The Civil Rights Movement is one of the most memorable periods in time. At the forefront, Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X stand out as prominent leaders of the time. As with any powerful leaders, many people tend to argue about who was more powerful, and who was more effective. While King’s actions held higher power visually, the rhetoric of Malcolm X captivated many and compelled hundreds to the cause. While both men had their pitfalls and successes, it’s interesting to look at their philosophies and their methods. It’s interesting to see how these men worked in the climate of their times.

It is funny to think that the philosophy of a nonviolent activist is dependent upon the violent agendas of the opponents, but I have come to believe this is true in the case of Martin Luther King Jr. King continually argues for nonviolent protest, but that grew hard when they faced violent opposition that was shown in graphic news reports. What the news didn’t show are the ‘failed attention attempts’ from the peaceful opposition. In Georgia, King led a ‘failed’ campaign against Albany’s Chief of Police, Laurie Pritchett. While Pritchett was still pro-segregation, he wasn’t violent like Alabama’s Safety Commissioner, “Bull” Connor. Pritchett’s peaceful arrest ways didn’t draw news camera attention, like the beatings that Connor ordered. The violence spawned by Connor and those like him brought news attention that helped the Nonviolent movement gain its mass following. King justified his philosophy by saying, “…[we] are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with” (King 6). I am not saying that King’s philosophy is a lie. I am not saying that King’s philosophy was wrong. I am merely noting the slight hypocritical irony that King’s philosophy was far less effective without a violent opponent. King’s philosophy was dependent upon people witnessing a violent opponent, attacking a violent crowd. While King maintained a nonviolent approach to protest, the irony lies in the fact that King’s major news following depended on violence.

Often considered the violent-counterpart of King, Malcolm X used passionate words and angry sentences to rile up those around him, both black and white. However, X never relied on anyone else to get his message across. Formerly a Black Muslim, X used his powerful speeches to convey his messages of self-defense, pride, and black-isolationism. X’s words inspired many, and angered just as many. His use of pathos rhetoric tugged at the hearts of many, in multiple ways. In merely a few sentences, his rhetoric makes you think with your heart, and hear his passion and truth. In Chapter 19 of his autobiography, X writes, “I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to the American black mean’s problem-just to avoid violence” (X 3). He continues to justify his ‘violence’ in this chapter, using many examples, stories, and rhetorical questions. X makes his readers stand up and fight fire with fire. While X’s methods may not have been as effective in practice, Malcolm X was a very emotive and powerful speaker during the Civil Rights Movement, using pride and violence to inspire the core of the black communities.

While Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr disagreed on a great many things, both of them agreed about the failings of the church. They believed that the church could have been a powerful ally to the black communities if it had not been so determined to maintain the current conditions. King emphasized upon the failings of the church by writing, “So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an arch defender of the status quo” (King 10). Both leaders believed that the church could have been the biggest supporter of the Civil Rights Movement, but they believed that “the Christian church sowed racism blasphemously,” and that now “it reaps racism” (X 4). Since the Southern American Christian church had been previously built on a foundation of racism, that church was incapable of fighting the contemporary racism.

One big question posed about Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr is the potential for greatness held between the two of them. There is only one known time they met, but who knows what they could have accomplished if they had worked together? Would the Civil Rights Movement have been more successful? Would it have failed? The world may never know. The only thing we know for sure is that whether violent or nonviolent, the Civil Rights Movements was one of the biggest freedom movements in American since the American Revolution. You can argue who was more powerful, and you can argue who was more effective, but in the end, the black communities came together to fight for their rights. And, in the end, freedom is the name of the game.