Compare/Contrast Malcolm X Message to the Grassroots to MLK Pilgrimage to Non Violence

Martin Luther King Jr., D.D.S. Malcolm X’s strategy targeted the person who chastised atrocities to African Americans, whereas Philosophy for Change targeted the injustices and not the individual castigating it. Their understanding of faith and love served as a good example of this. The two essays discuss the societal injustices that African Americans experienced as slaves and as a result of racial discrimination, and they do so from the perspectives of both Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. The presentation of their philosophies heavily incorporated the themes of love and faith. Black nationalism according to Malcolm X was keen on revolution. This is a black religion which is keen on liberating them from the bondage of slavery and discrimination through violent means. It meant that they should use any means viable to them in order to conquer their white opponents. Just like a religion the philosophy united the black people and essentially gave them hope of liberating themselves. Malcolm categorized the slaves into two: the field slaves and the house slaves (pg. 66). The house slaves worshipped their masters and would do anything to protect or defend them.

The field Negroes formed the masses fend for their masters in the fields and often didn’t enjoy any privileges. They were subjected to poor working conditions and beatings. To them the whites were evil and should be fought as an enemy. They took their vulnerabilities to an advantage and often limit their influence. The used the house negroes who were cooperative referred by Malcolm as ‘Uncle Toms’ to quell the retaliation from the blacks by teaching the to ‘suffer peacefully’ (pg. 68). To Malcolm this was outrageous and no religion taught individuals to suffer peacefully. He says “our religion teaches us to be intelligent; …but if someone puts his finger on you, send him to the cemetery” (pg 68-69).

Love in regard to Malcolm X

The house Negro serves their masters with love and would certainly do anything for them. The modern house Negro according to Malcolm X loves his master and would strive to adapt to their ways. They believe that if they separate from the whites and their ways they will lose their privileges and belongings (pg 67). Their love may not be genuine because they gain it out of fear of losing what they enjoy and the notion that nothing more is left for them in Africa if they ran away (pg 68). The house negroes were used as peacemakers and help keep peace and passivity among the field negroes. They would report to their masters and often warn them about the happenings in the fields. The field negroes hated their masters and were united among themselves out of their suffering and misery.

Religion in regard to Dr. King

Dr. King’s career as a pastor in Montgomery was a religious one and not meant for a non violent resistance. He didn’t suggested or even started the protest rather the people’s calling to service as a spokesman prompted his involvement. The power of the non violence became apparent to him as days unfolded. It became like a religion as it worked well and Martin terms it as an ”intellectual assent” whereby people were more committed to it (pg. 63). The philosophy played a crucial role for the movement with the various aspects that characterized it.

The non violent resistance took a form of passive physicality but active spirituality towards a course of liberalization. ”It is not passive non resistance to evil, it is active nonviolent resistance to evil” (pg 63). This took the forms of boycotts and noncooperation in a bid to shape the morals of the opponents and by way establish a means of reconciliation and redemption. The resistance was mainly directed to the forces of evils and individuals promoting the evil vices. The driving force of the resistance is the willingness of individuals to work towards the course amid the suffering and without any retaliation. The involved were able to persevere blows without revenging back on the opponents. The Gandhi’s assurance that freedom is achievable with blood doesn’t justify the resistors to inflict it.

Love in regard to Dr. King

Love has been outlines as creating a sense of understanding and redemption of the good will of all. This love is in form of the Greek’s word agape which essentially means loving those who oppose us 9pg. 65). Martin Luther King Jr. alludes his teaching on love and the non violent resistance to the Sermon on the Mount. This is God’s love operating in the human heart (pg. 65). Such love should not be asserted to weakness and Gandhi depicted that it is better to fight if the acts of non violence are born out of cowardice. Essentially the struggle through this means is better placed if the involved persons do it out of love. The love for the movement was mainly out of the love for freedom and the fact that violence should not be used to fight for justice. The non violence move is not seeking to defeat the opponent or humiliate them rather was meant to win a sense of love in terms of understanding and friendship.

The nonviolence resistance was meant to create a beloved community as the resultant of violent means is injury, deaths and destruction of properties. Gandhi assert to this by saying, ”The nonviolent resister is willing to accept violence if necessary, but never to inflict it. He does not seek to dodge jail. If going to jail is necessary, he enters it as a bridegroom enters the bride’s chamber” (pg 64). The principle of love is center to the nonviolence resistance. Through it the physical violence is avoided and a sense of love is created among the haters. In a struggle towards attainment of hum an dignity the nonviolence means accept to succumb to their bitterness and not indulge in campaigns of bitterness. Out of morality and sense individuals can transform their chain of hate into love. This is possible by projecting the ethical love into the center of individuals’ lives.

Work Cited

Malcolm X, Message to the Grass Roots

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Pilgrimage to Nonviolence