Martin vs. Malcolm: The Olive Branch and The Arrow

35 years before Biggie vs. Tupac, and generations after Dubois vs. Garvey & Washington, the two leading African American minds, of their generation, engaged in an exhibition of philosophies. The reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. “actively sought out to attack injustice by creating a crisis, bringing the hidden violence of the system to the surface, and restructuring the institutions of society”(Dr. Allen Webb) and thus bring about equality for his people. While the revolutionary Malcolm X (later Malcolm El-Hajj Malik Shabazz) called for Black Nationalism in hopes that an awakened Black people would acquire equality on their own. This essay is not a referendum focusing on the ways in which their philosophies differed. This is a retrospective analysis of the speeches, lives, and times of MLK and Malcolm X. It will show that as with Biggie and Tupac, Dubois, Garvey, and Washington an amalgamation of philosophies and followers would not have only been possible but beneficial to all parties involved, especially African Americans. The core of this text will debunk the current mythologies surrounding their personages and philosophies and uplift these kings to their rightful places, to be seen for what they were great men, but still men and “flawed” like all others.

The Olive Branch

He spoke with a vibrato that stirred the souls of a nation. Distorted echoes of his words are still heard today. His short life was a testament to the power of righteous indignation, when combined with love, and the will to persevere. He was a preacher, a scholar, and a father, but the overriding evidence of his actions and decisions shows the true essence of Martin Luther King, Jr.: He was a freedom fighter. The simplification of his message into one of hope and integration can be misleading. The fighter that wrote, “Why We Can’t Wait”, has been reduced to a beggar asking for America’s acceptance. The tree of King’s legacy has been whittled into a crutch of hope for a hobbled nation. As children, American students are spoon fed a simplistic version of King summed up in a few lines at the end of his “I Have A Dream” speech, “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal… I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

In the same speech Dr. King said, “There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges”! Does that sound like a weakling to you? A man begging for justice?

“The militancy of these words can easily be relieved if one points out that King rushed to caution black militants against mimicking the hatred of white bigots.”(Dyson) Still, Martin Luther King was not laying down in acceptance of his fate but rather strategically pushing forward his cause.

By being uplifted King as a peaceful symbol of a post-racist utopia King has been marginalized. In turn people lose sight of the fact that he was a radical. Why wouldn’t he be? Martin Luther King Jr. was Christian, and Christ was a radical. Repeatedly, Jesus taught people to believe in and live a spiritual and ethical life based in our essential, inherent goodness. What Jesus promoted was succinct set of spiritual principals and a way of life based upon love, compassion, tolerance, and a strong belief in the importance in giving and of generosity to those in need. King did the same.

The “I Have a Dream” speech was not a plea for brotherhood among
all men. It was a decree that justice would be victorious. It was a reminder of a promise. A promise that took precedence over all others in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That pursuit began in shackles for 5/6 of the first migrants to this hemisphere. Unshackled legally, by the emancipation proclamation, African Americans were then shackled with crime, debt, violence, and, most debilitating, racially biased state/federal laws and police forces. King saw that breaking the shackles of the law required a special key. Non- violence was that key.

Non-violence is not a methodology of the timid, it is a militant strategy. Pacifism avoids violence at all costs. Non-violence, on the other hand, invites violence and accepts the cost. There are six basic principles of non-violence:

1. Non-Violence is a way of life for courageous people

2. Non-violence seeks to win friendship and understanding

3. Non-violence seeks to defeat injustice not people

4. Non-violence holds that voluntary suffering can transform

5. Non-violence chooses love instead of hate

6. Non-violence believes that the universe is on the side of justice

After being mentored in the methodology of non-violence, by the the
activist Bayard Rustin, Dr. King called non-violence a “marvelous
new militancy” and came to embody these principles believing in
their unifying, overpowering, force. King understood that, “we must
forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and
discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into
physical violence.”

For violence only begets violence so “again and again we must rise
to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.” He understood that it was folly to “distrust of all white people, for many of” them had “come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.” Therefore, “we cannot walk alone.”(King) He believed in humanity, and in God. In his understanding the spirit was an active force in the daily lives of human beings and with the help of that spirit LOVE would be unstoppable.

Sadly, I can look at the current state of America state and, without hesitation, proclaim that Martin Luther King’s dream has not been fully realized. “It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned…America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” Today most
African Americans have either stuffed that bad check in their pockets, or burned the check giving a middle finger to the legacy of those who fought for our freedom.

The Arrow

Malcolm X, formerly known as “Detroit Red”, formerly known as Malcolm Little, later known as Malcolm El-Hajj Malik Shabazz grew up with an existential understanding of injustice. Stigmatized by poverty and haunted by the pervasive demonic vestige of racial violence perpetrated against his family, for their UNIA activities, Malcolm X’s indignation was quite righteous. His father’s horrendous death followed by his mother’s loss of sanity and committal must have deeply affected him. He was primed to be a revolutionary.

The picture painted of Malcolm is a dark one. The colors are black and burgundy. The tone of his speech and the message of the nation he was mislead into seem to prove this, especially to those who don’t care to disprove it. Yes, Malcolm was angry. His anger was shared by millions of African Americans. Anger clouds the mind but it is a secondary emotion brought on by the primary emotion of fear. “Anger is the natural emotion created in a fight-or-flight situation by the physiology of your mind and body. When you sense a threat your mind generates fear and anger. The fear you generate is part of a flight response from your physiology. Anger is the emotional energy you generate for the fight against that perceived threat. What can be confusing is that your mind creates fear and anger even when the threat is just imagined.”

The threat that Malcolm was reacting to was all too real. African Americans, especially African American males, were being lynched, imprisoned, and sentenced to lives of poverty. Many African Americans chose to flea from racism by standing still but, much like King, Malcolm made a decision to fight. Unlike King, he was not mentored in the school of non-violence. As Louis Farrakhan related, “Brother Malcolm had a gangsterlike past.”(Marable) In the streets of places like Harlem and Detroit fear is illegal. Men die because they don’t desire to be thought a “punk”. Malcolm was no punk.

This gangster turned leader inspired fear in white America, and he meant to. He used the Jean Paul Sartre phrase “by any means necessary” to describe the resolve he, and the nation, had. Malcolm’s speech “By Any Means Necessary” was about finding “a solution to the problem that confront(ed) our people”. That problem was oppression. “By Any Means Necessary” was not intended to incite violence but solidarity. What he did assert was “the Afro American’s right to self defense.”

Malcolm’s philosophy was based on his reality, and his reality was a violent one. Therefore he stated that, “The history of unpunished violence against our people clearly indicates that we must be prepared to defend ourselves or we will continue to be a defenseless people at the mercy of a ruthless and violent racist mob.” It is often forgotten that prior to the riots of the 60’s the term “race riot” referred to whites coming into Black neighborhoods and perpetrating acts of violence. These same whites feared that taking their feet off of the necks of Blacks. “The Hate That Hate Produced” could have been called, “The Fear That Fear Caused”, such a title may have even been more accurate.

Regardless of fear and racism Malcolm made a point of stating that “we are Americans”, and that he believed in the viability of The Constitution of the United States. What he did not see was any evidence that that document was being applied to the rights of African Americans. Any law student who has studied the Supreme Court rulings onincorporation, the amendments to The Constitution that related to race, and the ways that those amendments were subverted in the name of states rights, would likely agree with Malcolm’s synopsis of the situation during his lifetime. On October 11, 1963, Malcolm was interviewed at UC Berkley, the first question that he was asked dealt with the “violent philosophy of Black Muslims”, his response to that question only spoke of violence in response to violence. Just as Booker T. Washington had been before him Malcolm was pragmatic. Violence is a staple of the American diet and was consumed in large quantities, and regurgitated on African Americans “without punishment” from this country’s founding until the Civil Rights movement. He was right about America but he was wrong about the role Whites would play in the freedom struggle and his understanding of non-violence as a methodology in that struggle. But he was learning and growing,

Theodicy

The personas of both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King have taken on a certain mysticism. The two seminole figures of the civil rights movement, martyred in the years following their assassinations, they became god-like in the eyes of many. Why not? Martin was steadfast in his commitment to his people and inspirational in his speech. Malcolm channeled his gangster character and became a gangster for change. Martin was arrested repeatedly for what he believed in. Malcolm was murdered for his changing beliefs. Nothing can destroy their legacies, but when we allow ourselves to lose sight of their humanity and begin to deify them, their legacies can be tainted too easily. Gods are supposed to be perfect. Perfection does not allow for even the slightest mistake. Human beings are not perfect. Martin’s infidelities, and Malcolm’s homosexual soirées, may be appalling to those who have uplifted them in such a way, but these men are brothers in the same struggle that I fight today and I love my family through their flaws. Those who might judge them by their mistakes, while ignoring their triumphs and sacrifices, are the same that would judge me for my criminal activities. Judge not lest ye be judged.

If anything learning of their flaws has made me look at myself and understand that I too can change the world despite my own. I know that I am not perfect if those I aspired to be like were perfect where would that leave me. These men were great orators and I have been told that I am also. I examine the world so that I may gain insight that would allow me to speak the words that would inspire the actions that will improve the lives of the oppressed. I pray that my chance comes. I also pray that if I am ever elevated to the level of prestige that these men were that my worth is not gauged by my personal flaws but by my actions that served those at the bottom. Professor Westbrook I love you man. Until we meet again I want you to know that you are an inspiration to me. I am not a perfect person but I am a loving person and I care about the future of our people and all people. Until we meet again continue to be you because you are a great man.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7