EF_Sean
Mar 12, 2009
Writing Feedback / "Malcolm X and Dr King" esssay, fighting inequality [5]
Now that Kevin's mentioned it, King does seem to be the more admirable and effective figure. King fought for justice in an unjust system, while still showing respect for that system. He understood that a society with laws was better than one without them, even as he recognized that some laws could be, and were, unjust. His courage and determination have inspired millions. Malcolm X, in contrast, started out as a violent criminal and ended as a racist radical. Still, that wouldn't matter if X had been more influential than King, which is what your thesis claims. While I don't really believe that, I think a case can be made for it. You'd have to argue that King's non-violent resistance really only worked because of the potential for violence. That is, the thousands of protesters he organized were non-violent as per King's example, but the government understood that if King's complaints about the racism in the system continued to be ignored, those same people might eventually embrace the radicalism of Malcolm X. So, King succeeds through an implicit threat of violence that existed in the public consciousness only because of people like Malcolm X.
To recap, it would be way easier to say that King was more influential. If you really want to argue in favor of Malcolm X, though, you can do so. At the moment, however, you present no compelling evidence for your thesis.
Now that Kevin's mentioned it, King does seem to be the more admirable and effective figure. King fought for justice in an unjust system, while still showing respect for that system. He understood that a society with laws was better than one without them, even as he recognized that some laws could be, and were, unjust. His courage and determination have inspired millions. Malcolm X, in contrast, started out as a violent criminal and ended as a racist radical. Still, that wouldn't matter if X had been more influential than King, which is what your thesis claims. While I don't really believe that, I think a case can be made for it. You'd have to argue that King's non-violent resistance really only worked because of the potential for violence. That is, the thousands of protesters he organized were non-violent as per King's example, but the government understood that if King's complaints about the racism in the system continued to be ignored, those same people might eventually embrace the radicalism of Malcolm X. So, King succeeds through an implicit threat of violence that existed in the public consciousness only because of people like Malcolm X.
To recap, it would be way easier to say that King was more influential. If you really want to argue in favor of Malcolm X, though, you can do so. At the moment, however, you present no compelling evidence for your thesis.
