” I can understand and feel where Malcolm X was coming from that was the driving force behind his techniques thoughts and views (Carson, 2005, p. 18).
More than King himself or Malcolm himself, it was black people like Rosa Parks and the students who participated in the lunch counter sit-in that ultimately made whites listen that helped promote change. It was not just one leader with his posse; it was blacks everywhere popping up saying that they had enough!
I agree with Carson that the different positions between King and Malcolm are somewhat reconcilable because their end result was in common. Both leaders fought for black freedom and both leaders “recognized that African Americans would never be free until they signed their own emancipation proclamation with the pen and ink of assertive selfhood” (Carson, 2005, pp. 18-19). The only difference was how to go about it; how to get to the result of equality. If the two leaders at some point would have gotten together, they both could have targeted different arenas to get their message across. Carson did say that Malcolm, even though he spoke of violence ends, was not a violent person.
King compromised himself when he chose to physically participate in a protest that landed him in the Birmingham jail. In the long run, this jail time resulted in significant history through his “Letter from Birmingham.” From “do nothingism,” to the complacent white hypocritical leaders calling for unity, to the slogan “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” King’s writings and words are ingrained in our literature and minds today (King, 1963). King’s statements are not only historical, calling people out the way he did was necessary and had purpose.
Carson, C. (2005). The Unfinished Dialogue of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X.
Rights Worth Fighting For……………
ReplyDeleteAfrican American rights: right to jobs; right for equality; right to education; right to be black; right to have pride; right to eat at the lunch counter; right to the political processes; right to be represented in politics; right not to be segregated; right to ride in the front of the bus; right to march; right to vote; right not to be killed....
Black Panther rights: right to self defense; national liberation of black people; right to serve our own people; right to equality; right to self reliance; rights to jobs; right to shelter; right to education; right to freedom; right to stop white supremacy; right to end black military service if by choice; right not to be murdered; right to release prisoners due to the lack of a fair trial; right to be judged by black peers and not whites; right to political representation; right to land; right to food; right to justice; right to peace....
Chicano rights: right to be recognized; right to higher education; and the right to Chicano studies with appropriate professors....
Women’s rights: right to education; right to birth control; right to stop sex discrimination; right to equal pay; right to political representation; right not to be raped; right to abortion; right to be a priest....
Gay rights: right not to be heterosexual; right not to be discriminated against; right to representation; right to all sorts of jobs; rights in the military; rights in the church; right to gay pride; right not to be exposed to hatred acts due to sexual orientation....
Anti-Vietnam War rights: right not to be drafted; right to oppose the war....
Feel free to add to the list.
I wanted to say that I like your train of thought about this particular topic. I don’t necessarily agree with people’s childhood is the determining factor for their train of thought or views. I think that it is more of the influences that surround them. Yes MLK did come from a prominent Southern family and X came from a decent family as well. Both of their fathers were preachers preaching the gospel. X’s family faced problems after his father was killed. King always had positive role models and influences before him. On the other hand X got into trouble and etc but he did come around after he joined the nation of Islam. I would say that their religion and their influences had something to do with their approaches. Baptist Christians, usually try to live their life as Christ did…peacefully and nonviolent. (I am a Baptist Christian and this is my opinion of the religion. However, I am more liberal). MLK was influenced by Gandhi who also had a nonviolent approach. X on the other hand had to me arrogant Muslims that was influencing him and his idol was the honorable Elijah Muhammad. They felt as though they demanded respect and would do whatever it took to be successful and respected. (You should watch Spike Lee’s Malcolm X). Anyway, check out my response. I think that you are right, neither approach is better than the other one. To me its situational.
ReplyDeleteI've been motivated to check out Spike Lee's movie and will do so soon Kris. In addition, reading "Get On the Bus: The Freedom Riders of 1961" by Terry Gross was an excellent and motivating piece of literature.
ReplyDelete