Stride Toward Freedom (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) p. 235-238
Necessary to Protect Ourselves (Interview of Malcolm X by Les Crane) p. 239-240
Questions to guide your response.
- 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
36 comments:
I both agree and disagree with Martin Luther King Jr. in his story Stride Toward Freedom. I agree in his veiws and his overall objective in his theories but I also disagree about the civil disobediance aproach. I also agree that he is following his dreams in that everyone should follow their dreams in life. Although civil disobediance is the path that he intends to follow, violence is in human nature and will always be a part of a movement. I also believe that acquiescence and violence are not opposite. He belives that they are opposite and add up to non-violence. This is incorrect. Arent violence and non violence opposite? I dont agree with his overall theory.
Like Bob Britton said "Violence is humman nature and sometimes thats what it takes to make your cause taken seriously." I believe this to be very true. It is almost exactly how i previously stated. Violence is always going to be an issue in movements like black equality. It's second nature resorting to violence. Look at history in general. Also in what Chudz said Malcom X strived for violence to make his point more serious. I think that puting a person's life in danger will always get the attention of others and eventually get then involved. Like the "Domino Theory". Obviously puting others in danger has to get others involved. Tell me I'm wrong.
I believe that Martin Luther King Jr. has a view on this subject that takes more strength and shows more power than most others faced in the same situation. MLK Jr.shows that even though the white man can stand there and murder his family and friends that he still one day would like to call that same white man family i did some research on his famous i have a dream speech and as i was reading i noticed that this man has a knowledge about true peace that very few of us will ever begin to fathom. also to comment on chris's comment the definiton of aquiescence is Passive assent or agreement without protest thus making it a non-violent action.
While violence may be natural does that leave those who live peaceful lives and advocate peace in the realm of the un-natural? I too see violence in all aspects of nature, however, nature does not have wisdom nor intellect. Let us think outside the box rather than just settling for what we see and know to be true. Wisdom comes from questioning what we know to be true and being willing to let go. I think you are right that violence is human nature. However, we live in a world in which nature is altered by our human power. If we have the power to alter the violent nature of the human species, should we not attempt to do so?
I do not agree wiht Martin Luther King because of his approach using non-violence. His movement of non-violence worked with the black population, but I do not think it touched the majority of whites. I think if he used a little violence more people would have recieved his message.
I think it took Martin Luther King Jr. a lot of strength to keep a non-violent approach to ending segregation. It just shows that he has great will power to achieve something that he wants, along with many millions of other people, without doing what the white man thinks that they will do. And that is to fight back. I don't think that Malcom X is wrong for taking a violent approach, but I am not supporting it. He also wanted equality and chose the more drastic way to achieve it. But it created more violence than was needed and him and his followers did what the white man predicted them to do: use violence. I think that Martin Luther King Jr. used the better approach compared to Malcom X.
While I agree with Dr. King, that non-violence is often the best approach to a problem, I think that it was a stroke of luck that in the fight for racial equality, his approach worked. I think that in a select few situations, violence is the most effective option, if not the only option to accomplishing a goal. I wouldn't call violence an effective problem solving method, because it will just breed problems of it's own, however, it can be used to accomplish goals. So, I guess that Malcom X and Dr. King both had valid approaches to the same problem. I think that people tend to see Malcom X's approach
( violence ~IF NECESSARY~)as a negative/ineffective method to ending racial segregation and discrimination because most people are naturally opposed to violence. His method might have been a effective solution, had the social/political situation reached a point that non-violence would have been ineffective. Again, I believe that America was just lucky that things didn't escalate to that point, and that enough people were ready for a change that Dr. King's non-violent approach worked as well as it did.
Im gonna have to agree with Martin Luther King Jr.'s statments about using non-violence in the fight for racial equality. I believe this because in the case of blacks against whites, there would be no way violence would solve anything the only thing it was do would stir up more bloody conflicts and could have eventually cause an unbelievable riot/civil war. As we all know this theory of protest from MLK worked in the end so it must have been the better choice plus very little blood had to be shed compared to Malcom x's plan of attack. Therefore i agree with MLK's much more than Malcom x.
Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X both wanted to solve the issues of racism and segregation. They both were great speakers who felt very strongly about what they spoke about. But their actions to achieving that one goal was very different. MlK used nonviolence as a way to "fight" segregation. I agree with the thought of using nonviolence to accomplish peace. You can not expect to bring upon love for each race without first showing concern and love for the opposite race. I believe you first have to initiate positive actions to receive a positive response back.
i agree with Jordan in his statements about MLK. He did show great strength and never gave up. He never gave into political pressure to ever be violent. He felt strongly in his beliefs and nobly died fighting for them.
i also agree with danna's statements about violence possibly causing more trouble than its worth. Violence can cause hatred and more fighting. MLK's plan of nonviolence was smart and still ideal.
I feel that Martin Luther King Jr. had the better approach in using non-violence to promote equality among races. It is a lot harder to try and produce change without using force to get what you want. MLK, however proved that it could be done. Non-violence can be just as effective as violence and it prevents people from being harmed in the process. I think it takes a strong person to lead a movement without using violence and MLK should be deeply respected for that. Violence is rarely ever the answer and bloodshed cannot solve anything so therefore MLK had a better approach towards gaining freedom than Malcolm X.
I think Chris made a valid point by saying that violence is human nature, but people should be able to control how violent they get.
When violence is not necessary, it should not be used. Why create more problems for people to solve? I also really like what popeye said about MLK's knowledge and how he still wanted to call the worst white man his brother one day. I think it's true that no one really knows how intelligent he was on the subject of peace.
I do believe in the non-violence that Martin Luther King Jr demonstrated during the civil rights movement, but I also think that sometimes violence is justifiable. Self defense for example, but I think everyone should use violence as a last resort. Non-violence was the best way for African Americans to achieve equal rights during the 60's. If they would have used violence, the white population would have just keep segregating and discriminating against them even more.
I agree with danna's comment because there would be a big riot between the races. MLK's way settled things a lot more effectively than Malcom X.
I also agree with Kali Gianiodis comment regarding self-defense. It is necessary to defend yourself but when you go around looking for fights, that is what causes problems.
I agree with Kali, in that sometimes violence is justifiable. Malcom X didn't advocate outright violence, or attacks against whites. He wanted African Americans to be able to defend themselves if necessary from the oppression they were under.
Chris, I completely agree with you that violence is part of human nature. That doesn't mean we should let violence rule our actions, but it always seems to be in our arsenal of problem solving tools. Thankfully, Dr King's method of non-violence was able to help end segregation, but I think that had his method failed, more people would have followed Malcom X, and his advocacy of violence as a means of getting your point across.
I agree with Martin Luther King Junior's non violent acts to display civil disobediance. His non-violent movements showed the world that in order to become free violence is not always needed. This is true because violence could just result in even more violence. This would lead to an even larger struggle and many unnecessary deaths. Therefore Martin Luther King Jr in my view, was right in his speakings and demostrations.
I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. His non-violent acts showed the world that violence in not needed to obtain freedom, or at least begin to. if violence was used it would just lead to a greater amount of violence which would lead to many unnecessary deaths. Dr Martin Luther King Jr knew this and did an amazing job fighting for african american rights. I completey agreee with everything he has stated and his non-violent demostrations.
I may have put two comments, but Chris Feuerstein said that violence is a part of human nature. I disagree, in a way yes violence is part of nature but it is also a human choice. Violence is not forced on everyone therefore people can choose to be non-violent and lead many successful acts without it. Therefore i do not believe that all problems or struggles will result in violence if lead by the right people.
I agree with Jordans comment. Martin Luther King Jr was a very powerful strong willed man and showed that by being one of a few men in politics that used non-violence to acheive greatness and equality. His actions lead him to be assassinated. This shows how strong he is because, he realized he would die if he continued to fight for his people but did it anyway.
I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. in his story Stride Toward Freedom. I agree with his views on nonviolence because they promote peace while acheiveing something. His tactic of nonviolence lets African Americans protest while not being looked upon as rioters. This tactic helped stop racial segregation while promoting peace while tensions were occuring all over the United States.
Chris F stance on violence being in human nature is not generally true. We make violence an issue in black equality because most white males and females associate typical black males with violence.
With what Mr. Wind said, I think if we had the power to alter the violent nature of the human species, then we should. It would obviously put an end to the wars, murders and other acts of voilence. Chris also said we should use violence if needed to get a point across more seriously, which is true but if we continue to use this violence and put others in fear, we dont really solve anything, we just become another oppressor, and the strive for equality and nonviolnce will just become harder than it is. Im sure if we alter the human nature of violence we can come to some solution and agreement to get our point across more seriously than to use violence. I also dont agree with acquiescence, i dont believe people should be ok or live with the with the idea of being oppressed but should not resort to violence. I think that non violence should be used no matter what, it takes persistance and conviction and should be a part of the public debate as Martin Luther King Jr. is a perfect example of. It will take a while but to make a point, but if we resort to violence it will only take longer.
I believe both Martin Luther and Malcom X had the same intentions, they just had different ways in getting to their target. I agree with Martin Luther king Jr.'s non-violence acts but i also agree with Shane, MLK Jr. mainly targeted his speeches at blacks and his movements didn't effect whites as much as they should have. On the other hand, Malcom X could have gained all the attention of the whites by killing innocent people.
All in all I believe they would have worked better using each others strategies along with their own, Drawing attention using speeches and threats.
In these two pieces of literature that we have discussed in class they are about the same consept they just have different ways of going about it. MLK was a man that believed in nonviolence and civil disobediance. Nonviolence I believe is the more mature way of handling things, although after playing a basketball game I have to agree with Malcom X's belief that it is necessary to protect ourselves. I think using violence allows a point to come across more quickly. I am not really for going all the way to kill someone kind of violence, but I feel if you feel strongly enough about changing something a little "@$$ woupin" won't hurt. I believe some people are so ignorant and "blind" that getting pushed around a little might wake them up to see what is actually going on.
Then again on the other side,as I start to cool down a little bit, I believe it is a lot harder to change things through nonviolence because it takes more time and thought. I believe it is the more effective way too. There are no punishments really for standing up for what you believe in thanks to the first amendment. MLK was excillent at attracting a crowd that wanted to follow him through his speeches.
I agree with Chris's blog almost completely. I agree that MLK had the right objective but civil disobediance is not the best approach. Like Chris stated "violence is in human nature" it't never going to change. As the years go on I believe there will just be more evil in the world. People have to use violence everyday in order to survive sometimes and to try and show not to mess with them. Take the projects and areas like that. Those poor people have to fight everyday in order to stay alive, and I believe they are doing it to get a point across to "not mess with me." I also agree with Chris when he says how acquiescence and violence are not opposite because violence and nonviolence are totaly opposite. What can I say Chris is just an intelligent man that I agree a lot with!
I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. in his story Stride towards freedom. He says that black people should use civil disobedience to get freedom. I think that this is good because they are fighting for what they believe in but they are not going to bully people to get what they want.
I dissagree with what Chris F said that violence is in human nature. I think that people are more successful when they protest using non-violence than when they use violence. It shows that they are not bad people who use intimidation to get what they want.
I agree with Martin Luther King Jr on his way of fighting for segregation. Both MLK and Malcolm X were very strong about what they were fighting for but they both had different ways of putting the word out there. They way Martin Luther King Jr fought was in a non violence way, unlike Malcolm X. I agree with the way MLK fought because violence is not the way to make a point about something. Using violence to make a race like eachother does not seem like it would work out. I'd think it would make things worse. Putting in a good word and postive actions would be the way to achieve what should be done because in the way out you would recieve the same feedback.
I agree with what danna said about violence only leading to more conflict. When you use violence that makes you no better then the people who are oppressing you. If you want freedom you should show that you deserve it.
I believe more in Martin Luther King Jr. because I like the idea of non violence. Non violence is the best way to get what you want, and Martin Luther king Jr used words and the backing of people to gain the rights of African Americans. Malcolm X has great plans to get what he wants but I don’t believe in the things he said. Yes Malcolm X helped with the movement but I think he helped in a good but negative ways. Both of these men fought for what they wanted and in the end they eventually made a difference even though they both had very different ways of getting to what they wanted they both seemed to work out.
I disagree with what Chris about how he agrees that violence is human nature.I dont think you need violence to get what you want. Many great people didnt use violence to get where they are today. Not everyone has a nature of violence and I think violence is unnecessary. I also that that many people blame violenvce for many actions that are unnecessary also.
I agree with Testman that Martin Luter King acomplished something without using violence. I like that Testman agree with the peace aspect of things while many other bloggers are all about violence to get to a high place and win over what they want. you dont need violence and i deffinetly agree with him.
I agree with Sean's response because MLK got kinda lucky with his non violence approach towards discrimination of African Americans.
I also agree with Testman's response because I think that every man, white or black, has the right to protect himself/herself if the situation is necessary.
I agree with danna in his violence may have caused more trouble statment, but i think that some violence would have helped the cause more than it would have hurt. I agree more with Malcom X than with Martin Luther King, just becaus i think "some" violence is needed.
i agree with Martin Luther King Jr.'s nonviolence movement but i also think that Malcom x did make a good point by putting in violence he did get his point across. I feel that if you can prove what your trying to get across with out nonviolence that would be great but if noone listens to you i feel that violence could maybe be added to get people more serious. i agree with what Kali Gianiodis to say that self defense is a way a person can use violence. i also agree with what Chris has to say with violence being in human nature
Post a Comment