Martin Luther King and Malcolm X: Comparing Their Impact
The roles of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X have tended to be compared alongside the ongoing civil rights movement that took place during their lifetimes. Indeed, the eventual impact they achieve is a key component of comparison, but this usually neglects the influence they had at the grassroots. Instead, it is more effective to compare their roles by understanding the philosophical, spiritual, and intellectual journey that they both undertook. The first section of the essay will provide a brief biographic summary which will highlight the reasoning as to why Malcolm X and King adopted different ideological routes. Secondly, through the comparison of their rhetoric, this will convey the separate ways both left their mark. The essay will then end by reflecting on the potential merging of their ideologies before their deaths.
Malcolm X and King’s early years presented vastly different experiences that would create two distinct personalities. King was born in 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia, into a middle-class family steeped in Christian tradition, with both his father and grandfather being preachers at the Ebenezer Baptist Church. King would receive a full education, graduating from the Crozer Theological Seminary with a PhD in theology, and finally becoming a pastor. Two years later, King would be thrust into the limelight with the Montgomery Bus Boycott which would make him one of the most prominent black leaders in America. After founding and being elected the president of the SCLC in 1957, he became the ‘unofficial face’ of the civil rights movement, aged 27.
Malcolm X’s rise to prominence was markedly different. Born Malcolm Little in 1925, Omaha, he would spend much of his childhood in rural settings. His family would move to Michigan but leave soon after, following the burning down of his house and murder of his father by the Black Legion Society – a white supremacist group – as his father would preach Marcus Garvey’s works, an activist who believed in separatism. Malcolm was 6 at the time, and soon after his mother was institutionalised in a mental facility as he and his siblings were divided amongst other guardians. He would not complete his education, enrolling in the 7th grade and leaving in the 8th after his teacher believed his plans to be a lawyer were inappropriate for a black child, and should do carpentry instead. Rejected by the housing and schooling systems, he turned to hustling picking up the nickname ‘Detroit Red’ but was sentenced to 10 years in prison for robbery, aged 21. During this period, he became widely read and attracted to the Nation of Islam, and following his release, he would become the Minister under Elijah Muhammad’s superintendence. In the following years he would preach the same separatist and anti-white rhetoric his father and Garvey had preached, when he and the Nation would be propelled into the mainstream following the release of the documentary "The Hate That Hate Produced" in 1959.
The contrasting trajectories of their rise is apparent with Malcolm X experiencing the visceral harshness of American racism, whilst King was shielded from its worse effects. King did experience racism, noting in his biography the “angriest I have ever been” was the moment when he was forced to surrender his seat to a white passenger, and another instance where he could not be friends with a white child when he was five years of age. But when compared to the institutional racism Malcolm X faced – rejected by the housing, schooling, and judicial system – it becomes apparent as to why the two adopted separate paths towards the race issue.
Identifying King’s impact is relatively straightforward with his peaceful protests in Birmingham, his March on Washington, and his assassination attaining the Civil Rights Bill (1964), Voting Rights Bill (1965), and Housing Act (1968), and his “I Have a Dream Speech” being regarded as the symbolic highpoint of the civil rights movement. The same cannot be said for Malcolm X who failed to build a serious political movement or any fixed policy. But taking into consideration the aforementioned biographical details, we see that their surroundings greatly shaped their personalities and pursuits. Whereas King’s rhetoric was shaped by his formal education – enabling him to study Ghandi’s nonviolence doctrine, Rauschenbush’s Social Gospel, and Hegel, Nietzsche, and Marx’s works – Malcolm X’s rhetoric was constrained and shaped by the Nation of Islam’s ideology, which espoused black supremacy and white deviltry. Despite spending 12 of the 13 remaining years of his life with the Nation, where his preaching mixed with baseless anti-white claims and his agency was almost entirely controlled by Elijah Muhammad, he still managed to have a profound impact.
Malcolm X’s semantic sphere revolved around injustice, outrage and dual images of strength and weakness, characteristic of the hustler society he was raised in.
“Do you know why the white man really hates you? It's because every time he sees your face, he sees a mirror of his crime – and his guilty conscience can't bear to face it!”
Malcolm X’s synthesis of historical injustices, none greater than slavery, to the contemporary plight of black social status and his unyielding condemnation of the perpetrators enabled him to create a radical view of the black experience in America. Julius Lester claimed, “Malcolm X said aloud those things which Negros had been afraid to say to each other. His clear, uncomplicated words cut through the chains on black minds like a giant blow-torch.” What was interpreted by some as ‘black supremacy’ or ‘black militancy’ was alternatively viewed by many as ‘black empowerment’, as Malcolm X’s words resonated with African Americans because he embodied their experience. This not only gave them a source of self-reliance, but pushed them into further activism. Malcolm X can therefore be credited with influencing, perhaps even initiating, the Black Power and Black Panther Movements that began after his death in 1965. It is perhaps for this reason that Archie Epps described Malcolm’s contribution of the “inner emancipation” of black Americans as the most important achievement of the civil rights movement.
For King, nonviolence was an ethical imperative and commitment to it was non-negotiable.
“All other methods have failed… Nonviolence is a good starting point. Those of us who believe in this method can be voices of reason, sanity, and understanding amid the voices of violence, hatred, and emotion. We can set a mood of peace out of which a system of peace can be built.”
Indeed, it can be said that King was looking at the long-term whilst Malcolm X’s methods of immediate activism were short-term, but King’s Hegelian concept of “struggle as a law of growth” and peaceful protests as a method of “converting the oppressors into friends” was far-fetched for many. This opened him up to criticism of directing his activism to ‘middle-class blacks’ and ‘appeasing’ whites. King’s advisor Bayard Rustin noted how his explanation of nonviolence to black Southern audiences were often “very confusing and frustrating to his followers.” Rosa Parks, standard-bearer of the Montgomery Boycott, said, “Dr King used to say that black people should receive brutality with love… but I couldn’t reach that point in my mind at all.” Malcolm X provided the alternative.
Despite Malcolm X being unable to assert a discernible political impact, his contribution of empowering the conscience of African Americans in the Northern ghettos was equally as important as the political progress King made in the South. This dichotomy provided a balance to the civil rights movement that was critical to its growth, as Colin Morris mentioned that America needed King and Malcolm X “just as India had to have both Gandhi and Nehru”, because “however much the disciples of passive resistance detest violence, they are politically impotent without it.” Furthermore, King regarded the black Muslims as a constructive challenge, with Stephen Oates suggesting their actions made “him and the SCLCL work with renewed vigour” in order to make their movement seem more acceptable to whites, who King believed would embrace them as the lesser evil. King said:
“While I strongly disagree with their separatist black supremacy philosophy, I have nothing but admiration for what our Muslim brothers have done to rehabilitate ex-convicts, dope addicts and men and women who, through despair and self-hatred, have sunk to moral degeneracy.”
The ideological differences between King and Malcolm X was their greatest barrier to unity. Malcolm X believed King’s strategy played into the hands of white oppressors, calling him a “20th-century Uncle Tom” who feared “irking his white bosses.” King did not directly respond but noted the “danger” of black supremacy and categorically rejected the separatist ideology. Beneath the fiery rhetoric however, there was an underlining respect. Malcolm X was aware the damage such conflict could do to all black movements and wanted to prevent those who wished to “divide and conquer” the black masses, as did King.
Malcolm X’s disillusionment with the Nation was the first step to breaking down this barrier. There were many reasons for his departure, but the most important was that he had “intellectually outgrown” the Nation as the subsequent 11-months after March 1964 represented a redefined Malcolm X. After leaving, he founded the Organisation of Afro-American Unity and travelled to countries in Africa and Europe, where he was profoundly affected by the overt racism in the UK and France, the revolutionary independence movements in Algeria and other African colonies, and his pilgrimage to Mecca where he saw Muslims of “all colours” interacting as equals, leading him to convert to Sunni Islam. His ideology consequently shifted from anti-white separatism to seeking reforms through the guise of pan-African nationalism, the UN, and human rights.
King was undergoing a transformation himself during this period. Prior to 1965, King’s activism was shaped by Christian principles and idealism, believing racism in the South was an anachronism that would eventually be outnumbered. But by 1966, he had realised that racism in America was endemic and would not be overturned by piecemeal reforms. Even after major civil rights legislations, police brutality continued, and when demands for housing and education reform were made, white support faded. King wrote in late-1966 that “only a minority of whites genuinely want authentic equality… the vast majority of white Americans are racists” – a conclusion Malcolm X had reached decades earlier. Adam Fairclough highlighted that King’s disenchantment was rooted in his objection of capitalism which was reinforced by America’s decision to intervene in Vietnam. Particularly during the last two years of his life (1966-68), King was convinced that capitalism was the “common denominator that linked racism, economic exploitation, and militarism.”
This overlapped with Malcolm X who similarly opposed capitalism and American militarism. This can be seen in the various interviews he did after 1964, such as his interview with Young Socialist:
“It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to suck.”
Both realised that racism was part of a wider encroachment that stemmed from America’s “vulture-like” capitalist mentality which had created the destitute socioeconomic circumstances of African Americans. Neither endorsed socialism, but their focus shifted towards critiquing the fundamental flaws of America’s structural setup. They argued this to such an extent that James Baldwin believed “by the time both met their deaths, there was practically no difference between them.”
While King’s legacy is plastered over America with a four-acre memorial in Washington and a national holiday dedicated to him, Malcolm X’s legacy is seen more through popular culture and student movements, such as Alex Haley’s autobiography (1965) and Spike Lee’s movie (1991). This was reflective of the audiences they reached and the imprint each left behind. Despite the merging of their ideologies after 1965, no one can say with certainty that Malcolm X and King would have united, but the alliance formed by their daughters, Yolanda King and Attallah Shabazz, adds further intrigue. In an interview in 1989, Yolanda said: “When my father [King] was in jail, Malcolm sent him a telegram. When Malcolm was killed, my father sent Attallah’s mother a telegram. Nobody knows about that. All they hear is, ‘Dr. King said Dee-dah-dah and Malcolm said Dee-dah-dah.’ So that must mean they are completely opposed and don’t like each other, which was not the case.” Yolanda ended:
“If they had lived just five more years together, that’s all our families and this country would have needed.”