Necessary to Protect Ourselves (Interview of Malcolm X by Les Crane) p. 239-240
Some questions to guide your response.
- What is your opinion about non-violent vs. violent protest.
- Is there anything that would provoke you to protest violently?
- Do you protest anything that the government is doing now?
- What do you think is similar in these works in terms of author’s purpose, voice, etc.?
- What is different in these pieces (again, think critically!)?
- what are the authors’ messages to their audience?
- What was the injustice that the author is speaking about?
- Relate either of these two figures to a contemporary figure in some way.
These questions are to guide your post. Feel free to talk freely about these two works. Do not feel confined to only answering these questions. Additionally, remember that you have to respond to two of your peers comments within your class period(please refer to their screen name while responding).
Email me your alias ela11mr.wind@gmail.com
50 comments:
I think you are correct. It is not about blame, rather it is about understanding and learning from the actions of others, whether wise or negligent.
Thank you "Jenna c"
two people that believed in non-violence protests were Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr, they both wanted change or equality, however they were both killed, which means that people are truley afraid of Change.
I am not a big fan of Malcolm X. He wavered too much in what he said. He would say that he did not want to act violently, but he then turned around and said that his people need to learn to fight to get themselves out of their position. I have nothing against his violent tactics (if he really meant that they only had to protect themselves,) but I lost respect for him when I heard him contradict himself. If a person is talking about a topic so passionately, he or she needs to stick to his or her opinions and not waver.
I love listening to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. speak. His tone is shows his passion in the topic. He knows what he wants for the future, how to get it, and how to get other people to feel the same. He makes his non-violent protest idea seem so much more effective because of how he speaks.
-Enicole
I understand what Jenna C (Period 1) means. If Malcolm X would just say that he wanted to use violence to end his opression, I would not have a problem with him, but he did not. He changed his stance for different people.
-Enicole
I disagree with the majority of the third period class, and I agree with danna from third period. I think violence definitely does not have to be a part of change. It just makes the mess worse to pick fights. A person or group showing that he, she, or it can do something to hurt another is wrong and would just drive the opposing sides of the argument further away from one another.
-Enicole
I agree with Jenna C because you really cannot blame Malcolm X for feeling violent toward the opressors. If this was to happen to me, I would probably be very angry also. Martin Luther King Jr. also was angry but expressed it in a peaceful manner. I also see where "chickledee" is coming from. Malcolm X contradicted himself in saying he did not want to act violently and then persuaded his people to learn to fight.
I feel that sometimes it is necessary to take violent actions to get your voice heard but in the same respect I understand what Dr. King was striding for. He felt strongly about non-violence and he stuck to that theory.
-murphy
I agree with Hinton(per 8) in the belive that martin luther king jr was a diffrence maker in the socity in the fifty's and the sixty's. I also feel that he still influences todays sociey.
-murphy
I agree with Chris F(period 3) with violence is in human nature and will always be a part of a movement.
I agree with jenna c first period, both martin luther king jr. and malcolm x tried to bring about equality for african americans.
I also agree with murphy, sometimes it is necessary to act violently to get what you want. sometimes that is the only way people will listen to you.
- tyler
I believe the malcom X was more of a we have to act now type of activist using force because thats the only way he knew it would work. Martin luther on the other hand was more laid back with non-violent protests. Both left lasting impacts on the american and african american society. Because of these men blacks are finally considered equal.
-tyler
I think that both Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X had great ideas of how to get equal rights to African Americans. Both of them wern't wrong because it was their opinions, its just about knowing when to use the right tatics at the right time.
I agree with Jenna c in the way that Malcolm X was upset about how blacks were treated and in most cases people in bad situations use violence.
I agree with mike because sometimes violence is an okay thing to do and sometimes its not a okay thing to do
In my opinion, i think that the african americans thought so highly of their freedoms, and liberties, that they were willing to do almost any means necessary to win them back. Although in this circumstance we are talking about Martin Luther King JR who used nonviolence, and at the total other end of the spectrum we see Malcolm X using violence, to free himself and his followers against whites. I feel that they both were right in different ways, and although violence is usually not the anwser, sometimes it works. I also can see that Malcolm X felt that he had no other choice but to use violence to declare his rights, that should have never been allowed to take away, in the first place.
-kelsey schmalfeld.
i agree with jenna c,
because its clear that Malcolm X was provoked into violance, it was basically the only choice that suited him.
-kelsey schmalfeld
And on the flip side i agree with murphy, too. Because in Martin Luther King JR's eyes nonviolence was the only option he saw for ending the racism. It truly all depends on the person, thats what alters their actions.
-kelsey schmalfeld.
well to me i tihnk that w.o AA the usa would not be were it is today.they should jsut have gotten there rights after the war, b.c of all the work and labor they did in the U.S
I agree with chickledee37 and i dont like malcolm x's way in getting rights for African americans. violent protesting is wrong it just makes other people angry.
i agree with erica. yea malcolm x used violent ways to get rights for african americans but it was neccisary.
i liked martin luther king jrs point of view better than malcom xs. i think that the peacful way of getting your rights back is better. if you stand there and take a beating it will make the one giving the beating queswtion their morals. the peaceful method worked with gandi. so that way is proven to work
i agree with chickledee37 because i also agree with mlk
i agree with mike because i too believe that mlk was a difference maker in society
I believe that both Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X worked very hard to reach for what they believe. Even though they had different ideas on how to reach for what they believe, neither of were wrong, just differnt.
•Although non-violent protesting is often a more successful way to accomplish things, there are also specific topics that cannot be resolved without the use of contained aggression.
•In all honesty, I would really rather not protest at all. It may seem to be the lazy man's trail, but there arent many subjects that I feel completely devoted towards. . .It would have to be something extremely important to begin with, if I were to protest against. . .
•As Ive said above, I do not truly care about most of whats been going on lately. If the government were truly doing something that would brutally effect me, then it would most likely effect the rest of the nation in such a horrid manner. . .
•In both Martin Luther King Jr.'s and Malcom X's pieces of work you are able to gather a sense of purpose and hope that the both of them share; though they may be reaching for their goals in different ways, the are none the less reaching for the same thing
•As I said above, the two are reaching towards the same goals but they are doing so in different manners. . .
•The authors' give out, in their works, a message about the world they wish to form, though melded in different hands, a world that one day, we may all be a part of. . .at least. . .thats what I believe. . .
•As shown by both authors, there is an injustice of race and prejudice, though simple in essence, the problem that arises from these things is complex. . .
during the civil rights movement malcom x and mlk jr. both had drastic impacts on the styles of protest like non-violent and agressive speeches, marches and meetings.
i believe as humans we should be able to solve a conflict by a way other than violence. we should not harm other people to get what we want. imartin luther king had the perfect idea of how to get black their freedom in the fight against whites.
i agree with kelsey s when she said that it is really the person and their instinct that makes them choose violance. if its all somneone knows then they are going to try that.
i agree with murphy, too though. the majority of the humans will need to be violent to be heard. and thats not good.
I agree with Jenna C in that both Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X sought to relieve African Americans from unequality.
I also agree with alex in that sometimes if you stand and take a beating it will make the other person question themselves.
i believe that mlk had a better more effective way of solving race problems but malcom x needed to use violence to help strengthen blacks want for justice
i agree with mike murphy violence is defiantly sometimes a good way to achieve something
i agree with cody without african americans the U.S. would not be the same although they defiantly deserved their rights long before they got them
If feel that Malcolm X did not get his point across the the African Americans because he was to militant. I think that Martin Luther King Jr was more successful as a public speaker than Malcolm X. Martin Luther King Jr Seemed to talk a lot better in his speeches and could still get people all riled up even using a non-violence protest.
I agree with Alan. I feel Martin Luther King Jr was way more effective than Malcolm X at getting his point across.
I also agree with The King. I think America was to caught up in itself to care for what African Americans wanted. Most Whites at this time did not want America to change.
personally, non-violent is nice and all and can get the job done, but violent does work. in 1989 there was a corrupt leader in romania named Ceausescu he was infamous all around the world. His harsh rule was ruthless and unforgiving to say the least. after a false vote he was re-elected. the people of romania were outraged. they started a revolt and with in a week of his term he was raided in his palace and was killed by many extreme activists. after that a new leader was elected and revoution heading twards peace started. So shoot it down all you want but violent protest can work.
-Clay.
Although violent protest is sometimes unavoidable, non-violent protest is the best solution to solving any injustice. Because violent protest so often leads to hatred between the two combatting groups, the only way to truly resolve an injustice and bring about peace is through non-violent means. It seems to me that, often, non-violent protest lapses into violent protest. I think this is most likely because the people who protest start to lose hope in the resolution of their cause, and feel as though they are being backed into a corner. From then on it is merely human nature to fight back with whatever you have left. I can see both of the author's points in the pieces and it seems to me as if Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has more hope and faith in his cause than Malcom X. He seems to know that someday, those who oppose him will realize their mistakes and come to a better understanding of what it means to be equal.
-Kelsey W
Although violent protest is sometimes unavoidable, non-violent protest is the best solution to solving any injustice. Because violent protest so often leads to hatred between the two combatting groups, the only way to truly resolve an injustice and bring about peace is through non-violent means. It seems to me that, often, non-violent protest lapses into violent protest. I think this is most likely because the people who protest start to lose hope in the resolution of their cause, and feel as though they are being backed into a corner. From then on it is merely human nature to fight back with whatever you have left. I can see both of the author's points in the pieces and it seems to me as if Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has more hope and faith in his cause than Malcom X. He seems to know that someday, those who oppose him will realize their mistakes and come to a better understanding of what it means to be equal.
-Kelsey W
I agree with jenna c in that Malcom X cannot be blamed for resorting to violence because, to him, that was the only option he had left. Malcom X had big dreams too, and perhaps if his circumstances had been different, he might have been non-violent
I also agree with popeye8876 (period 3). Martin Luther KIng Jr. demonstrated an inner strength and a devotion to his cause.
i believe that both malcom x and martin luthor king were right in thier seperate thought. I believe that a peaceful way couldnt alone be the result of what they were fighting for thought. In the world we live in today at least.
I agree with mike saying it is necassary to take violent actions if thats what you believe in and to also understand what martin luthor king was saying.
I also agree with emma because both had thier own seperate thoughts and they thought what they wanted was right.
Post a Comment