Malcolm X did very little for the civil rights movement overall, other than causing trouble and encouraging violent uprising that would get nothing but bad publicity. Martin Luther King on the other hand whilst his organisational skills were not the best he lead some very important events that progressed the fight for African-American rights much further than Malcolm X.
Martin Luther King Jr. Didn't believe in violence physically. He was the kind of person who would rather the use of powerful words. He pushed himself so much, just to fight for complete freedom for Blacks. Where as Malcolm X believed in doing anything to make people change their opinions. He didn't see a problem with violence and often threatened people
MLK believed in unity, racial equality and harmony; the complete opposite view of Malcolm X who believed in division and racial supremacy. I don't admire Malcolm X at all. Towards the end of his life he began to see some of his errors; to bad he was murdered by Elijah Mohammad and the Nation. MLK knew how to bring people of all colors together and spoke of creating a harmonious society. It's a shame that he was murdered as well. We have yet to see another leader such as him.
Because MLK Jr didn't just teach us civil rights. He was also a peacemaker. The fact that he used nonviolent protesting in his work is quite amazing, and that Malcolm X was trying to teach the exact difference is to me probably the biggest reason I choose MLK Jr in this debate.
Dr. King's non violent approach made him much better leader than Malcolm X. As an educated person Martin Luther King Jr. Knew how to negotiate with "white moderates". On the other hand, Malcolm X believed in "action on all fronts by whatever is necessary." Malcolm X had some good points, but I don't believe in violent.
Passiveness is always a better stance that violence. Take for example, the difference between Booker T Washington and WEB Dubois. Dubois wanted to force change. The black community would not get on board and the white community was, for the most part, strongly resistant. Washington proposed slow, strong change that required more work but was more lasting and successful.
Dr. Manisha Grant from the University of Manisha Grant, accurately states that Martin Luther King Jr used more peaceful approaches that MLK was better than Malcom X. His non violent approach is what made MLK the better leader for civil rights anybody in the united dates should be able to recognize that.
Dr. Manisha Grant M.D. P.H.D
Malcolm may have been very motivational to many people, but his radical stances would have eventually destroyed the civil rights movement, if left to their own devices. King had the right idea by advocating a defiant, yet peaceful resistance to discriminatory practices. He allowed to grow the natural sentiments that discrimination was wrong.
Civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., put far more effort into his cause than Malcolm-X. This is the reason Martin Luther King Jr is remembered more so than Malcolm-X. Though Malcolm-X made a huge difference, his efforts cannot compare to that of King's. If either one were to stand out more than the other, it would be Martin Luther King Jr., now and in years to come.
I am the type of person who believes the path to change is through non-violence, and no one embodies this better in recent American history than Martin Luther King Jr. While Malcolm X was a great revolutionary, his militant tactics and overall demeanor makes him less desirable in comparison in my opinion.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a much better civil rights leader than Malcolm X, which is proven by the legacy of Martin Luther King JR. King took a peaceful approach to improving Civil Rights which was more meaningful and more successful. Malcolm X took a more violent approach to improving Civil Rights, and tended to scare people rather than making them listen.
Because Martin Luther King used harmony and passive ways to address his message while Malcolm X used violence because he thought it was necessary, it was better for the white people that black people use peaceful protest because that wouldn't have any pressure on them. Instead Malcolm X used violence to get his point across. By the way, the anti-Malcolm X answers will come from people who never heard any of his speeches and who sadly assume he was just some racist guy. He taught blacks that they could stand up tall and be men and women who are intelligent and self-sufficient.
Malcolm X was more articulate in explaining the condition of the Afro American in America, not only to whites but to people all around the world. He stood by his principles (unlike King who cheated on his wife) no matter how unpopular they may seem, and cared deeply for the black race.
While martin Luther king undoubtedly represented some of the values and beliefs of the African American community(and was undeniably an effective leader), king was merely a "notice board" for his race. He brought many of the injustices that blacks suffered to the public's attention and while he did suffer some of the same racism, by and large, martin Luther king lived a comfortable and well-insulated life: he had a wholesome and supporting family and he attended prestigious schools and obtained a remarkable education--while this was in no way "bad" it clearly sets him apart from the down-trodden and unprivileged masses that he supposedly related to. Malcolm X on the other hand lucidly connects to his race, he underwent all of the difficulties that the everyday black person suffered through, and even spiraled down to the unfortunate life of crime that many young blacks of that era unwittingly found themselves forced into from a sheer lack of reasonable options and opportunities, like thousands of other black families Malcolm also witnessed his family fall apart at the hands of the Klan and society, and yet, he still managed to overcome these apparently insurmountable obstacles and better himself and then attempt to do the same for his race. In short, Malcolm x has endured every possible hardship that the average negro faced in his everyday life, therefore he understands and relates better than most civil rights leaders (and certainly more than King) to the underprivileged black masses and his life and past experiences practically represents the lives of most of his race. On a final note I've noticed that many people here argue the point that Malcolm x preached violence and hatred, this is wrong Malcolm x did not preach violence nor hatred-- he was vehemently against it, however he did believe that if you got hit then you hit back (i.E self defense); Malcolm X was just a proactive leader who believed in the advancement of his race FIRST regardless of whether he had white society's seal of approval and he simply felt that sending members of his race to get beaten and mangled on live television for whites to UNWILLINGLY acknowledge the black man was a waste of time and effort when blacks could simply withdraw from white society, unite and better themselves.
Blacks and Whites need to live apart, just like Malcolm X preached. They can never live in peace. They need separate nations to themselves. The civil rights movement was a failure. To this day, it is not working. Each race needs to rely on their own people. You can not make people like each other. Stop the hate separate!
Malcolm x was more direct with his speeches; he said what he thought and did not need to modify it for anyone, In my opinion, i do not think that Malcolm intended to cause violence, martin took more of a pacifist route but did not speak the truth. Martin's speeches were also directed to the white middle-class folks not for the black folks that were suffering, while Malcolm did direct those in the struggle.