Stride Toward Freedom (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) p. 235-238
Necessary to Protect Ourselves (Interview of Malcolm X by Les Crane) p. 239-240
Questions to guide your response.
- What do you think is similar in these works in terms of author’s purpose, voice, etc.?
- What is different in these pieces (again, think critically!)?
- What are the authors’ messages to their audience?
- What was the injustice that the author is speaking about?
- Relate either of these two figures to a contemporary figure in some way.
These questions are to guide your post. Feel free to talk freely about these two works. Do not feel confined to only answering these questions. Additionally, remember that you have to respond to two of your peers comments within your class period (please refer to their screen name while responding).
Email me your alias ela11mr.wind@gmail.com
43 comments:
The piece by Martin Luther King differs from the piece by Malcolm X in that one expresses violence while the other expresses non-violence. My incite on violence is that it is a form of ignorance, so meaning if someone punches you it does give a right to stand up for yourself and punch them back ,but by hitting them back it is shows that you gave into their ignorance. As the saying goes treat others as you would want to be treated.
The piece by Martin Luther King and Malcolm X are all about debating on whether or not to use violence or be non-violent. Being non-violent is probably the best choice for me. Be a respectful person and dont bring yourself to the level of violence. treat yourself with respect and treat others with respect.
I agree with the last post on how violence is ignorant and hitting someone back is just bringing you down to a level of ignorance. There is no point in taking an eye for an eye...it will not change the past.
I think that Martian Luther King Jr was right in asking others to be non-violent. Non-violence my take more time to change the what you are protesting against however, violence lands you in a heck of a lot of trouble, with the law and later when you are thinking back and asking yourself if it was worth it. I agree with both liveurlife1230 and chudz, stooping down to that level of ignorance is just that, ignorant. It does not take much to lose control and hit someone but, it takes a ton more to stand there and get it beat out of you without doing anything back.
I agree with chudz i like the reference from class an eye for an eye and i do believe you can't change the past...I agree with da_flipper in that to act in violence takes control to stop and think is it worth hurting someone else becuase of my ignorance.
I believe that Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X have some things in common but in reality it is more that is different than the same. King practices non-violence to achieve what he is going for, no segregation, while Malcolm X practices violence to get the same point across. Both of these men are going for the same goal but go at it a different way.
I agree with the last blog in which each man fought for the same goal, but did it in a different way. Matin Luther King chose to be non-violent,while Macolm X was for violence. Each fought for the same thing it just that they had different views on the subject and everyone is entitled to their opinion.
i belive martin luther king jr was a diffrence maker in the socity in the fifty's and the sixty's
The piece by Martinn Luther King and the piece by Malcolm X are the same in that both are trying to fight for what they believe which is civil rights for African Americans. However they are different in the way that Martin Luther King uses non-violence and Malcolm X uses a more violent approach. I think Malcolm X is right because no one will listen if you do no use some sort of action. Peaceful protesting will not change anything.
I agree with what Hinton said that there were both difference makers but I would just have to say that they were difference makers in different ways.
I also have to agree with totally with liveurlife1230. This person said exactly what I was trying to say but I could not think of the correct wording for it.
I feel although both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were both trying to reach the same common goal of equality, that Martin Luther King was more determined than Malcolm X to keep peace within our nation. I believe as liveurlife1230 somewhat described, that violence displays weakness and only shows the strength we lack. I also agree with da_flipper when it was said that violence is just the easy way out, where as transforming as a person requires a great amount of strength. Taking the non-violent path could result in growth as human beings while also taking a step towards making the world a better place.
I think that both Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X played crucial parts in achieving african american equality. Dr. King preached the significance of a non-violent protesting. He felt that commiting violent acts would bring African Americans down to the level of their oppressors. On the other hand Malcolm X had a more militant approach. I personally tend to side more with Dr. King. I believe that in this case violence would create more obstacles while complicating existing ones. Revolutions do not require violence. In the end the mind is the most powerful weapon.
i disagree with iloveobx on the fact that martin luther king was more determined. I think they were both equally determined, but had different views on how to achieve their goals.
I agree with likeurlife1230 views on ignorance. I think that violent acts are carried out by those of weaker minds, and that it would take an equally weak mind to retaliate by violent means
i also disagree with iluvenglish's post. There are many examples though out history of change with out violence. Under Gandhi India was liberated from british rule, and ultimately civil right were achieved without violent acts
In each speech, the orators develop contrasting ideas of how black oppression should be ended. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. believes that non-violent action must be taken to rebel against oppression. Malcolm X disagrees with King and believes that violence is the most effective way to bring about change. I believe that while either idea might work, King's idea of non-violent resistant would be the better choice. It takes true courage to not resort to violence, and it is more ethically sound to peacefully rebel, rather than to rebel using physical violence.
I agree with chubby chaser's post. I think that violence would bring about a violent reaction among the oppressors; therefore if you give violence, you receive it in return. This creates war and chaos and causes people to lose focus on what they were fighting for in the first place, an end to oppression.
I agree with chudz's comment. You should not compromise your own beliefs or morals in order to stand up for something you believe in. Also, it is more likely to receive respect when you give it to others, rather than if you were to disrespect someone and then have them respect you.
Both Martin Luther King ang Malcolm X are going for the same goal but in different ways. Martin Luther king is using non-violence. And Malcolm x is using violence.
I agree with iloveobx about Martin Luther king is more determined. Martin Luther King definetely seemed like he was more determined than Malcolm X
i agree with chudz that non violence is better than violence. With nonviolent resistance, no individual or group need submit to any wrong, nor need anyone resort to violence in order to right a wrong.
i believe that both dr king and Malcolm x played an enormous role in achieving African American rights in American society. Dr king was a preacher that spoke about using non-violence to gain success. his beliefs are based off Gandhi and others. Malcolm x tried to warn blacks about staying away from the preaching type. He hints at violence in his speaking....i agree with Connor(chubby chaser) on saying that violence can create more problems for the afrcan americans. i would also agree with "iloveobx" on the statement about, "Taking the non-violent path could result in growth as human beings while also taking a step towards making the world a better place." that is a very good statement about Dr. king and his philosophy.
thank you and have a nice day.
Both speakers are referring to the discrimination of African Americans but they have different views on how to stand up against it. Martin Luther King Jr. speaks of peaceful justice while Malcolm X believes that the only way to stop the injustice is to use violence. I used to believe and on some occasions, still believe that violence could solve conflicts.
After learning about Martin Luther King Jr., I was amazed at what his peaceful protests could manage. I look up to him because I think that it takes an even stronger person to be peaceful and to not use violence.
Martin Luther King would rather debate than attack the oppressor unlike Malcolm X. I agree that non-violence is a better way to solve the inequality.
I agree with da_flipper; it takes some guts to stand in front of a big crowd of people and fight for your beliefs. Violence just causes another conflict and no solutions to the original issue.
Martin Luther King was preaching to fight for their rights in a peaceful manner, while Malcolm X was the opposite by saying to use violence. But they are both still trying to get the same thing, equal rights for African Americans. I believe that violence helps in some situations and that there is a time and place for it. But I think that non violence works better in more situations and is a better choice. I agree with I luv English, no one will listen if you do not use some sort of action. I also agree with Krtegirl67 when she says it takes true courage not to resort to violence.
Martin Luther King was preaching to fight for their rights in a peaceful manner, while Malcolm X was the opposite by saying to use violence. But they are both still trying to get the same thing, equal rights for African Americans. I believe that violence helps in some situations and that there is a time and place for it. But I think that non violence works better in more situations and is a better choice. I agree with I luv English, no one will listen if you do not use some sort of action. I also agree with Krtegirl67 when she says it takes true courage not to resort to violence.
i agree with krtegirl67 that violence just loses focus on the main idea. It takes more courage to resort to non-violence and more patience to get your message across to those who need to hear it rather than using violence which gets public notice immediately but sends the wrong message.
I agree with the statement that Hinton said about Martin Luther King being a differenc maker but I think he could have been more effective if he used some violence.
I dont agree with chubby chaser because it is shown throughout history the only effective way to solve problems is to use some sort of violence.
Both works express ways to confront the problem of inequality that African Americans faced. Their Purpose is exactly the same, however the means by which the authors hope to accomplish it are drastically different. While violence can be an effective tool for achieving a change socially or politically. I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King more than Malcom X. While many African Americans didnt like King, he preached a message of nonviolence which non racist whites could identify with. It seems as though that if Malcom X's ways would have detered potential White civil rights advocates from supporting him. X's initial allegiance with the Nation of Islam added to this with their idea of black seperatism which in a way is no different than the racists they were working against. This would have not been effective since you need cooperation and understanding from both Black and White people.
i Disagree with Liveurlife1230 on how violence is a form of ignorance. Anger is a normal human emotion, which causes some people to be violent. Obviously there are better ways to deal than being violent. Moreover, If someone physically attacks you and you hit them back, its not giving into their ignorance. its physically defending yourself
I disagree with iluvenglish on how nonviolent protests change nothing. When people protested the vietnam war, and some were killed it changed public opinion of how the government treats its citizens who were only doing something that is guaranteed to them constitution.
The piece my Martin Luther King and Malcom X are pieces of totally different things. i believe in Martin Luther King. Being nonviolent is how i want to be treated. i believe Chudz kinda explains it how i would have explained it.
i strongly agree with Malcom X. i believe that if you stay in the shadows and if you dont voice your opinion about what you believe, then nothing will ever get accomplished. i dont mean violence and killing, i mean just doing "something" to get your point across, making people notice you and notice what you believe in.
the speech by martin luther king is different from malcolm X because martin luther king expresses his ideals by non-violence which i believe is the best wat to achieve what you are trying to achieve because if you use violence you can give you self a bad rep.
i agree with Malcom X because violence can strongly help your cause. We shouldent always use violence but i can be a last resort. I also agree with Matrin Luther King because being peacefull will take longer but is still effective.
to moeeegan; i agree with your blog. if we stand around and do nothing we will not get anywhere.
to moeeegan i strongly disagree with you because i believe in non-violence
i agree with chubby chaser because i believe in non-violence is key and martin luther is more determined
to starbabe7738 violence is the answer. world wars are solved with violence not with peaceful protests.
i disagree with h0tpanther1 it doesnt matter if world wars are settled with violence. Violence is just showing that your week and you are giving in to their wants.non violence seems ineffective but it has proven to work on many occations.with non violence your not doing anything wrong but when you start using violence its a crime.
mr.wind i enjoyed the wsay taught us the last couple weeks because the unit was very interesting. such as the def poetry jams and the sitting in the circle the last couple days. i like the circle idea because you can see the person talking and get their full understanding what the are talking about
Post a Comment