UNIVERSIDAD DEL ACONCAGUA

ESCUELA SUPERIOR DE LENGUAS EXTRANJERAS

English Teacher Training Program, 3rd year

ROJAS, Gabriela Carolina

Martin Luther King and Malcolm X: just like Two Antonyms

0
 Martin Luther King and Malcolm X: just like Two Antonyms

“Ironically, the basic property of two (…) antonyms, is that they share all

but one semantic property (…), [so] in order to be opposites, two words must be

semantically very similar.” (Rodman, 1983:176). Similarly, when two people are

said to be opposites, it means that there is common ground between them, but

that they must differ in at least one essential trait. This is the case of Martin

Luther King and Malcolm X, who were alike in that both of them were deeply

religious, had similar historical and geographical settings, and faced the social

problem of racial segregation, for instance. They, nevertheless, were radically

different regarding three essential aspects: religious outlook, ways to achieve

freedom, and the ideals of oppressor-oppressed relationship.

Both Martin Luther King and Malcolm X (from now on MLK and MX,

respectively) had spiritual foundations, but they held dissimilar religious

principles. On one hand, MLK’s biblical allusions reflect his Christian beliefs.

He asserted: “[t]he old law of an eye for an eye is leaving everybody blind”

(1958:68), an implicit invitation to imitate Jesus, who, on the contrary, had said

“(…) do good to those who hate you” (Luke 6:27). On the other hand, MX, a

Black Muslim, was “the most effective and charismatic leader [of the] (…)

Nation of Islam in America” (Lewin, 2006: par. 8), and as such, he followed a

revengeful Allah, who told him to “send [his enemy] to the cementery” (1963:

par 5), just the antithesis of the Christian rule. Even though MLK and MX

1
believed in the existence of one God, the characteristics with which they

endowed that God were completely unlike.

Naturally, then, MLK and MX, were led along different paths towards

freedom. MLK declares that “non-violent resistance” is the best way, because it

enables the oppressed to fight for their freedom without either surrendering, or

attacking their oppressors. Thus, “public support is magnetically attracted to the

advocates of nonviolence, while those who employ violence are literally

disarmed by overwhelming sentiment against their stand” (MLK, 1958: 69). In

other words, the oppressors lose their power as soon as they are seen as the

illegitimate instigators, and not as the victims, which is the case when the

oppressed used violence against them. MX, quite the opposite, claimed that

Afro-Americans should “be given the rights of a human being (…) by any

means necessary” (1864a: par.7), which meant “[either] the ballot [or] the

bullet”, i.e. if liberty was not given to them by good and free will, they would

have to seize it through bloodshed. In the end, it is undeniable that MLK and

MX were travelling towards the same independence, but along different roads.

Finally, MLK and MX, had dissimilar expectations about the kind of

relationship that oppressors and oppressed could have in the future. MLK was

“not against oppressors, but against oppression” (1958:69); he wanted “the

Negro (…) to (…) oppos[e] the unjust system while loving [its] (…)perpetrators

2
(…)” (68). This means that, far beyond eliminating injustice, his ultimate desire

was to achieve racial integration, so all the American inhabitants could live in

peaceful harmony. MX, on the contrary, stated: “we are not fighting for

integration [or] separation [,w]e are fighting for recognition (…)”, showing that

his aim was not assimilation. In fact, he “taught that (…) Africans throughout

the Diaspora must return (…) to the Motherland” (Lewin, 2006: par 4),

explicitly saying that Afro-Americans should go back to Africa, the continent

from which their ancestors had come. Apparently, the achievement of a close

relationship with White-Americans was not in his agenda. To sum up, regarding

the oppressor-oppressed relationship, MLK wanted integration, while MX

projected isolation.

With different theological views, going along dissimilar routes towards

emancipation, and aiming at unlike sorts of co-existence between White and

Afro-Americans, MLK and MX are just like antonyms. However, in one aspect

they are alike: they dared to stand for a cause, even at the high cost of their lives.

Thus, they demonstrated that in the daily struggle against injustice, we must take

a position, just like they did. We may identify with either of them, or with none

of them. What is not possible for us, is to be neutral, because not deciding is in

itself a decision.

Number of words: 704

3
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Holy Bible. Luke chapter 6, verse 27. New American Standard Version
(Ultra Thin Reference Edition) (city): Broadman and Holman Publishers,
1901

- Dictionary of Contemporary English. The Living Dictionary (New

Edition). Della Summers (Dir.) Edinburgh: Longman Pearson Education
Limited, 2003

- King, Martin Luther Jr. “Nonviolent Resistance”. Stride Towards

Freedom: The Montgomery Story. New York: Harper, 1958

- Lewin, Arthur, N. “Malcolm X vs. Martin Luther King” [online] January

17th 2006. Available at:

http://www.blackwebportal.com/wire/DA.cfm?ArticleID=2541. Last visit:

April, 11th, 2009

- Malcolm X, [online excerpt of a speech to the Grass Roots. November,

1963, Detroit]. Malcolm X Speaks. Available at:

http://www.malcolmxonline.com/quotes_essays.html. Last visit: May,

11th, 2009

- Malcolm X. “By any Means Necessary”. [online excerpt of a speech

given at the OAAU Founding Rally. June 28, 1964a] In Breitman, George
Malcom X Speaks. Available at:

4
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3812/is_199901/ai_n8851869/.
Last visit: May 11th, 2009

- Malcolm X. “Communication and Reality”. [online excerpt of a speech

to the Domestic Peace Corps. December 12, 1964b] In Clarke, John
Henrik, Malcom X, The Man and his Times. Available at:
http://www.africawithin.com/malcomx/communication.htm. Last visit:
April, 7th, 2009

- Rodman, F. “Semantics: The Meanings of Language”. An Introduction

to Language. New York: Holt Rinehart Winston, 1983