The document compares the civil rights approaches of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. King advocated for nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience to oppose unjust segregation laws. Malcolm X initially proposed more militant action including separation from the US if black Americans did not receive equal rights and protection. Later in life, Malcolm X moved towards more moderate, nonviolent views after leaving the Nation of Islam. The document discusses both leaders' arguments and concludes that while King's nonviolent approach is preferable, Malcolm X's separatist plan could have served as a valid contingency if nonviolence failed.

1. Martin Luther King, Jr. V. Malcolm X

2. The Who and Why Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were both highly influential leaders in the civil rights movement. They both wanted full equality for the black community. Their main difference is between their methods; King chose nonviolence and Malcolm was prepared for war.

3. King’s Policies When a violent group refuses to negotiate, it is best dealt with by nonviolent direct action. The administration had done nothing for too long and wasn’t showing any sign of action.

4. Outlook on Law There are two kinds of laws: just and unjust. Just laws aid people and keep with moral law. Unjust laws twist people’s perceptions and souls and threaten to cause havoc.

5. Unjust Administration Segregation laws were unjust because the segregator gained a false sense of superiority while the segregated were made to feel inferior. White administration did not feel the suffering, so they could not understand.

6. King’s Method To oppose an unjust law, one must break it and, without fighting back, accept the following punishment to show lawful behavior. Then, people can view it for what it truly is.

7. Malcolm’s Doctrine “ The Ballot or the Bullet.” Trouble was coming and black people would have to choose their tool to ward it. If it wasn’t voting, it was fighting. Not anti-white, but anti-oppression.

8. Break from Government Proposed a separation from the United States to form a black colony. If they weren’t getting what they needed, they had to take it. Anyone depriving them of it was a criminal. Political leaders were saying how good things were and it wasn’t true.

9. Criminals Segregationists were criminals because segregation was against the law. However, policemen joined in the segregation; they, too, were criminals. Black people had to fight back when attacked.

10. Malcolm’s Solution Only by controlling their own government could black people be safe. There was no point in trying to change the white man’s mind.

11. Pros and Cons of King’s Argument Pros – Promotes nonviolence. Gives victims moral high ground. Doesn’t exacerbate problem. Cons – May not change anything. High risk of death.

12. Pros and Cons of Malcolm’s Argument Pros – Separate nation means black people have their own rules. Allows black people to defend themselves. No more waiting for officials to fix everything. Cons – May anger whites or make them feel threatened. Black people may be unprepared to start new nation so quickly. US Administration may forcibly end idea.

13. Afterthought Malcolm X was part of the black nationalist group “Nation of Islam.” After feuding with its leader and making a pilgrimage to Mecca, Malcolm’s views took on a more peaceful outlook.

14. Final Opinion Both men had compelling cases, but peace must always be tried first. Martin Luther King, Jr. may have been right. However, if it had fallen through, Malcolm X’s plan was a good contingency plan and should not be discounted.

15. Sources Boyer, P., and Stuckey, S. (2005). American Nation in the Modern Era . Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. X, M. (1964). The Autobiography of Malcolm X . New York, NY: Ballantine Books. King, M. (1963). Why We Can’t Wait. New York, NY: Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr. George Breitman, ed. Malcolm X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1965) pp.23-44.