Malcolm X's tactic of using violence to end inequality was more effective than Martin Luther King's approach. Malcolm X was born on May 19, 1925 in Omaha, Nebraska. He's upbringing had a big impact towards he feelings of inequality and how it should be handled.
Malcolm X and Dr. King had opposing views on how to end inequality. Malcolm X at a young age was told by a teacher that he had unrealistic goal for his race, this caused Malcolm to become very upset and drop out of school. Since then he moved around a lot, and had many small jobs. While away from Nebraska Malcolm started being involved in crimes. They were small, but had an impact of him. This impact had a cause when Malcolm was sent to jail for seven years. While there a friend came and visited him, and made him aware of the Islam belief. This intrigued Malcolm, and he started to teaching himself more about the religion. During this time, Malcolm learned of the Islam leader Elijah Muhammad. Muhammad taught that white society actively worked to keep African-Americans from empowering themselves and achieving political, economic and social success. Among other goals, the Nation of Islam fought for a state of their own, separate from white people. By the time he was on parole in 1952, Malcolm was a devoted follower of the Islam religion. He gave himself the last name "X." He considered "Little" a slave name and chose the "X" to signify his lost tribal name. Malcolm was awarded the position of minister and national spokesperson of the Islam nation. Due to the heightened racial tension in the 1960's the FBI become more aware of Malcolm X and the nation of Islam. They began planted bugs wiretaps and cameras surveillance equipment to monitor the group's activities. After President John F. Kennedy's assassination, Malcolm ended his relationship with the nation of Islam. Be began his own organization called Muslim Mosque, Inc. After joining he left the states for awhile, upon returning he had a new found knowledge to share to all races. People weren't happy with Malcolm's messages and many tired to kill him. This caused Malcolm's travels to ceased. He was finally shot and killed during one of his speeches in New York. Whereas Martin Luther King developed a four step program at which was nonviolent. They developed a campaign of facts to determine whether injustice existed. This step was found to be very overwhelming to the black leaders. They used all the information gathered for their benefit. They found that racial injustices surrounded the whole community. The Negro population was not getting the right amount of respect from everyone else. The negotiations that the black leaders tried to obtain was seen as useless. They felt this way because the negotiations ended up being broken promises. For example promises were made the people would remove racial signs from their window, which never occurred. This was a great disappointment to the leaders. They now saw more reason for their nonviolent act of protest. All the major people refused to find negotiations with the black leaders. Self-purification was a major step in the campaign that the black leaders used. This step was used to ensure that the men would be able to keep themselves inline during the direct-action step. This was a time where the men received training so they'd be able to stay strong. They had to repeatedly ask themselves whether or not they were could withstand torture and not retaliate. Direct action was used in the final steps in the campaign the black leaders used. During the Direct-action step they were creating a crisis situation in order to reach negotiation. This tactic seemed to work well for them. At first they planned to take this step during Easter season, but changed their minds frequently. By creating the crisis situation they would be able to get men away from prejudice and racial discrimination.
These two major men in history played a huge role in the end to inequality. They took different approaches and in the end, Malcolm X's was seen as more successful as while over Martin Luther Kings. Without these men, there still might be inequality today.
what is the prompt for this essay?
You need to add more transitions to connect up your ideas. Also, you should focus more on explaining why Malcolm X's approach was more effective than King's, if that is your thesis. I'd suggest you start by reorganizing your essay. Instead of talking about Malcolm X for half the essay, then about King for the other half, why don't you alternate between them? So, choose one element of Malcolm X's approach, then compare/contrast that element with King's. Then move on the next element of Malcolm X's approach, and repeat the process.
The first sentence shouts out the thesis statement without saying anything to support it... and then you go into a typical biography type thing that does not support the thesis. I think you should extend the first sentence to become a whole intro paragraph, and then start the 2nd para with his personal history.
In fact, the thing to do is add 3 sentences before the beginning of this, so that the assertion that he was more effective comes at the end of the first para. THEN, go to para #2:
Malcolm X was born on May 19, 1925 in Omaha, Nebraska. He's upbringing had a big impact on his feelings of inequality and how it should be handled.
Okay, now that I read the rest of the essay, I see that it does not talk about King enough to justify mentioning King in the title. Is this supposed to be an expository essay about Malcolm X, a compare/contrast about im vs. King, or a persuasive essay to argue your point? That is the question I need you to answer before I can give good advice!
You are going to have a hard time arguing that violence was more effective than King's eloquence and idealism. Perhaps you should argue that Malcolm X is a truer example of human nature.
Have you ever read King's letter from Birmingham Jail? It is available online. Also, check out The Fire Next Time by Baldwin. Both of those are the length of smal books, and they are brilliant!!!
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.
