Why doesn't Malcolm X get half the attention Martin Luther king recieves?

Question

Both Martin luther King and Malcolm X were great men who spoke of freedom and justice- yet while Martin luther King is heralded as a great hero (which he was), the equally great Malcolm X is often ignored by historians. Why???

It seems Martin luther King's method of protest was to do so peacefully- and *hope* white establishment would give in, and grant black americans the rights they were due...

Malcolm X seemed to feel that blacks shouldn't have to ask for the rights that are theirs to begin with..They should strive to attain the rights and freedoms they were due 'by any means neccesary'.

They had different approaches, but in the end I think they both stood for freedom....
I have a huch white americans embraced MLK becuase he was more agreeable to them- Malcolm X probrolly scared the crap out of them....
I suspect some of the anti Malcolm X sentiment is religious bigotry-

Both Martin Luther kin and Malcolm X were great men- the one person who compared malcolm X on this thread to Hitler is ignornant.

Answer 1

This is an important question, and the answer certainly isn't quick and simple. We have to break the answer down into several components:

1. The political views of both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. changed over their lives. Most mainstream sources (news, textbooks, etc.) have picked and chosen what aspects of their political views they present.

2. Malcolm X did start out as a racist, as part of the Nation of Islam. However, he left the Nation and adopted orthodox Islam. Underscoring this religious conversion was a profound political conversion, where he completely and totally abandoned any and all racist beliefs.

3. Malcolm X articulated and publicized the anger and frustration of the black working-class, particularly in the ghettos of the North. However, he was not just an expresser of rage -- rather, he articulated wrath, a righteous anger. He said what most black people wanted to say but were too scared to say.

4. Malcolm had a prescient analysis of American society, he recognized that the racial oppression of blacks was tied to their material and economic exploitation. He also related the oppression of blacks in America to the oppression of several peoples of colour all around the world by the international colonial powers. Thus, Malcolm was one of the first major American public figures to speak out against the war in Vietnam, as well as America's intervention in the Congo.

What Malcolm realized was that to change the state of black people in America, the entire political, social and economic structure of American society had to be changed. Malcolm did not simply believe in legal, textbook equality -- he wanted to see it on the ground.

5. Malcolm believed that non-violence was not a universal principle, but one out of many strategies of resistance. He advocated self-defense, if the federal government proved itself unwilling or unable to defend black people. He also advocated the usage of "any means necessary" to achieve the freedom and equality of black people -- and by that he meant forming links with several coalitions, armed force in self-defense, and here's what most people ignore, his definition includes even using non-violence where it serves the purpose.

6. Malcolm did not have much time after he split from the Nation of Islam (he was assassinated in less than a year) to organize and develop coherent policies and actions. He was constantly on the run, scared for his life and for his family -- he knew he was a dead man.

7. It served the mainstream media (controlled by rich whites, in cooperation with the government) to obscure Malcolm's profound analysis of American society by focusing instead on his earlier statements of racism. The media put in a concerted effort to vilify and demonize Malcolm. Malcolm's recognition of the necessity to change American society root and branch threatened the people in power, his ability to articulate and channel black rage threatened the supremacy of white America -- something that has still NOT changed in over 40 years. His advocacy of armed self-defense was a threat to the Ku Klux Klan, racist police officers and a placid government. So the strategy was to misrepresent him and to present him as the devil. He was ignored by most historians and textbooks -- but he was NOT ignored by several black historians and by most black people.

8. After the film came out in 1992 and Malcolm's popularity rose, the American system coopted him by putting his face on a stamp. First they demonized him, then they deified him by presenting him as someone who is thoroughly in accord with mainstream Americanism -- these are both methods of cooptation.

9. What's important to realize is that Martin Luther King's views and ideas have also been misrepresented by mainstream media and textbooks. It is true that, at first, Martin was seeking legal (textbook) equality. But near the end of his life, he started critiquing the entire American system -- making the connections between racism and poverty, as well as international colonialism, he too took up the call against the war in Vietnam (but several years after Malcolm). That is to say, Martin also realized the necessity of changing the American system root and branch. But we do not hear about this from the mainstream media or in most textbooks. This is because, like Malcolm, Martin's image has been coopted to serve the purposes of the white American ruling class.

10. Additionally, Martin's dedication to non-violence is represented as being a universal principle that applies for all times and places. The message is clear: "Be like Martin, sit back and don't do anything to change the world." But that's not what Martin's non-violence was about. It was not passivity, but a very active placement of your own bodies in front of something to physically, actively subvert and uproot it.

So, to conclude, what we have is the selective cherry-picking of the ideas and views of Malcolm and Martin. Malcolm X deeply scared white America, and he also scared middle-class blacks, because what he called for was complete and total -- ACTUAL -- freedom, rather than just textbook equality. He was pressed back, ignored, and suppressed, because white America and middle-class blacks did not want to face the feelings and views of most, poor and frustrated blacks. Martin, on the other hand, could be a reliable source of "love everyone" sentiments -- but only if you ignored his more militant and overarching views.

The idea, then, is to set one person up as a "good" *****, and another as a "bad" ***** -- and to point to them and say "Look, this is how you should be, and this is how you shouldn't be." If you saw the first X-Men movie, then you saw this when Charles Xavier is talking to Magneto -- the former preaches tolerance and love, the latter teaches hate and violence, and says "by any means necessary." This is definitely supposed to be a continuation of the misrepresentation of the ideas of Martin and Malcolm -- a message making value judgments about how an oppressed people should conduct their own resistance.

Malcolm held that the oppressed had the right to choose whatever means necessary to bring about their freedom. They didn't have to cater to the wishes and rules of the oppressors. That kind of a view, inherently, just doesn't make any sense. How do you get free if you stick to the framework of the oppressor? The answer is that you don't. And we see that, over 40 years after the deaths of Malcolm and Martin, black people in America are still being oppressed and exploited by a racist and indifferent government.

As Malcolm and Martin both realized, what we need is a revolution. To quote Malcolm:

"In my thinking, if the students in this country forgot the analysis that has been presented to them, and they went into a huddle and began to research this problem … for themselves, independent of politicians and independent of all the foundations (which are a part of the power structure), and did it themselves, then some of their findings would be shocking, but they would see that they would never be able to bring about a solution … as long as they’re relying on the government to do it."
- Malcolm X

Answer 2

Martin Luther King

Answer 3

My family immigrated to this country and believed education was very important and we should befriend everyone. I remember as a child, my father would say wonderful things about MLK, but was very fearful to say his opinions too loud as from for fear of austrism, btw he came from a country where people would be placed in camps if they disagreed with the government just for your ethnicity. He said Malcolm X was too brash and not as peaceful as MLK. I had heard of many violent things in the 60's because of the Black Panthers. My brother was beat up at 9 years old by two black teens in the 60's in the name of the Black Panthers. That was not a good time period. So much hatred, so little empathy. Whose fault was it? Media? Government? I even went to a segregated school in the 60's. I was a child, lived near blacks, but couldn't go to school with them, so I didn't know what they were like other than what I learned in school. And you wonder why Malcolm X did not get the notariety of MLK? Look at Media and what it did. Find fault in all those ignorant folk who refuse to keep and open mind. Malcolm X had horrible things happen to people close to him, how did this affect him or what others thought of him? I don't know but I would bet that being Muslim especially during the 60s was not helpful. MLK was a christian and pushed peace through Jesus. America was at that time a primarily christian nation.

Answer 4

Yes, you're right. I'm not familiar with Malcolm X, other than he said "No sell out" and "You didn't land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on you" at least that was in the movie. But I'm Australian, so I never studied him. However I do know some things about Dr King. I think Dr King just came across as a nice guy, but Malcolm X was a bit more threatening.

Answer 5

I was there for all of it. Martin Luther King was quite a leader. He was accomplishing great things with his peaceful methods and that was why he was assassinated. When you read MLK and then Malcolm X, there is no comparision. Malcolm X and the Black Panthers promised freedom and justice through violence. . .and that doesn't get it done.

Answer 6

Malcolm was initially radical with the nation of Islam. Martin was always peaceful. Go to the library and do some research dear or contact Historically Black colleges and they can get you the real resources you need for a thorough research and comparison. I hope that helps.

Answer 7

Because Malcolm was more along militant lines, which scares the powers that be.The Nation Of Islam was not highly thought of by main society, while Martin was a preacher with peaceful intentions, which was more acceptable to certain palatttes.

Answer 8

Malcolm X was a racist and initially a radical muslim whilst Martin Luther Kind "had a dream" about people of all skin colors living together in peace and equality. Malcolm X was preaching hatred, Martin Luther Kind was preaching love.

Answer 9

to put it simply, white people do not like Malcolm X...that's why. Martin Luther King was way easier choice to accept for American society

Answer 10

First point-
they were not equally anything from anyones perspective.
Checkout their biographies. I'm sure you can find them.
second point-
there are so many difference between the two of them that the only thing you can say is they were both black.
If you look at the two men,Then Martin Luther King stands alone as a great man.

Answer 11

they had a common enemy and common problem but far different approaches. the whites wanted an wanted some one that he would brutalize while that victim continued to love the offender and thats exactly what Preached. X preached self defence and the whites hated him because he did not preach love for the enemy which enemy the white man waaas