He was arrested more than once for resisting the government. His view on just and unjust laws was that an unjust law did not harmonize with the moral law- it just was not right. Martin Luther King Jr. did not want to "evade or defy the law as a rabid segregationist would", but he did not want to stand there and let the government do him and other African Americans wrong; therefore, he broke only the unjust laws, and he did so openly. Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. were two men fighting against unfair laws peacefully. Peacefully is the key word.
sMalcom X versus Martin Luther King Emily Voutes Malcolm X (1925-1965): Even his own name is a stab to the opinions of prejudice white folks during his era. This is true because his own, self declared last name "X" represents "the rejection of slave-names” and the absence of an inherited African name to take its place." Meaning that he was prepared to create a personal identity that represented himself and his race, and not a name that a white man forced upon him. Though they had similar characteristics and morals; his approach to the civil rights movement compared to the strategies of other civil rights leaders of his time, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. differed greatly. Rather than trying to integrate the black community into the white, Malcom X focused on the complete separation of the two races.
MLK advocated for civil disobedience and positive tensions within a community to create a basis for negotiation. Socially he wanted people to be able to communicate their opinions and views across without coming off as a physical or violent threat to the public. He believed in peaceful protesting and boycotts which acknowledged the fact that there were also white Americans who fought and marched right along them for the same cause. Unlike MLK, Malcolm’s view was quite different in contrast because he believed that one should fight fire with fire, which only burns both parties. His teaching could not be as effective because he neglected the influence the white members would have on the movement, by resenting them as a race, therefore handicapping his popularity and likelihood of success within the various white communities.
Washington and Frederick Douglass both believed that slavery was detestable. They also creed that the prejudice of the Americans was unacceptable and that the blacks deserved more credit than what they recieved. Booker and Frederick believed that all humans are equal and that if the whites and blacks worked together, America would benefit more from the unity than from slavery. Although Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington's view of slavery and prejudice are similar, their view of forgivness were not quite the same. Booker forgave the whites for their enslaving blacks and prejudice, but Frederick hated this act of immoral behaviour and did not quite forgive the
A slave was treated like property and not like a Human Being and owned by other Human Being's. Many people believed Slavery was morally wrong and wanted to do something about it. Granville Sharp was one of the first and greatest campaigners against slavery. He did not manage to abolish the slave trade but still was able to turn the public’s opinion against slavery. He also believed that slavery was sinful and against some religions.
Also, as a Civil Rights leader he must convince the enemy to stop hating blacks. A brave step in the opposite direction, Campbell visits “Klan County.” He writes,” I made the trip to what was being referred to by Peter Young as Klan County” (Campbell 246). Will was crazy to go visit Klansmen who he was fighting against. The change, however, did no harm. Campbell says, “I didn’t lie to them and they didn’t lie to me.
He can truthfully deny what the clergymen said about the police force calmly handling the demonstrators. In opposition and in a somewhat sarcastic tone he stated, “You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping “order” and “preventing violence.” He of all people would really know how colored people were treated. He followed with an excellent use of pathos. “I doubt you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negros here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls…” The clergymen should feel obligated to recant what they had previously said about commending the police
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.
This also gives the police the chance to brutalise the blacks which would damage the image of black people as the white citizens wouldn’t want to help the black if they are involved in violence. So Malcolm X use of violence would lose him supporters for his campaign, which will decrease his campaigns popularity and so the federal government would have no reason to support the demands of the black civil rights. Another organisation also worked to introduce the idea of self-defence. The BPP argued that black people needed an organised defence as they could not trust the police or the US justice system. According to Huey Newton a leader of the BPP the police ‘occupied’ the black ghettos, so the BPP organised its own peoples’ army who patrolled black neighbourhoods
The perspective of whites to blacks is no sympathy, because of gang crime. The perspective of whites to blacks is inequality due to blacks only owning bad land, while whites get the nice land. The author oversimplifies the issue, but shows with motifs and symbols there is hope for a change. The novel does not reach its goal to offer a balanced portrayal of the black and whit perspectives without condemning either side. Blacks condemn whites for land while whites condemn blacks for crime in major