In the history of the American civil rights movement, two seminal figures emerge: that of the peaceful and nonviolent Martin Luther King, Jr., and the revolutionary and radical Malcolm X. From these two contrasting images, America did not know how exactly to classify the movement. On one hand, Malcolm X preached independence and a "by any means necessary" approach to achieving equality in America. And on the other, King preached a nonviolent, disobedient philosophy similar to that of Gandhi in the achievement of Indian independence earlier in the century. While most students are familiar with King as a civil rights leader, most are equally uninformed about the impact of Malcolm X in the African-American struggle for equality and freedom.
Martin Luther King Jr. followed in his father’s footsteps and became a pastor as well. This helped to influence the way he protested. He was a nonviolent speaker and wanted blacks and whites to be equal in society together not separated. He was a very good public speaker and many blacks along with whites supported his belief of being equal. Malcom X did not have the same lifestyle that Martin had the ability to grow up with.
Martin Luther King’s main principle was non-violence; he refused to use aggression as a force to get what he wanted. He developed this technique after following the works of Ghandi, who had successfully used the same tactic in India. This tactic encouraged sympathy for the Black people from the rest of the world, as it promoted the inequalities that were around at the time, which shocked countries as America was supposed to be one of the more developed countries in the world, and its reputation as a free nation was severely damaged by the allegations that it was a racist country, and in the cold war Russians actually used this against them during the Americans campaign to liberate Russia from communism. King was very important during the Montgomery bus boycott as he organised it. It took a very charismatic and influential figure to organise this and keep it going for a whole year, as it was very inconvenient for black people at the time.
Comparing and Contrasting Thoreau and MLK If there was a law that the public felt to be unjust, who would stand up and call it into question? Henry David Thoreau and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. certainly did in their times. Both men shared a common goal: to make the world a better place by protesting against unfair laws. Though they lived in two different times and disputed against different laws, Thoreau and King also share something in common; they both stood their ground and peacefully fought for what they believed in. Henry David Thoreau believed in many things, but one thing in particular was bettering the government.
How is jail working if criminals are being released better at their crimes from when they were first sentenced to imprisonment? Conservative lawmakers want to try kids as young as thirteen in adult courts, and they are trying to place them in adult prisons. Although juvenile crime has become more pervasive and more violent , it is not fair to lock up young kids with hardened criminals. This will not lower the crime-rate, but just increase the prison population. While in these hardcore prisons, teenagers would be getting a criminal education instead of a real education.
The similarities between Martin Luther King Jr and Louis Riel Martin Luther King Jr (African-American) and Louis Riel (Métis) are both famous men in history, mainly based on their actions and attitude towards racism and discrimination. Despite a few of their differences, both men had very much in common. Martin Luther King and Louis Riel both fought for the rights of their people. They became threatened by other people/groups and so decided to stand up for their people and do what was right. Martin Luther King was angered by the signs all over the streets that he lived near which said “Whites only”.
Washington recognized the resistance that white America instinctively felt toward any form of radical racial reforms. Although his strategy did not produce many immediate rewards for blacks at the time, it was important in the long run. W.E.B DuBois stood in sharp contrast to Washington’s attempts at working within the system. DuBois looked at the
The leaders of the Progressive movement, while preoccupied with their desire of gaining greater democracy for the American people, thought only in the terms of the white population. African Americans were, for the most part, ignored by Progressive presidents and governors. The Progressive era coincided with years of racial tensions. The Progressives during this time period did nothing about segregation and lynching. This was due to the fact that they shared in the general prejudice of their time and because of the fact that they considered other reforms (such as lower tariffs) to be more important that anti-lynching laws.
He also said that “[America] should be occupied by all those who do not mean to compromise the principles of justice and liberty” [Source 4]. Clearly, he did not compromise his beliefs at all, for anything, and this proved him to be very passionate about his cause. However, in the beginning not many people really cared about what Garrison had to say. He was so extreme in his writings and speeches that it took time for more people to become interested. Also, as interested as Garrison was in freedom for black slaves, he was not convinced that they should be treated the way whites were treated.
The Constitution, until recently, did not apply to blacks; blacks feel they deserve payments from 310 years of slavery, destruction to their minds and culture. Dr. Martin Luther King's dilemma in the United States was of a different kind. He was torn between his identity as a Black man of African descent and his identity as an American. He urged Americans to judge based on the content of the character not by skin color and also believed in non-violent protests. Martin Luther King Jr’s main perspective during the fight on racism was equality.