Compare And Contrast Romero And Martin Luther King Jr

Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr's techniques are very different, but similar. They both want the same thing: negro companies. The way they carry out this, though, is different. Malcolm wants to make his own negro company. Furthermore, Martin wants to protest peacefully by banning products from companies that do not hire negroes.

In the end, even though both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King both have a similar goals,they both have diffrent way of achieving them. Malcolm X uses repetition to to bluntly state his purposes and to point out issues. Martin Luther King Uses parallel structure to refute what the clergymen had to say about the actions of the blacks and labeling him an extremist. Yet even though both malcolm X and Martin Luther king did use rhetorical question, they used it to serve different purposes. Malcolm X used it to get the audience thinking on what they should do next and how they did not accomplish anything, while Martin Luther King used it to question the Clergymen's way of thinking and to ask where the white christians were at when blacks were being

Two of the most significant individuals are Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. During the American civil rights movement. Although the two leaders had distinct ways of combating structural racism and injustice, King's theory ultimately prevails over Malcolm X's. The references discussed why King's perspective is superior to Malcolm X's, especially in terms of bringing about long-lasting change. The two leaders' approaches to nonviolence were one of their most significant distinctions.

King, who served as a minister, had a deep understanding of Christianity, which he used in his letter to the white clergy. King sought to highlight the immorality of discrimination, especially against those in powerful or religious positions who could assist him in bringing about change. In their capacities as churchmen, these individuals should be aware of the unchristian nature of allowing such bigotry. Social change was necessary regardless of if one ignored inequities or actively condoned segregation. In the absence of other options, King became more visible and vocal in his protests in a non-violent manner (King, 1963, p.5, para. 3).

Throughout the 1960s, there have been multiple philosophies from civil rights leaders. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Junior are two very influential and famous leaders of this time. Although they had different views on distinct issues, they ultimately fought for the equivalent cause. Martin Luther King believed in nonviolence and equality for all races while being joined together.

Issues with racism and equality have plagued America for centuries. 50 years ago, the tensions came to a peak, and two key figures wrote to inspire the nation to come together. These two leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, impacted the thoughts and actions of many people throughout their lives. They each wrote influential essays that persuaded the rest of the nation to fight for equality. While in a Birmingham jail cell, MLK composed a letter to eight clergymen from Alabama who did not believe it was the right time to fight for equality.

With this information, King noted that those Christians were all extremists in their own right and that that extremism is the form of extremists that King associates himself with. He even went as far as noting hat “Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness.” As result, King defends his methods of nonviolent protesting as a method Christians practiced for centuries and in the process accepted the label extremist, but on his own terms. This effectively rebuttals the clergymen’s arguments and distaste of nonviolent protests by calling them out on their hypocrisy for worshipping a deceased man who practiced the same strategies as King, but turning against him in a time where he needed their utmost

“We repeatedly asked ourselves: ‘Are you able to accept the blows without retaliating? ‘Are you able to endure the ordeal of Jail?’” These workshops allowed the activists to remain in a stance of compassionate non-violence; they had worked to understand what they were committing to. King stressed himself but also to other activist that was “better to suffer evil than inflict it.” The idea of practicing non-violence created a strong union between the activist, they could understand “the success of the movement depended not just on idealism and courage, but on a keen understanding and ready use of the fulcrums of power.” King during the workshops preached, “I have tired to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral mean to attain moral ends.”

Once these rules were ingrained in their minds, then they could participate in the demonstrations in order to change the community around them for the better. Even though the problem of racial injustice will never be fixed, King believed that to accept passively the issues of an unjust system is to cooperate with the evil in that system (Colaiaco). In our communities today, we as Christians must do more than to accept the evil in them, but actively fight that evil for the greater

King alludes to several Biblical and historical figures and events in order to justify his actions and decisions. Take, for example, how King refers to Jesus as an extremist for love by recounting the verse, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (King). Dr. King challenges the clergymen’s claims of being extremist by highlighting that Jesus himself was an extremist because Jesus was an important religious figure not only in Christianity but the world which exemplifies Dr. King’s actions and nonviolent demonstrations and refutes the clergymen’s claims of being extremist. King also makes sure to capture the feelings of all Americans, not just the religious, by suggesting that Abraham Lincoln was also an extremist when he said the words “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free” (King). Dr. King challenges the clergymen’s negative connotation of being an extremist by noting that Lincoln’s philosophies would have been considered extremist at the time, and how those extremist ideas lead to the abolishment of slavery because Lincoln was a popular and notable US president whose actions had a resemblance to what King was trying to achieve.

Many people think that violence is the best solution to an argument or disagreement but sometimes using your words and talking is the best way to go. Words can be so much more powerful than going straight to weapons and fighting. Many historical people such as Martin Luther King Jr, Mark Anthony, and Ronald Reagan, have proven that words are stronger than weapons. These people have proven that using your words can get you just as far as fighting and using weapons. Martin Luther King Jr, Mark Anthony, and Ronald Reagan, gave amazing speeches to produce violence and get their feeling and thoughts out to the world.

The most important decision of a leader is the style of leading they decide to use when inspiring others, or providing a vision for the future. By looking at the past, it is proven that some leadership styles are guaranteed to be more effective than others. The leadership style of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X during the Civil Rights provides significant evidence of how different styles of leading can turn out to be a major success or defeat. Malcolm X’s leadership style included using violence to protest against violence and unequal rights, as well as supporting the segregation of African Americans and the whites. Martin Luther King’s style included nonviolent marches and protests against violence, and peacefully fighting for integrating the blacks and whites.

On the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., an article was published in a religious magazine by Cesar Chavez. Dr. King was a leader of the African American civil rights movement, his work, speeches and spread of non-violence inspired many people. He led many marches and uprisings in the African American community, which played a key role in the civil rights movement against inequality. Cesar Chavez, leader of the Chicano movement and labor union organizer, drew inspiration from the strategies of conveyed throughout Dr. King's speech. Cesar Chavez uses this article to persuade and spread the idea of non-violence to fellow Chicanos and leaders in addition to keeping Dr. King's values by using comparison, cause and effect and diction.

MLK’s ultimate claim is that the church is to blame for these happenings and “the judgement of God is upon the Church as never before”(276). King stated how even the people who were in the church trying to fight for justice had been looked down upon and some had been kicked out of their own churches. King’s claims were passionately presented. He relentlessly provided evidence to prove his position on the issue of injustice and also showed ample amounts of examples to solve these problems.

Chavez uses this hypophora in an attempt to elicit the common sense idea that the poor and the workers are the ones who are killed in the case of violent revolutions. Chavez wants to persuade the audience to believe that nonviolent