However in order for social transformation to exist we must all develop a mentality/lifestyle that rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. Instead we as a nation should express love to one another. MLK wants to us to acknowledge the individuals (black) that has shaped our country in a positive way. The Negro made a huge difference to society, but instead are encountered with social disapproval and faced with man’s inhumane acts. He believes we should show appreciation for these people who have suffered for righteousness’ sake.
The only way to win was with the help of God, because he created man as equal. All agree that if king had lived, he would have been active not only in the black community, but would have likely taken up causes of other minorities (Jones). Martin Luther king Jr. helped improve society with trying to stop discrimination against African Americans. He wanted to stand up for his people, if it wasn’t for him we would not have the rights we have today. As Jones states, he once said, he might not have entered the promise land with us, but he had been to the mountaintop.
“On Civil Disobedience” by Mohandas Gandhi, an excerpt from “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr., and an excerpt from “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau, all show how all three of them have similar views towards civil disobedience. Some people may believe that civil disobedience is not an effective way to attain change. However, they may not have realized that civil disobedience has helped many people achieve his or her goals, proving that civil disobedience is effective. For example, civil disobedience has helped African Americans gain certain rights and free them from racial injustice. In “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”, King talks about how African Americans were treated differently due to the color of their skin.
The U.S. struggled with each issue and did what they thought was right, even if damage was caused. I believe we should have involved ourselves with the war, and that it was right. Jews were being exterminated just because of their religious views. Hitler was going "berserk" during that time period and we should have taken action earlier. Italy had a roaring fascist society which could hurt democracy in the world.
Mlk or Malcolm X The two most prominent figures during the civil rights acts of the 1960’s, were Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. These two men were pertinacious in fighting for racial equality for African Americans and all colored people; they both sought to tackle their common problem through the teachings, and doctrines they had been taught. Unfortunately, they had different strategies in achieving the social and economic equality they dreamed of, MLK preached nonviolent civil disobedience and the complete integration of society while Malcolm X fought to keep society segregated, but did not want the whites controlling anything the blacks did. MLk’s teaching was most effective and surpassed Malcolm X in achieving the desired goals because it was more accepted by society and it happened in a nonthreatening manner. MLK advocated for civil disobedience and positive tensions within a community to create a basis for negotiation.
He speaks of solving problems for them not with them. For example, Quayle states; “we can start by dismantling a welfare system that encourages dependency and subsidizes broken families.” The way he articulates his solutions indicates that he clearly sees the blacks as a handicapped people. Thus, the white man must parent the black people as a father does his son. Quayle shows dexterity in using religious belief to influence his compatriots that the black man should learn to be like the white man. He says: “we are as our children recite every morning, one nation under God.” The Vice-President desired the black man to be assimilated in some sort and to respect the white man for his unseen ability to rectify all difficulties.
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.
Martin Luther King continues by referencing the Declaration of Independence and Abraham Lincoln, stating that great historical figures had realised the need for human rights of all people to be respected, but that the “Negro still lives on the lonely island of poverty”. Martin Luther King states that he felt this historical act was, in a way, a promise to all of mankind that equality would be met but “America had defaulted on this promissory note”. Mr King continues through this part of the speech with the belief that “justice” needs to be met and that this will enable the black community the “riches of freedom”. Martin Luther King continues, asking for these promises to finally be upheld or expect consequences from the black community, stating that it would be “fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment...And there will be neither rest nor tranquillity in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights”. Mr King then makes a plea towards the black population, asking them “not to be guilty of wrongful deeds”, to be disciplined and have dignity while this process played out.
What actually is the right way to approach ‘moving on’? It would seem it is engraved in human nature to be selfish and seek revenge, but what does that really lead to? In Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, for instance, King suggests a brotherhood between blacks and whites rather than dwelling on an unequal past. Suu Kyi even illustrates in John Pilger’s, “Icon of Hope” interview, that the people of Burma cannot progress without a degree of openness to diminish a lack of trust with one another. Chiefly, Mandela’s “Inauguration Speech” suggests that everyone is apart of each other, thus proving there needs to be harmony in a relationship of grievance.
He also explains the goals and solutions of the problem which the black population was facing consistently. Later, he gives the opinion that the fate of white people is tied up with the destiny of the black and their peaceful coexistence is essential for the progress and prosperity of the state. He then moves on to describe the potential of the population that has not been allowed to participate in the progress of the country. He argued that if given respect, opportunity and responsibility, the African Americans would be capable enough to be active participants in nation building. He beautifully told that it is the duty of the government to uproot the racial discrimination between the blacks and whites.