I did a survey in my college, asking this very question. Along with other related questions, I asked "who do you think impacted America more and changed it for the better? " - 57.14% said MLK, 3.57% said Malcolm X and 39.29% "I don't know". Apart from the obvious observation of not enough of black history is being taught in English schools, I saw that a massive 67.86% of people said that agree with MLK's way of doing things too (including peaceful protests and passionate speeches.)
Malcolm X was undoubtedly an incredible leader for the black people of America and he achieved massive change, impacting America for the better. But part of his achievements SHOULD be focused on how much of him is being taught in schools today and who actually knows about him? If he was better than MLK surely he would be more heard of? Who HASNT heard of MLK? When asked "on a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you know about Malcolm X?(10 being a lot and 1 being never heard of him). 8.14% of people knew a lot about him and 24.42% of people had never heard of him. This, compared to the same question but this time referring to MLK, 0.00% of people had never heard of him and 15.29% knew a lot about him. More needs to be taught about them both, as these are embarrassing statistics, but in fairness, the question needs to be asked, why have so many people never heard about Malcolm X?
All in all, Malcolm was an outstanding representative of black civil rights, but MLK out shone him, achieving more and impacting America forever.
Now despite Mlk having his flaws in ideologies he remained a more important stance in history simply because he was able to start the civil rights movement whilst using non violent methods. Now he may have taken a longer time to get points across but he was assassinated because he was found to be more influential and a threat to the whites.
Both had contrasting ideologies but king was clearly a better leader and did more for the black community. Malcolm X rose to prominence in the 1950's merely because of his political statements meanwhile king sought to improve the standard of lives through HISTORICALLY PROVEN and practical methods introducing the voting rights act/ civil rights act and so forth. He supported countless campaigns like the bus boycott which was mainly successful because of his work. Also individuals that say peaceful methods did nothing really need to research in depth because the extremism that Malcolm x advocated in practise experienced short lived success. Its also worth noting that Malcolm X did not take part in any of the violent methods he preached and would prevent them sometimes in complete contrast to king. Malcolm X also rejected integration so his beliefs were pretty much useless to black Americans who wanted to live normally with white people at the time.
The love of God instead of hate. Everything in the Bible is centered on love. If everyone truly followed and understood the Bible there won't be all this evil and crap in this world. Everyone is on the same level. No one is above another, even the sinful. It is never a war against people but evil.
And the education part allowed King to foster relationships in higher places that ultimately led to real changes being done. His education also allowed him to see the power of education. Education was and still is a tool for freedom and success.
In short, the attitude and way of life King preached was direct contrast to the stereotypes of Black people. Therefore, it showed how much a fallacy the beliefs of racists really was. It shamed the racists as the racists quickly became a minority as other Whites saw the White racists as fools.
History has shown that the methods used by Martin Luther King are a more effective way of creating change. Non violent approaches prompt less radical reactions, help break down conservative viewpoints, and generally serve to shame your opposition into realizing that their point of view is not the correct one to have.
MLK didn't use violence or aggresion Malcolm X did but both are marytrys because they both died for what they believed in but MLK is more influential even though they have an equally as tough backgroud. Also he had better and more excitable and insparational speeches where as Malcon X didn't. :)
Although violence can solve it isn't right as Dr King said non violence is the most potent weapon. He is saying it is the most powerful and effective weapon it is, because non violence teaches but also shows love and equality for all races, black or white. MLK is an inspiration
He managed to intimidate his opponents cleverly, and because black people were known beginning to look after and defend themselves, the government began to pass acts in the senate which would eventually lead to the position of black people in society increasing. So although people just mainly talk about MLK, we should also remember Malcolm x for what he did to help black people
They both want the same rights being free. Martin Luther King Jr. Was better because even though they both teamed up he knew that it would be better if we don't fight them.That we should fight against man the man who is causing us to be separate and not each other. Malcolm X on the other hand thought we should fight anyone who gets in our way or tries to stop us.I don't think that he was really think for them mind that he was speaking from his feelings of what was going on.That he didn't he was so busy want to still be separated that he wasn't trying to come together as a nation.
If you fight fire with fire, you will get burned. Martin Luther King Jr. Was a better civil rights leader than Malcolm X because he was apart of the Peaceful Protest movement during the Civil Rights Movement. Much was accomplished by his peaceful protest and calm reaction to everything that was going on. This made him able to be heard and not ignore such as Malcolm X.
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.
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.
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.
MLK did not have the upbringing that represented the audience of the oppressed. I feel that the only reason he got any attention was because he was a minister. If not for that, I don't see him achieving much. Malcolm X is the embodiment of an oppressed black man who was beaten down, but still managed to fight against discrimination and oppression. This is honestly VERY hard to do and not even a handful of people have done it. Also, Malcolm X was BY FAR the better speaker than MLK. Other than the "Dream" speech and the "Letter to Birmingham Jail", MLK had absolutely no skill in speech. Whereas Malcolm X delivered powerful speeches that moved the crowd and shoved humility into the oppressors' faces. If Malcolm X had not been assassinated and still led civil rights after his epiphany in Hajj (pilgrimage), MLK would have been kicked out of the books.
MLK Jr. Did not have any evidence for his philosophy, nonviolent resistance. Nonviolent resistance is just simply civil disobedience. I also feel like the blacks were tired of "sit-ins." The sit-ins were just saying that 'Yeah I can sit here', but it showed nothing getting done for black equality. The whites were also tired of the sit-ins so they told the black that they would take down the racist signs in the store windows. "Victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained."The whites had already went back to there ways. The sit-ins might have work for a little while, but now it had been to long. The blacks wanted equality now. When you "wait for more than 340 years" and you are doing sit-ins, nothing will change. Malcolm X is right "anything can sit."
Just because people from Caucasian backgrounds support a leader from a minority background does not make him necessarily right. It might seem scary or even radical for someone to theorise that African-Americans should abide by a distinct brand of Black Nationalism as opposed to general American patriotism, but in this year of 2015 as we approach the second to last full year of the Obama Administration, I would like to remind you how the United States has utterly failed the person of colour. People like President Obama, Senator Jessie Jackson, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., failed African-Americans because they have in essence sold out to the establishment. It is tragic how King was assassinated in 1968, but it is even more tragic how Malcolm X was martyred in 1965, a full three years earlier.
As it is said in the Book of Luke, "... No prophet is accepted in his own hometown." King was largely not accepted by his own people because many have chosen to engage in reverse racism rather than judging by "content of character" as he advised in his "I Have a Dream" speech. He was, however, assassinated by a White man. Interestingly enough, Malcolm X was not only rejected by Blacks, he was assassinated by Blacks, namely the Farrakhan-types.
Malcolm X was not a racist. He was an extremely articulate person who the weak-minded have chosen to defame with the slander of racism. Sure, Malcolm X had a criminal background, but that is because the system failed him.
That brings me to my final point: Dr. King had courage to take on some components of bigotry, but he was not willing to take the entire system down, which probably was why he was assassinated later rather than sooner. More importantly, this is why the system eventually honoured him with a national holiday, whereas the most Malcolm X received was a Spike Lee masterpiece (which Denzel Washington honestly deserved an Oscar for, especially when compared to Al Pacino who received it in 1993 and the film Washington actually received a Best Actor award for: Training Day) and a boulevard in Manhattan. Why do you think politicians, educators, preachers, activists, and even laypeople go out of their way to mention MLK and not Malcolm X? Could it not be possible that they have all made the conscious movement to subscribe to the groupthink that MLK was supposedly better even though this is most likely not the case?
Malcolm Shabaaz was the underdog. He may have taken an unpopular method of seeking the uplift of Blacks in America, but this confrontational approach is what civil rights is all about: struggling to be free. Both Shabaaz and King sacrificed their lives in the cause of freedom, but something about what Malcolm X stood for demonstrates just how much further he was willing to go to so that Black people could rise up. If people cannot appreciate the revolutionary fervour of X's genius, they do so at their own peril.
Martin Luther King has transformed the African American population into a race to be "sorry" for. If Malcolm X had a larger influence, I am sure the black population would be regarded more highly. Martin Luther King got what was coming to him. Malcolm X was killed in a much cooler Muslim drive-by. I rest my case.
Although I respect Martin Luther King's passivity to an extent, I believe Malcolm X's philosophy had much more power in it. He wasn't afraid to speak up for the atrocities done upon the black man, whereas MLK was acting as if we would be granted equality against a group of people that damn near hates the color of our skin. You can see near Martin Luther King's end during his last speech, he finally agreed with a more volatile angle for rights of black people. Malcolm X would of caused a revolution, it is not at all wrong to seek a better existence here.
I think Malcolm X was better because he was developed in a totally different neighborhood. This is what lead him to be as violent as he is.
White men killed his family leading to his hatred for whites. That is why my love for Malcolm X is still growing more and more
Malcom X isn't taught in detail at schools. I feel Malcom X puts it best when he said of Martin Luther King Jr: "He got the peace prize, we got the problem.... If I'm following a general, and he's leading me into a battle, and the enemy tends to give him rewards, or awards, I get suspicious of him. Especially if he gets a peace award before the war is over."