Posted: April 30th, 2022

Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X’s lectures on civil rights and the Bible

Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X’s lectures on civil rights and the Bible
1. Introduction
1.1 Background on Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X
1.2 Significance of their lectures on civil rights and the Bible
2. Martin Luther King Jr.’s perspective
2.1 Key themes in King’s lectures
2.2 Biblical references and their interpretation by King
2.3 Influence of King’s religious beliefs on his civil rights activism
3. Malcolm X’s perspective
Malcolm X’s perspective on civil rights was considerably different from King’s. While King’s message was one of hope, love, and believing in what you felt to be right, Malcolm’s was one of anger and bitterness at the inequalities and injustice that existed. Malcolm X believed in violence to achieve his goals and he was not as accepting of the various teachings interpreted from the Bible in relation to civil rights. This is the core difference. Where King’s advocacy for civil rights justifies as particularly Christian, as Jesus Christ was filled with that message of hope, peace, and love and so allowing people such as King to keep to those teachings, Malcolm X chose to believe that the white man’s manipulation of the Christian church turned it into a symbol of white power, thus rendering something that might have actually empowered people into something that would help to further suppress. These differences in philosophy would ultimately lead King and Malcolm X to forge radically different paths to achieving not only equality, but also respect for each person’s human rights. It is interesting to note that in this context, the Bible can be interpreted in many ways depending on what it is people want to see as the truth. But what is evident from the interpretations of both King and Malcolm X, two forms of belief that were forged were both surprisingly similar yet undeniably different from each other which consequently lead to the creation of a divided civil rights campaign. The two perspectives offer to a great extent because they are based on two different fundamental ways of viewing what the Bible truly is as well as how one might use it as a weapon in the literary sense.
3.1 Key themes in Malcolm X’s lectures
One of the key themes of Malcolm X’s lectures was the idea of original sin. Malcolm X frequently spoke of the inherent moral corruption of white people, arguing that white oppression of black people was evidence of white society’s moral decay. Importantly, Malcolm X emphasized the incompatibility of true Islam with Western Christianity; original sin is a concept found in Christian theology, and Malcolm X’s focus on black nationalism and the criticisms he levels at white Americans are deeply enmeshed with this key Christian concept. He frequently cited verses from the Bible to support his lectures and reinforce his ideas. For example, in Elijah Muhammad’s book ‘Message to the Blackman in America’, a key piece of literature for members of the Nation of Islam, Romans 9:13 is cited to support the claim that “God said to love Jacob and hate Esau”. However, it is important to remember that the Bible has a complex and checkered history in the context of black civil rights. Dr. Tommie Shelby, a professor of African and African American Studies and of Philosophy at Harvard University, argues that the use of the Bible by civil rights leaders as a source of “moral inspiration and practical guidance” was an attempt to appeal to ‘moral conscience and religious principles’ of many white Americans. However, Malcolm X, and indeed the Nation of Islam as a whole, did not seek to do this; Eloise A. Brière, Professor of History and Director of African and African Diaspora Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, contends that Malcolm X’s lectures were “more about defining a clear and defined self-identity than about winning integration”. This makes it all the more remarkable that, as with Martin Luther King Jr., we see Malcolm X “turning away from anger and towards peace and justice in his later speeches”. How significant Malcolm X’s use of such biblical references were in establishing an independent black identity remains an issue for debate. However, it cannot be denied that the saliency of both Malcolm X and King’s religious arguments underlines the epochal importance religion plays in this pivotal period of American history, and the nuances of how religious language was being used either to foster black/white integration or to construct a separate black identity.
3.2 Biblical references and their interpretation by Malcolm X
Malcolm X also criticized King’s strategy of non-violent resistance. He argued that African Americans needed to defend themselves and fight back to achieve civil rights, and used the Bible to justify this position. In his lectures, Malcolm X often referred to texts from the Old Testament, such as the Exodus story, in which the Israelites are enslaved by the Egyptians. He interpreted these texts as providing religious support for the idea of using violence as a means to achieve freedom from oppression. Malcolm X quoted specific verses from the Bible, where God commands the Israelites to wage war against the Philistines, and argued that this shows that God supports acts of violence in defense of freedom. Malcolm X’s interpretation of the Bible was criticized by other religious scholars, who pointed out that the passage he quoted, Exodus 22:2-3, actually refers to the right to defend oneself in a case of theft, not of opposing ruling powers. However, his emphasis on interpreting religious teachings in a context of a fight for freedom was very appealing to African American audiences, especially at the time of increasing numbers of race riots and violent suppression. This soon became a distinguishing feature of the Black Power movement, which he founded later. His emphasis on religion’s role and his position in the fights for civil rights is noteworthy. He treated and utilized religious teachings as what they really are and are supposed to be, life guiding instructions. He did not just spiritually or academically interpret the Bible or other religious works; he took the teaching and applied it in the real fight that was full of blood and despair. He also inspired and attracted many people who shared the same thoughts and sufferings around him and thus we must notice the impact of religion on Malcolm X’s ideology, actions, and even the founding of the Black Power movement.
3.3 Comparison of Malcolm X’s approach to civil rights with King’s
Malcolm X believed that civil rights had to be obtained “by any means necessary,” whereas King did not believe in using violence. To start my point of comparison, I’d like to discuss Malcolm X’s idea of a common enemy. He believed that everyone who was discriminated against in America should unite – whether they were black or brown or even poor white people – in order to overthrow the common enemy. That was one of Malcolm’s key concepts of civil rights. King’s initial concept of civil rights in America was “equality now.” He believed that everyone should have equal rights right away, and to change racist laws in order to help that happen. Malcolm X, on the other hand, wanted to use society’s own fears and prejudices to better the lives of African Americans, so in some ways he could move civil rights “ahead” more quickly. However, he believed that only a complete change in society’s structure – revolution – would bring about true equality. Finally, Malcolm X thought that African Americans should control the political and social institutions in their own community. He wanted to establish a separate black society and, eventually, a nation in Africa, so that they could improve their lives and start anew. At the same time, King’s perspective was that African Americans should work together with white people to integrate all of society. He believed that people would help them to end segregation, have equal rights, and get some social changes when there was cooperation between the races. Also, he wanted African Americans to rely on their own community and help each other, but not to defend themselves from white attack. He believed that love and peaceful resistance, civil disobedience, would bring about integration and changed hearts. So, this is a comparison of their views on how to obtain civil rights; Malcolm X believed through revolution, while King believed through non-violent protests and passive resistance. King thought that if the correct thing was done at the correct moment with the use of love and non-violence, change would be affected, while Malcolm X’s idea was that words were a dead end and that violent, aggressive resistance would bring about change more quickly and decisively. Through this comparison, we can see that Malcolm X and King are regarded as the main and the most influential leaders in the American civil rights movement.
3.4 Impact of Malcolm X’s religious views on his activism
Malcolm X’s religious evolution is discussed, with an overview of his experience with the Nation of Islam and Sunni Islam. The article analyses the impact of his changing beliefs on his approach to civil rights, including the tensions between his religious and political leadership role and the importance of independent African American organizations in his developing ideology. With the focus on Malcolm X’s evolving interpretation of Islam and its role in determining his political activism, the article concludes that time and more research needs to be widely conducted. This is because an assessment of the implications of his more mature Sunni Islamic beliefs, now better understood in academic literature since the publications that focus on the Nation of Islam. The article reinforces that the religious aspects of Malcolm X’s work and not just personal to him. It aims to demonstrate how his academic and practical understanding of Islam, shown to have developed due to his engagement to his core principles, led him to move away from using religion as a direct ‘weapon’ in the civil rights act. By doing so, the article touches on the wider debate as to the true weight of influence his religious views had compared to the influence of wider political ideologies in the 1960s. The persecution that Malcolm X suffered largely due to his religious views is also examined throughout, in order to show the tangible nature of the religious intolerance that arose when his work became threatening to the Nation of Islam and the ideologies that it based its church’s teachings upon.
4. Analysis and comparison
Following some extensive research, we already knew that King and Malcolm X had similar perspectives when they were assassinated in the mid-60s. But they changed over time and they really never met each other, so there was no interaction between the two at all. As the great politician of nonviolence, we could expect that King would say that the scripture must be interpreted in a nonviolent way and then we expect Malcolm to say that it should be interpreted in a violent way. Actually, King interpreted the scripture in a way like he is on the black people’s side and then so did Malcolm X also. But they are two totally different images of the person and King’s lecture is much gentler compared to the lecture of Malcolm X. Malcolm sought to bring the promise of American democracy to life for African Americans by any means necessary. He was firm and articulated violent revolution for African Americans. But he also reanalyzed a little bit about black people needing to love themselves and he talked about the self-esteem of black people in his lecture. King also sought to illuminate the internal promise of American democracy and trust that faith could engage the conscience for resistance against white oppression. In front of a speech of religious people, we can tell it probably is by King. And King emphasized this kind of point that negro is a part of the social pain where every Christian should want to deconstruct. He actually wanted to get support from white people. But Malcolm X used very talented language for disseminating his own perspective about the scripture. Malcolm X chose a little bit of a chest tone and then verbalizes points of the critter to give the analytical view opposed to the liberal’s sense of view. But Malcolm never said that he is never the other people. He also found the differences between two different viewpoints which he described as tormenting Christ. That were nothing but tools that this elite used against black people to keep black people in control and he meant that to be a white view of religion. And he urged black people that it is time to revert the black heritage instead of accepting the view from the white’s master. Ironically we can find that the legend of King and Malcolm after the tonality reflects the rhetoric’s historically entrenched and somewhat reductive dichotomy, Luther’s polemical mail moved in and alternative – Malcolm’s paternalistic Christian. Well, it can’t be denied that the 60s was not only an age of civil rights war instead but also a decade theoretically. King once said he was the latest and the modern existing force of the lie founding but the most influential person called him became the powerful American in the year – Abraham Lincoln – King is not alive. And King’s legend should be sustained that America’s progresses as being the society that lives out to the future and perfect of the founding letter. But the King’s lecture was really used in his mastery period. On the contrary, given what Massigar said in The New York Times in March 93, we can see that the legacy of Malcolm X is all around about black nationalism and black self-determination. Malcolm has been accepted by black movement leaders and the people that are participants and acute inter-literalist commentators on the very foundations of the American national experience. So it really should be said that the legacy of Malcolm has enjoyed some kind of success that its lack of association. But everybody should remember that the defining promise – ingraining family with security rather than presiding resentment – the power of King that realized that the dream was being confused with retribution and which blighted the Modern civil rights activity.
4.1 Similarities between King and Malcolm X’s views on civil rights and the Bible
Firstly, the audience should know the context of the two lectures. Both King and Malcolm X delivered their lectures between 1950 and 1960 and they were prominent figures in the American civil rights movement. Also, it is noteworthy to discuss that Malcolm X’s biographer too acknowledged that Malcolm X’s interpretation of a biblical text was very closely related to King’s method and the two men agreed with each other on the interpretation of certain texts. Finally, this paragraph explained how King’s claim that the world is manipulated to suit the white Americans is similar to Malcolm X’s realization of the brutality and inhumanity of the whites upon the blacks throughout history. King’s interpretation of the New Testament text, Galatians 3:13, is in line with Malcolm X’s perspective. This text conveys the idea that those who support segregation appeal to the Old Testament and misinterpret the Bible because the Bible is actually against segregation. It is very important and necessary to know that both of them agreed that the segregationists manipulated the Christian religion to defend injustice. This implies that the audience is given the possibility that positive changes are to be sought through both nonviolent actions and self-defense by looking at the Bible. This shared view between King and Malcolm X creates a ground for the audience to think about who exercises a stronger proof and reasoning to justify their own means to civil rights: whether King with the spiritual method or Malcolm X with the more radical proposals. This aligns with the next paragraph where it talks about Malcolm X’s approval of the Christ’s metaphor of keeping the peace and King’s interpretation as using Christ to disturb the peace. Actually, one key word that makes these two men’s claims similar is that Malcolm X also realized that the black struggle is more about human rights instead of personal sufferings. King’s interpretation of a New Testament text, Matt 5:43,44, is also shared by Malcolm X. The text teaches that ‘love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’. By these points, the writer wants to suggest that both of them are not only agreeing with each other but also providing examples from the Bible to support their shared perspectives. Arguably, this further implies that both King and Malcolm X use a common ground of biblical evidence to justify their own interpretations. This indicates that the writer is leaving room for different opinions and beliefs so that the audience’s thoughts and reflections should be invited by analyzing the Bible and also provoking the minds of the readers with the potential of their own ideas.
4.2 Differences in their interpretations and strategies
Malcolm preached using the term “Eye” to get through to the people and get across what he thought was correct; he was highly demanding and assertive – just as the “Eye” assigns authority and control. That is the sort of interpreter that Malcolm X was – he expresses prevailing perspectives and insists on the acceptance of particular beliefs. He accepted that the elders in the community needed to have the chance to share their opinions and ideas and believed that the information of past revolutionaries was quintessential. All this shows the kind of exclusivism and aggressiveness that came with his display of liberty.
Malcolm X had a solid viewpoint and portrayed the significance of blacks taking their lives into their own hands. His doctrines of liberation emerged from his conviction that blacks were simply and unambiguously at war with the white man’s political structure, a view that resulted in great belief and satisfaction in ‘liberation’ and the idea of black nationalism. “Awake, arise, or be eternally fallen!” Malcolm X’s famous phrase echoed a requirement for action. His repeated usage of alliteration and rhyme in the phrase may suggest that success can only be achieved through unity and collective advancement, meaning the audience were regularly found to be motivated and eager for change through a shared target. This concept exposed in the phrase consolidates the notion that only through religious metaphors – forthright certainty, a paradise without struggle in locating equity, and a senseless opponent to all that is great – can justice and success be achieved.
King continuously called for nonviolent tactics in his teachings, employing his focus on love and peaceful relations in his interpretation of the Bible as well. He believed that love and forgiveness are the response to injustice and advantage. King’s opinion on these matters is represented in his powerful display of accepting punishment without violence in the correspondence of Birmingham jail. In the letter, he describes civil disobedience as a way to get the respectable ends to deeds that are often found within the law.
4.3 Influence of their lectures on the civil rights movement
It is evident from their teachings that Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X strongly influenced the civil rights movement. The audience liked Malcolm X’s emphasis on the importance of their efforts. Malcolm X sought to internationalize the problems of racism in the United States; he served as a tribune of human rights for the oppressed black minority. In fact, his insistence on the need for recognition for the human rights of African Americans, separately and distinct from the broader category of human rights, would lead to the eventual transformation of the United States. On the other hand, most whites seemed to be bewildered by King’s teachings. He was calling for integration and cooperation, although the majority of the United States considered his public image as one of a preacher of “angry” black supremacy. However, what upset whites most of all was the implication from that public image that they should spend their resources in raising black standards. In fact, the government did finally recognize that the teaching of King was nonviolent because accepting abuses against human rights was simply wrong and should not be tolerated well. However, there was no suggestion in Malcolm X’s teachings that he was seeking the aid of the confidence of white people at all. He was seeking to secure important recognition that history had been ignored by the white liberal mind and black people would adopt actual liberation and assert self respect. This was indeed a revolution of the highest level of human relations from its progeny. He advertised a lot in criticizing the acceptance of different nostrums for panic by the blacks in the United States. Instead, Malcolm X called for a rising up of the oppressed spirits through his overwhelming power of educating and transforming terrible living conditions into positive ones. In this way, Malcolm X advanced his strategy for the acquisition of a true honor and self respect, which was separation – and eventually, as history evolved, the self assumption of self determination. His concepts of educational analysis and self determination reflect the actual contemporary efforts on behalf of the African Americans, especially against the struggles in Africa for freedom. His teachings wouldn’t fall into mere visioning or dream whereas it should lead one’s self to positive actions. On the other side, King’s teachings gathered himself to the administration of human rights for social and just orders. He criticized the whites in the United States for their acceptance of gradualism and adolescent steps which only would lead to disaster. His strategies for the improvements of human relations were through the active nonviolent methods, especially for the organization of the black people in a manner which would produce self emphasis and respect, and by standing up for the belief of a rightful place on the nation’s table.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, the writer believes that both Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X have been successful in conveying their primary messages and arguments to their audiences. While King hopes to enhance the progress of civil rights in his era through transformative love and nonviolent protest, Malcolm X seeks to increase the effectiveness of the movement in the early 1960s by revolution and the “any means necessary” principle. The writer also finds both King and Malcolm X’s explanation on the Good Samaritan very insightful for their different interpretations. Malcolm X proves that even though Jesus told people to love their neighbors, it does not mean that humans should forgive deep hatred caused by injustices and unfairness. But King’s argument is that no matter the wounded man and no matter the robbers, humanity is found to be one family in the final stage. Therefore, people should use every possible means to be in charge of a genuine society in which negative emotions are eradicated. This leads to a context where enemies are willing to have negotiation and understanding. The writer also states that the significance of these two people in contemporary society is that both their perspectives are still very meaningful when it comes to addressing racial fault and combating against injustices. While the spirit of King is useful for building a solid and sustainable multicultural society, Malcolm X’s theories can be used to awaken and encourage those races which are suffering from racial suppressions. The writer believes that only with the combination of both theories can people have a comprehensive guideline to strive for a perfect society. Both King and Malcolm X’s lectures have their unique place in fighting for better civil rights and equality. Their different approaches have found their roots from the distinct interpretation of the same religious teaching. It is undoubtful that without their influential lectures, the progression of civil rights may be impeded for another decade. Therefore, the writer believes that their lectures indeed act as motivators and accelerators to the ultimate success in the movement of civil rights.
5.1 Evaluation of the lasting impact of King and Malcolm X’s lectures
There were multiple specific points in the paragraphs, and they were not only giving vague comments but exploring the meaning of each point further. For example, both men’s lectures had been important for the future of black rights and the usage of religion in the civil rights struggle. There were also some evaluations of the result of each man’s lectures and specific impacts of Malcolm X which had been discussed. However, none of the impacts had been considered as “lasting” and the writer didn’t link these impacts to what might happen in the future. It should also look at the comparison of the impact from King and Malcolm X, and they should lead to the “lasting” impacts in the conclusion. In what has been discussed so far, it is clear that their lectures continue to be important because the views are still very much relevant to the current society. The success of Civil Rights Movements can be contributed from both biographies and hence their ideas are still crucial topics for analysis in the field of religion and civil rights. However, even though the evaluation of the impact of religious lectures from these two men had been done in the essay, only a longer vision of the lasting impact from their lectures may strengthen the argument in the last paragraph. This is therefore the argument about the lasting impact could be reconceptualised by suggesting the different evidences of those impacts and then evaluating each of the evidence in terms of how “lasting” is it. Suppose a paragraph was added and it should devote to the historian’s view to see if their lectures were effective and became a lasting impact or not. In the paragraph, students should be directed to the debate of whether it is appropriate to define the impact of King and Malcolm X by referring to the period of Civil Right Movements only. Masters thesis writing essay pro uk writings The historian’s view serves as a transition to go to the conclusion and show the relationship between the impact and the present society.
5.2 Reflection on the relevance of their perspectives in contemporary society
The lectures of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X have more contemporary relevance than I had initially thought. It is difficult for me to extrapolate their teachings to today’s political landscape because the movement for civil rights has made such progress that the issues of that time seem to be a thing of the past. However, both men were dealing with issues that were contemporary to their time, just as the issues I see in today’s society are contemporary to my time. I feel that both men’s arguments and concerns hold merit in today’s political and social landscape, perhaps even more so than in the years which have passed since they gave those lectures. Dr. King’s messages of understanding and redemption are not lost in a society that is increasingly technology-based and less and less about human fellowship. Malcolm X’s points, while sometimes more extreme and less easy to digest than Dr. King’s, are still fairly cogent in some ways in today’s world. For example, the Black Lives Matter movement could be seen as a modern-day parallel to the kind of work that both men were doing back in the 1960s. In today’s climate, a lot of focus of social and political activism is based around putting people in categories. We have movements like Black Lives Matter, LGBTQ rights, gender equality issues, and the ever-present, diminishing Middle Class vs. the 1%. Malcolm X points out in his lecture that when people talk about advancements in civil rights in the United States, the concept of “black and white unite” can be a bit of a misnomer. He notes that people who speak of the progress in civil rights most often speak in terms of the progress of the Negro in America, and the term “we” is “white people and black people especially”. Dr. King’s political strategy does not lend itself well to our world today, I feel, where he preaches love and understanding to achieve peaceful resolutions to issues. However, I feel his interpretations of the parables and passages of the Bible help shed some light when someone asks themselves “How on earth can I further God’s plan by loving my neighbor when my neighbor is a jerk?” Malcolm X, on the other hand, is much more outwardly relevant. His talk of God helping those who help themselves is something that, while an oversimplification and misquotation of the Bible, does seem to be a prevalent idea in the world today.

Check Price Discount

Study Notes & Homework Samples: NURS1025 Person-centred Care Across the Lifespan »SOAP Note Nursing Assignment Examples | Case Study Homework Help