In the article “The Unfinished Dialogue of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X”, the different styles the two leaders used are discussed. Martin Luther King, Jr. used a more nonviolent approach to his leadership where as Malcom X leaned towards a more radical or “any means necessary” type of attitude. The article explains the two leaders polar opposite upbringings and how these upbringings in a way shaped the was they approached the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X were both looking for the same ending, but identified with their own race in such different ways, and this is why the means at which they strived to get their point across were very different.
It is hard to argue which way is better. Obviously it would be nice if all leaders of social movements would take the non-violent-Ghandi type approach to getting their point across. However, some of the most memorable instances in social movements are when there was a very radical approach that was taken. For instance, when women protested during the Miss America Pageant in the 1960’s it is hard to forget that that happened. A woman parading around with pictures of naked women marked up as if they were animals is an image that will stick in most people’s heads and force them to think about the situation. It is hard to say which tactic is better for social movements, but I do not think that you necessarily need violence to get your point across. However, sometimes that is the only way to get people to listen.
The movement against the Vietnam War is seen as one of the most successful movements in history. That movement was anything but quiet and passive. Even though the movement ran into its own problems, it still had people that firmly believed in what they were protesting about. The members did everything ranging from legal demonstrations to draft resistance. The idea was to get the soldiers out of the war. When veterans came back from the war, they too took part in the movement. I believe that this is when the movement went in a more radical direction. Then as the U.S. troops came home the movement slowly declined.
Another example of how using violence to get a point across was in the Black Panther Party. It is hard not to hear the words “Black Panther” and not immediately think of violent acts. The Black Panthers were working towards equality of African-Americans, but they did not exactly allow people to give them much credibility. One of the flaws with the Party was that they spoke out in the community during the day were also thought to be the people that carried out armed operations at night. This and their way of thinking and speaking about issues seemed to turn people off to the Black Panther Party.
There have also been movements that have not used much violence and it has not exactly worked to their advantage. The Chicano Movement is an example of this. It has been said that the movement was hindered due to the fact that the movement could not pinpoint exactly what it was standing for. Some say it was lead by Caesar Chavez for farm workers, but some say it was for education. In the terms of the educational sphere the Chicano movement has come a long way. At one time there was tension in the movement because at universities it was white people who were teaching about Chicano history, and not by Chicano’s. However, the movement is still in progress in many ways.
The movement that I am following is the gay rights movement. This is a movement that took an extremely radical approach. When the raid of the Stonewall Inn was occurred on June 27, 1969, people of the gay movement reacted in a slew of different ways. There were riots in the streets and not by normally dressed gay men. There were transvestites rioting in the street. Event today during such events as the Gay Pride parades, there are men dressed in gold Speedos or dressed as women. It is great that men feel that it is liberating to be dressed as women, but it is definitely not a calming approach to the issue. The gay rights movement is an extremely strong movement that seems to look to the Malcom X “any means necessary” approach. Not necessarily by being violent, but by using many approaches to get their point across.
