The basic understanding, as far as motives are concerned, points to the fact that a motive results from an internal state arousing and directing behaviors to a given specific goal. This could also be as a result of a deficit and will differ in terms of types and amount. Most importantly motives will drive people to think, act and view matters with the aim of satisfying a need.
Motives are the core driving forces behind the things the people do in their day to day lifestyle and they have their basis on needs. Needs are generally the levels of tension present in somebody which reduce after the needs are provided for.
An American psychologist by the name Henry Murray proposed the personality theory (Murray, 1940). The needs were ordered in accordance to people’s needs, motives. According to Murray (1940) a need is a readiness to respond accordingly in varied circumstances. He stated that each kind of need relates with an intention, emotions, and actions and are always described by names of different traits.
Every person has a different kind of need which is affected by their immediate environmental factors. These types of needs are grouped into two broad groups, that is, primary and secondary. They are farther categorized into twenty four which totally vary with personalities.
These, he further grouped under ambition needs, power needs, affection needs, materialistic needs and information needs. Each need is independently vital but Murray asserts that they are interrelated. One of the main factors that affect the psychogenic needs relates to the individual’s environment which dictates an individual’s behavior ((Murray, 1940).
People tend to have varied motives for the actions they carry out or the behavior they exhibit. Three views of motivation namely psychoanalytical, humanistic and diversity can assist us in evaluating motivation in persons (McClelland, 1984). The psychoanalytical view covers the aspects relating to determinism, drive, conflict and the unconscious.
Those things that we seemingly have little control over often correlate with the concept of determinism. The drive pushes us to carry out the basic instincts. The humanistic view of motivation points at fulfilling the basic human or natural instincts. This will cover needs such as affection and materialistic. Diversity view as a concept of motivation covers the various motivations types which result in different goals (Mc Adams, 2005).
Martin Luther King who had a realistic outlook on life was counted as one of the great reformists of our time. In the eyes of those who knew him, King is described as a dependable, solid and reliable person among many other descriptions (King, 1959).
This perception was as a result of King’s motivation in addressing the needs in his life probably power and ambition needs. This could very well be according to the psychoanalytical view of motivation. King is described as having a strong drive in that when he had a purpose, he was fixed and immovable.
A diversity view of King’s motivation points to the fact that he showed a serious and subtle ambition perhaps partly aimed at addressing his ambition needs and yet still aimed at achieving materialistic accomplishments. Racism during King’s days shaped what motivated him according to the psychoanalytical view (King, 1959).
Martin Luther King appeared to invest a lot in terms of his world position and contribution to the society. This enables us to understand the humanistic and diversity views of motivation in King. King’s motivation drove him to assume more responsibility in whichever circumstance he was in than anyone else.
According to the diversity view of motivation Martin Luther King would set goals often sacrificing family and personal ambitions to achieve these goals. King was known for his faithfulness, persistence, patience and diligence (King, 1959).
A diversity view of motivation points out the fact that King was a realist and pragmatic in his approaches. King considered the final gauging of any fact to be its importance practically.
From the humanistic view of motivation, King was attracted to studying foreign culture and his overseas traveling helped him to expand his perception while widening his intellectual scope of the world. Being the revolutionist he was King had a mind that was so philosophical and always concerned with answering great questions that met his zeal for information.
Subtly King’s penetrating perception into people’s lives and a keen attention for the unseen and unspoken reveals the unconscious element of the psychoanalytical view of King’s motivation. For one to be able to effectively analyze motivation, he should understand the personality profile of an individual at the level of dispositional traits, life history and the adaptations characteristically (King, 1959).
References
King, M.L. (1959). The Measure of a Man. Philadelphia: The Christian Education Press.
Mc Adams, D.P. (2005). The Person: A New Introduction to Personality Psychology. (4th Ed.). New York: Wiley.
McClelland, C. D. (1984). Motives, Personality and Society: Selected Papers (Centennial psychology series). (1st Ed.). New York: Praeger Publishers Inc.
Murray, H. A. (1940). What should psychologists do about psychoanalysis? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 2, (35), 150–175.
Martin Luther King Jr. is one of the iconic people who shaped the civil rights movement in the United States during the 1960s. King was a pastor, and he used Martin Luther King Jr. is one of the iconic people who shaped the civil rights movement in the United States during the 1960s. King was a pastor, and he used this platform to draw people to God and, at the same time, agitate for racial equality. The pulpit for him was a place to spread the gospel of salvation and that of equality based on the premise that all people are created equal, and thus, they should be treated as such without exceptions. King stands out because he was a peace ambassador, and he encouraged even those being segregated and treated as lesser human beings to fight for their civil liberties and rights through nonviolence using various strategies, such as civil disobedience. As such, he won the most coveted Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 for fighting for racial equality using non-violent means. His oratory skills convinced many followers about the need for maintaining peace and nonviolence even while suffering, and through landmark speeches, such as “I Have a Dream” and “I Have Been to the Mountaintop,” he articulated his vision for America and the church.
This paper discusses how King became a great pastor and helped people get closer to God. It focuses on his spirituality and identifies relevant cultural and historical influences that shaped his journey of faith. It also highlights important moments in King’s life and key experiences. Martin Luther King Jr. became a great pastor by using his faith in God, theological basis, and oratory skills to articulate Christian principles and fight for civil liberties through non-violent resistance. He grew up in Atlanta, Georgia, where racial segregation was rife with black communities being subjected to oppression and barbarism, including the savage lynching of blacks, police brutality, court injustices, and Ku Klux Klan’s (KKK) hatred vitriol, and these historical aspects shaped his life and resolve to become a pastor and a champion of civil liberties.
Becoming a Pastor
Historical and Cultural Influences
King’s life was a continuation of the commitment his family had made to advance the ministry and mission of the Christian church. He came from a lineage of Baptist preachers including his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and uncle among other members of his extended family. According to Baldwin, “King was born in the church, and it shaped his identity, rooted him in strong moral and spiritual values, and instilled in him a sense of direction and purpose.” He was brought up in the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA, and later became a youth minister at Calvary Baptist Church in Chester, PA, and at Twelfth Baptist Church in Boston, MA. The congregations in these churches were mainly made up of blacks, and this aspect shaped King’s earliest sense of the function and identity of the church. Later on, he joined the Morehouse College, Crozer Theological Seminary, and Boston University, which gave him the necessary training to ask critical questions about life at the time from the liberal-modernistic point of view. This section highlights some of the historical and cultural influences that ultimately contributed to him becoming a great pastor.
At the Ebenezer Baptist Church, King, as a child, was exposed to what Baldwin calls the “Ebenezer tradition” formed in the 1880s by blacks coming from slavery with a firm belief that ecclesiastical or autonomous religious institutions had to be formed to address the many needs of African Americans at the time. The role of the church had evolved to cover other areas apart from spreading the gospel of salvation, such as responding to social, political, and economic problems affecting its congregants and society at large. Therefore, King grew up in this environment, and this exposure allowed him, as a boy, to start questioning the narrow and self-centered definitions of conventional churches. The historical understanding of the origins of church and slavery would later contribute significantly to his approach to Christian ministry and gospel.
Beyond the Ebenezer Baptist Church, King mingled with different cultural and religious ideologies in Atlanta, especially meeting with black elites from different professions, and this exposure stirred him to become ambitious and driven to succeed in life. Additionally, this interaction informed his “personhood, humanity, and early thirst for community, and that helped him to make sense of the paradox of a society supposedly rooted in Judeo-Christian values while sanctioning structures of white supremacy and black subordination”. Consequently, on his journey to becoming a great pastor, he started a lifelong refusal to be caught up in church labels and his denominational identity, which set him apart from his peers. King’s religious eclecticism was compounded when he joined Morehouse College, where he was introduced to philosophical and theological liberalism to further promote his intellectual energy and independence.
He continued questioning church doctrines with Henry David Thoreau’s ideas on civil disobedience and Jesus’ teachings making the basis of his arguments. During his final semester at Morehouse College, he refused to acknowledge the virgin birth of Jesus Christ before an ordination committee, but he was nevertheless ordained as a minister. He then pursued higher learning at Crozer Theological Seminary and at Boston University, whereby he honed his skills and understanding to continue rejecting scriptural inerrancy and libertinism. At Boston University, he studied personal idealism, which stresses the personal God of reason and love and that all human beings are sacred. As such, personalism became his basic philosophical position to refine the ideas that he would ultimately advance in the black church and his preaching as a pastor. Therefore, the way King studied shaped his ministry, image, and style as a preacher, and he was convinced that preaching could be “philosophically sound and intellectually respectable, as well as dynamic and entertaining”. With this knowledge, he started his ministry as a preacher, and his ideologies set him up for success as a great pastor.
Gospel of Non-Violent Resistance
As mentioned earlier, one of the reasons that gave King prominence as a pastor was the non-violent resistance approach that he adopted to fight for civil liberties. Therefore, it is important to understand how he decided to follow this path when the better option was to inflame people with his oratory skills to take up arms and fight for their rights. The institutionalized violence and injustices directed towards blacks in the US at the time were enormous. The problem was compounded by the emergence of hate groupings, such as the KKK. Some of the King’s peers, like Malcolm X, supported violent resistance. On April 3, 1964, at Cory Methodist Church in Cleland, Ohio, Malcolm X stated, “No, I’m not an American. I’m one of the 22 million black people who are the victims of Americanism…I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don’t see any American dream; I see an American nightmare”. However, King chose to see an American dream where others saw nightmares and call for peace instead of violence, and thus it is important to understand how he arrived at such a decision.
King’s intellectual “pilgrimage to nonviolence” started when he was a young boy growing up in Atlanta, where blacks were seen and treated as lesser human beings. He admits that seeing the brutality directed towards blacks in Atlanta made him come perilously close to resenting all white people. However, his turning point came when he worked two summers, against the advice of his father, in a plant together with both white and black laborers. King argues that at this point, he realized that poor whites were exploited the same way as blacks. Therefore, he realized that oppression was a product of societal injustices as opposed to being a racial problem. As such, when he joined Morehouse College and read about the ideology of civil disobedience by Thoreau, specifically the concept of refusing to cooperate with an evil system. At Crozer Theological Seminary, he interacted with works of other scholars on the subject to shape his theory of nonviolence resistance.
King was convinced that true gospel should deal with not only the soul and spiritual wellbeing, but also the body and material wellbeing. He argued that any “religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the social and economic conditions that scar the soul is spiritually moribund religion only waiting for the day to be buried”. Consequently, he justified the need to incorporate socio-economic matters that were affecting people at the time into his preaching. In his arguments, King held that people should not be deprived of their freedoms, because by doing so, they are relegated to the status of a thing, instead of being elevated into personhood.
Despite King’s conviction about the gospel of love, he almost gave up, especially after reading about Nietzsche’s philosophy that all life expressed the will to power together with the blanket attack of the Hebraic-Christian morality. However, his resolve to continue with the gospel of peace was rejuvenated once he heard and read about Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy. He realized that Jesus’ teachings about love and turning the other cheek could be employed as a social force to agitate for change in society. King understood that Bentham and Mill’s utilitarianism, Marx and Lenin’s revolutionary methods, Hobbes’ social contract theory, and Nietzsche’s superhuman philosophy could not offer a solution to the millions of oppressed individuals across America. In Gandhi’s non-violent philosophy, King says that he “found intellectual and moral satisfaction…I came to feel that this was the only morally and practically sound method open to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.” Therefore, based on Gandhi’s philosophy and Jesus’ teachings about love, King finally settled on nonviolence as a formidable tool to fight against oppression, racial inequality, and injustice and this approach made him a prominent pastor of his time.
Important Moments in King’s Life
King was an instrumental figure in the fight for civil liberties, and some moments thrust him into the limelight as a fearless individual led by deep convictions about the cause he was agitating to ensure racial equality. One such moment was the Montgomery bus boycott, which protested against institutional racial segregation on public transport as espoused in Jim Crow laws. On December 5, 1955, a black woman, Rosa Parks, refused to vacate her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, for a white man as required by the law. She was arrested, found guilty of violating transport rules, and fined $10. This incident triggered a series of events, which culminated in the famous Montgomery bus boycott, which lasted for 385 days with King leading the protests. He was arrested during this campaign, but in the end, a United States District Court ruled against segregation on buses plying in Montgomery. King’s instrumental role in this boycott made him a national figure and the de facto spokesperson of the civil liberties movement.
After the Montgomery bus boycott, King was involved in a series of non-violent campaigns agitating for racial equality, but the Birmingham campaign of 1963 stands out from the rest. According to Garrow, King wanted to “create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.” However, King was arrested and sent to jail even before the protest could gain momentum. This arrest was a blessing to King because from his cell he wrote the famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. In this letter, he articulated the need for the civil rights movement to pursue non-violent means to achieve social change. The letter was in response to criticisms made by clergymen, who argued that the fight against racism was supposed to take place in courts, but not in the streets. However, reiterating the need for people to fight for their freedoms, King used religious grounds and leveraged his oratory skills to emphasize the need for peaceful protests. This letter once again placed King on the national platform as a reliable leader and pastor despite the difficult times he was going through.
Another important moment in King’s life as a pastor was during the 1963 March on Washington, where he delivered the famous 17-minute speech, “I Have a Dream.” On August 28, 1963, King joined other leaders from different parts of the US to march in Washington to agitate for jobs and freedom. The objective of this protest was to create awareness about the suffering of blacks in the south and present their grievances to the nation’s capital. Specifically, King and his fellow protestors and leaders wanted the government to address racial inequality in public schools, stop racial discrimination in workplaces, protect protestors from police brutality, and establish a minimum wage of $2 for all workers. When King was allowed to address the protestors, he abandoned his prepared speech when Mahalia Jackson shouted, “Tell them about the dream”. This unplanned speech went on to become one of the best-known texts in American oratory history, and reformers around the country acted on King’s message to oversee the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ultimately, based on the three incidents highlighted under this section, King became a prominent pastor and civil rights activist until he was assassinated on March 29, 1968, in Memphis, where he had gone to support black public work employees during a strike for better pay. He paid the ultimate price of agitating for civil liberties with his life because racism had been institutionalized and normalized to the extent that some individuals, such as his killer, thought it was unacceptable for black people to be equal with their white counterparts. However, King stood for what he believed to be right, and even in his death, he was honored for causing a civil rights revolution leading to important constitutional changes geared towards ending racism in the US, while at the same time preaching the gospel of salvation.
A Great Pastor
The historical and cultural factors and experiences that King went through from his childhood until he became a pastor prepared him for his ministry. However, his greatness as a pastor hinged on the message of hope and love that defined his message and preaching. According to Dawson Jr., “It takes hope to, to argue as King did if love is used to be used as a tool for social transformation.” The understanding that love, based on Jesus’ teaching and Gandhi’s philosophy, could inspire people to come closer to God and fight for their rights peacefully was one of the distinguishing characteristics of King as a pastor. His spirituality centered on the belief that a person could be use prayer for religious inspiration, personal growth, and to establish an intimate relationship with God. His entire spiritual life was a journey towards the discovery of self and its relationship with the living God.
King’s greatness also depended largely on his oratory skills. He knew how to use words to inspire people into action, convince them about his ideas, and instill hope in their hearts. His landmark speech – “I Have a Dream” proves this argument, and according to Baldwin and Anderson, the speech closes with glorious praise, “Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, we are free at last.” This ability to use words artistically was unparalleled, and it drew large crowds of people to his rallies where he took the opportunity to preach the gospel of salvation and reiterate the call for social justice and racial equality. In other words, on top of focusing on people’s spiritual needs, King addressed socio-economic problems affecting all the oppressed people in the country, and this aspect, among others, as discussed in this paper, made him a great pastor leading humanity to God.
Conclusion
Martin Luther King Jr. is remembered for his leadership during the civil rights movement of the 1960s. However, apart from being an activist, he was a great pastor passionately preaching the gospel of salvation wherever he went. As a boy, he was exposed to Christian values as he was brought up in a family of Baptist preachers. Additionally, growing up in Atlanta, GA, he witnessed the oppression that blacks faced due to the color of their skin. These childhood experiences shaped King’s life purpose and compounded with the knowledge he gained from Morehouse College, Crozer Theological Seminary, and Boston University, and he determined his path in life by choosing to become a pastor and a civil rights activist. Instead of adopting violence as a way of responding to social injustices and racism, he followed Jesus’ teachings and Gandhi’s philosophy and opted for non-violent resistance. The Montgomery bus boycott, the Birmingham campaign, and the Washington march are some of the important moments in King’s life. Ultimately, King was a great pastor based on his faith in God, theological knowledge, oratory skills.
Bibliography
Baldwin, Lewis, and Victor Anderson, eds. Revives My Soul Again: The Spirituality of Martin Luther King Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2018.
Baldwin, Lewis. There is a Balm in Gilead: The Cultural Roots of Martin Luther King, Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
—. Never to Leave Us Alone: The Prayer Life of Martin Luther King, Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010a.
—. The Voice of Conscience: The Church in the Mind of Martin Luther King, Jr. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010b.
Bennett, Scott. Radical Pacifism: The War Resisters League and Gandhian Nonviolence in America, 1915–1963. New York: Syracuse University Press, 2003.
Cone, James. Martin & Malcolm & America: A dream or a Nightmare. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991.
Dawson Jr., Clanton. “The Concept of Hope in the Thinking of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.” In The Liberatory Thought of Martin Luther King Jr.: Critical Essays on the Philosopher King, edited by Robert Birt, 431-355. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2012.
Garrow, David. Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King Jr., and the Southern Crisis. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1986.
Hansen, Drew. The Dream: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Speech that Inspired a Nation. Broadway: HarperCollins, 2005.
King, Martin Luther. Stride toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1958.
—. Thou, Dear God: Prayers that Open Hearts and Spirits. Boston: Beacon Press, 2012.
Selma. Directed by Ava DuVernay. Chicago: Harpo Films, 2014. DVD.
Walsh, Frank. The Montgomery Bus Boycott. New York: Gareth Stevens, 2003.
“I have been to the mountain” was Martin Luther King’s last speech before he was assassinated. In this speech, King aims at maintaining action by encouraging the civil rights activists to continue fighting for racial equality. He uses biblical references to pass his message across to the people. He says that just like the biblical Jews who suffered in the wilderness, but their descendants finally reached the Promised Land, so will the descendants of the black people in the United States.
King rallies the people to keep fighting for their rights and never to give up. He refers to the many successes the movements have had so far. He realized that this was the best tactic to encourage the people to make sure that disillusionment does not overwhelm idealism. He compared past events and to make conclusions that all will be well in the future.
On most occasions he uses the bible, for instance, he compares the Jews slaves who were persecuted in Egypt, but due to their perseverance, they lived until they were released and eventually reached the Promised Land, to the black slaves in America whom he believed would also finally be free.
This was his central claim, which actually comes out clearly in this line “I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the Promised Land” (King 1). This served to encourage the civil rights activists to employ righteousness in their fight for equality.
In this speech King was speaking directly to the sanitation workers who were striking in Memphis, but his intention was to reach all African Americans to encourage them to rally behind the movement so that they can achieve their civil rights. He uses many past events to support this claim.
For instance, he uses past efforts to illustrate some of the civil rights successes. Among them are the sit-ins that happened in North Carolina, the freedom rides that were witnessed in the South, the Negro activism in states like Georgia, Albany, Alabama, and Birmingham, and also the many supporters who trooped to capital in 1963 to participate in the demonstration in which King gave his “I have a dream” speech. He also used those fighting injustice in Memphis, Alabama, and Selma to support his claim (King 1).
King uses his oratory skills in this speech to create a role of activist to be played by his audience by retelling heroism stories in the past and assuring them that they will eventually succeed even without him around. He employs a superior relationship with the audience by using many personal examples in supporting his claim. This made the people realize that he was a very important person to them. The role of prophet that he gives himself makes people believe in every word that come out of his mouth.
When he says “I want to thank God once more for allowing me to be here with you” (King 1), he brings out the idea that he is chosen by God to deliver his people from misery. He uses near death experiences that he has gone through to paint himself as a person who has been tested and chosen. He also emerges as a visionary when he claims that he has been on the top of the mountain and has seen the Promised Land (King 1).
King uses a well organized chronological structure that he strategically embeds in the context of the time. He travels back to refer to the early successes of the movement in the start of the 1960s and works his way systematically to the present and concludes the speech with a visionary look into the future ahead. By using this structure, King was able to rekindle enthusiasm in his audience by reminding them of their circumstances and encouraging them to always keep in mind their current troubles (King 1).
In short, King claims that the efforts of the civil rights movement will come to bear fruit. He proves this by sharing his dream with the people. Having assumed a prophetic figure, he did not need much proof to strengthen his message although he has cited a few. His message was a humble plea for equality not a demand by blacks that could create fear in the white population. This is shown by his contrasting example of the black women who attempted to kill him and that of the small white girl who admired him.
In post-war America, the fight against racism threatened to turn the country upside down. The struggle reached a climax in the mid 1960s, and in the midst of it all were two charismatic and articulate leaders, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X.
Their philosophical differences forced them to be at odds with each other as each strategized about how to win the fight for equality and justice for African Americans. Yet, these Civil Rights leaders shared certain attributes. Their similarities allowed them to cross paths and establish common ground, while their actions made them iconic leaders of the African American race.
Their shared passion for freedom and equality made them targets, and their commitment to their ideals caused them to die in the prime of their lives from an assassin’s bullet. Irony particularly surrounds the violent death of Martin Luther King, Jr., whose political ideas were deemed too passive and unradical by some critics. Yet, his contributions helped to shape contemporary African American politics.
Similarities
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X walked different paths; however, there were commonalities between them. For instance, both championed an end to the status quo. Furthermore, both men agreed that American society could be transformed only through dramatic changes in attitude and actions at the individual, community and national levels.
Each man believed that he had a major role to play in this struggle, and each leader altered his birth name to monikers we now consider legendary. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born Michael King, and Malcolm X was christened as Malcolm Little.[1]
Their ideas and words came from a religious base. Both were ministers in their respective religions. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the son, grandson and the great grandson of Baptist ministers, and when he grew up, it was unsurprising that he became a fourth generation Baptist minister.[2] Malcolm X was also a preacher’s son. He joined the Nation of Islam while incarcerated and then became a lay leader in the Muslim religion.
When King and Malcolm X spoke, their power and charisma were obvious and their distinctive styles were honed in their respective congregations. The ideas that each brought forth were characterized by religious undertones and influenced by sacred doctrine.
Their political ideas stemmed from a hope that all African Americans would be ale to walk the streets with their heads held high. A dream of total emancipation from the negative effects of slavery and the desire for freedom in all aspects of life.
In Martin Luther King, Jr.’s famous speech at the March on Washington, he said, “It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream . that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’”[3]
This excerpt illustrates the burning passion in his heart. The same can be said of Malcolm X who refused to accept standard discriminatory practices and was consumed by a vision that someday African Americans would no longer be treated as second-class citizens.
Both their teachings outlived their lives and transcended beyond the geographical boundaries that confined the two leaders. Just as their teachings appealed to the same group of people in different ways, the spread of their ideologies has also taken different paths.
Malcolm X teachings have remained in non-mainstream minority groupings only surfacing when such groups find a leader similar to Malcolm X in their defense of the ideology and quickly leave the mainstream with the departure of the leader.
In a similar pattern, King’s ideologies have penetrated the mainstream just as they did before and continue to influence policy and personal aspirations of equality along all lifestyles. The pattern of the ideological spread remains unchanged for both leaders’ political theories.
Differences
Although both African American leaders shared similarities, they were totally different when it came to the core principles of their political theories. Malcolm X believed that African Americans needed to be more aggressive. He believed that they had to assert themselves when it came to their constitutional rights as citizens of the United States of America and their God given rights as human beings.
More importantly, Malcolm X’s core teachings were all about “moral principles of self defense, retaliation, and power.”[4] Martin Luther King, Jr., on the other hand, chose nonviolent resistance “through unconditional love and direct action.”[5] In other words, Martin Luther King, Jr. believed firmly in the principles of nonviolent resistance against the oppressors of the Negro race.
Their differences in this regard may partly explain why King was admired more than Malcolm X, arguably. Once a year, Americans celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, which illustrates this icon’s national importance. In addition, Martin Luther King, Jr., at age 35, received the Nobel Peace Prize for his achievements in the fight for equality, freedom, and justice using nonviolent means. He was and is considered as one of the youngest to ever receive a Nobel Prize.
The second major difference can be seen in how both gentlemen envisioned the future when it came to the relationship between blacks and whites. King wanted integration. He not only believed that racism could be eradicated, but also that black and whites could live in relative harmony.
One writer captured King’s actions and beliefs more succinctly when he wrote, “Although King’s Gandhian tactics were radical at the time, his goals in 1965 were mainstream: inclusion of black citizens in an integrated American democracy.”[6] During this period, some questioned the effectiveness of this approach. In fact, there were many criticisms hurled at King, but, in the end, it was all justified.
Similar to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s critics, Malcolm X felt that King’s vision was a mere illusion void of logic. He emphasized the slim likelihood that white people would relinquish control of their positions of authority.
One commentator summarized the rationale for the call for separation as opposed to integration; citing Malcolm X, the author wrote the following: “Because they believed they would never ‘pierce the present white power structure’ they decided to form a separate party and elect Negroes to office.”[7]
This reasoning is why many disapproved of King’s nonviolent stance, which Malcolm X viewed as illogical, given the entrenched power of white people.
Malcolm X clarified it further by stating: “In the etiquette of race relations, the condition of the oppressed was ameliorated, if at all, through entreaty and supplication and only by the dominant class and at its pace.”[8] Malcolm X felt that progress was moving at a snail’s pace and something had to be done.
Malcolm X regarded action as the only way to influence change on the American political atmosphere. His rhetoric is full of the feelings of oppression that African Americans felt under the political ideological system of the time such that each African American saw themselves as victims.
When Malcolm X spoke to address the grievances of African Americans, he did so as a victim just like those whom he was representing. Therefore, his teachings resonated more with the heavily oppressed and poor compared to the relatively well-off enjoying mild social status in the American socio-economic system.
The extremist boldness of Malcolm X added to his resentment of the prevailing law in America. According to his rhetoric, Malcolm X saw that there were only two options of putting a stop to the oppression of the African American, using the ballot box or an armed struggle.
Either choice was not favorable with the existing government or therefore he became an enemy of the state as long as he advocated his political ideologies. Contrariwise, King’s ideology presents a variety of choices that aim to bring the oppressed and the oppressor to a common ground without the feeling that one group is taking from another.
Malcolm X’s teachings resonate well with revolutionary causes and therefore capture the spirit of minority groups in all aspects of their lives[9].
His teachings brings out the lack that minorities experience and seeks to compel them to put an end to their dissatisfaction by joining an uprising that will ultimately uplift their socio economic status to the level of those that oppress them. Unfortunately, none of the individuals forming the prevailing political class falls under the classification of the oppressed as described by Malcolm X, therefore they cannot relate on a personal level to his teachings.
Other than their revolutionary proclamations, Malcolm’s teaching depended on his energy of message delivery; he had to display a strong unwavering character capable of no compromise in championing the causes of the oppressed. His teaching was forceful compared with King’s powerful teaching.
It must also be pointed out that their differences are exemplified in the way they crafted their speeches, declarations, and actions when in the public eye.
Their personal and political views affected the way they handled their social and political activities. It can be argued that both men were activists, though only one became an expert at dealing with mainstream politics and managing the tension between the oppressed, frustrated black minority and the white majority.
For instance, Martin Luther King, Jr. was able to work with former President Johnson, and their collaboration resulted in the creation of landmark laws whose impact is still felt to this day.[10] Malcolm X, on the other hand, succeeded in alienating himself from mainstream society and failed to exert a positive influence on the White House to help him to reach his goals.
Martin Luther King, Jr. may have had a better feel for politics, but in the eyes of his critics, that political savviness became a liability. The radicalized segment of the African American community wanted substantial results and possibly interpreted King’s cautious stance as a sign of weakness.
King’s strategies were viewed with contempt by many African-Americans, especially some young people. Malcolm X’s fiery rhetoric was more desirable for many of them. In the words of one author, “They weren’t willing to wait for the slow, patient, methods of the NAACP, or even the civil rights movement, to take effect.”[11]
Despite the speculation, no one will know how far Malcolm X was willing to go when it came to his ideas of self-defense and retaliation, because of his untimely death. But, it can be said that the nonviolent approach to the issues of racism has proven more effective than the alternative.
While King’s ideologies of non-violence and dialogue portrayed him as a weak leader in the eyes of the oppressed African Americans, his method proved more effective compared to that of Malcolm X. King had power that resided in the principles he preached about. His ideology embodied universal principles of love and acceptance such that it would be adapted to a variety of courses against oppression[12].
In addition, his message depended on the belief of the listener more than on the messenger. As a result, King’s followers were true converts of his principles and would become advocates for the same to other people. King’s relative success of penetrating the state and converting a few individuals lies in the power embodied in his message rather than his character.
Conclusion
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X shared the same dream of the eventual elimination of racism. They hoped that the members of the Negro race would come to know the true meaning of the phrase “all men are created equal” and be treated fairly. However, they differed sharply in the methods chosen to make this dream come true.
King adhered to a Gandhi-like, non-violent approach and sought to integrate with the mainstream society. Malcolm X opted for more radical measures and was willing to retaliate against oppressors. Radicalized members of the African American community frowned upon the less aggressive tactics of King and most of this constituency doubted King’s effectiveness. They were excited with the ideas articulated by Malcolm X.
But, in the end, it was the non-violent, civil disobedience approach of Martin Luther King, Jr. that awakened the conscience of Americans both black and white and more so resonated universally. Every year, Americans commemorate the contributions of King through a national holiday that bears his name, and that practice alone is enough to testify to the positive impact of his legacy.
Footnotes
“Malcolm X (1925-1965).” The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research Education Institutue. Web.
“King, Martin Luther, Jr. (1929-1968).”
Ibid.
Laurence Bove. Philosophical Perspectives on Power and Domination: Theories and Practices. (Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1997), 223.
Ibid.
Nick Kotz, Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Laws that Changed America. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005), 297.
William Terence & Martin Riches. The Civil Rights Movement: Struggle and Resistance. (New York: PALGRAVE, 1997), 92.
William Sales, From Civil Rights to Black Liberation: Malcolm X and the Organization of Afro-American Unity. (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1994), 168.
Martin Luther King greatly contributed to the development of civil rights movement in the United States; in his books and essays, he was able to shape public views on the ethical aspects of civil disobedience and protests against social injustice and laws. This paper is aimed at discussing his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail.
In particular, it is necessary to analyze this work in terms of ethos, pathos, and logos and the way in which King balances these three appeals in order to convince the readers. It should be taken into consideration that King’s letter was a response to the Public Statement by Eight Alabama Clergymen or Call for Unity.
To a great extent, its authors disapproved demonstrations against segregation and urged African-American community to withstand their rights in courts, rather than organize public protests. This suggestion was hardly acceptable for Martin Luther King. Overall, it is possible to argue that King is able to show that civil disobedience is a legitimate way of bringing social change. This is the main thesis that should be analyzed.
At first, Martin Luther King makes an explicit appeal to ethos or credibility of the speaker. In other words, he tries to demonstrate that he is competent and knowledgeable enough in order to represent the black community. For instance, he points out that he was “president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference” (King unpaged).
Furthermore, he speaks about the work of this organization and its principles, especially the avoidance of violence and crime (King unpaged). It is important to remember that King’s letter was a response to the statement made important clergymen of Alabama (Public Statement by Eight Alabama Clergymen).
By appealing to ethos, King attempts to demonstrate that he was equally suitable for the positions of leadership in the community. Furthermore, he appeals to the credibility in order to challenge the ideas expressed by his opponents who accused him of extremism (Public Statement by Eight Alabama Clergymen unpaged).
For example, he notes that Martin Luther, who was the leading figure, could also be called an extremist (King unpaged). In this way, the author wishes to show that activism is vital for overcoming injustice. One can argue that Martin Luther King successfully appeals to credibility and his claims appear to be more substantiated.
Additionally the author pays much attention to the use of pathos or emotions that prompt readers to feel empathy for the black community. In other words, he makes readers experience the challenges faced by African-Americans.
In particular, the author describes the injustice of segregation laws and their impact on the life of a human being. For instance, he speaks about the feelings of a father who has to tell his daughter that “she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television” (King unpaged).
This is a direct reference to the segregation laws established in the United States; these rules prohibited black people from entering parks, restaurants, and so forth. Such an example can convince every person that segregation laws can hardly be called just. On the whole, Martin King does make readers empathize with the suffering with the black people who were deprived of many opportunities. This is one of King’s major achievements.
Finally, the author appeals to the rationality of the readers in order to highlight the necessity for public protest against the segregation and discrimination. For example, he argues that community has to take action in order to bring improvements or change legislation that is considered to be unjust (King unpaged).
Furthermore, Martin Luther King notes that social progress is possible only because some people decided to challenge the authority of the state. For instance, he mentions Socrates who insisted on the intellectual freedom of philosophers and educators (King unpaged).
To a great extent, his behavior could be viewed as disobedience to the law, but nowadays, no one can say that his actions were unethical. Furthermore, King speaks about the famous Boston Tea Party that was an important event in history of the American Revolution. People, who were engaged in this protest, were regarded as criminals or rebels, but later they turned into national heroes.
Each of these examples is rather eloquent and convincing. In this way, King succeeds in disputing the arguments expressed by the clergymen of Alabama. His letter shows how citizens are obliged to protest against laws deny people their rights. It is possible to say that he succeeds in explaining his ideas to the readers.
On the whole, King’s Letter is a good example of public rhetoric. The author is able to use ethos, logos, and pathos in order to make his arguments more convincing. He appeals to credibility, emotions, and logic to show that segregation laws can hardly be called just, and that individuals have a right to protest. The author was able to give a response to the critics of civil disobedience. Even now this letter is worth attention, because it enables readers better understand the ethical aspects of public protest and civil disobedience.
The Black Arts Era will go into the annals of history as one of the most contentious in American history. The era was heralded by the establishment of the Black Arts Movement (BAM) in Harlem in the decade of the 1960s. Many historians view this movement as the artistic arm of the Black Power movement, representing one of the most significant periods in the growth and blossoming of African-American literature (Pitney 23).
The 1960s was a period of black rediscovery. The black American wanted to assert his cultural and social identity, having realized that he had been subject to racialism and subjugation for far too long. Most of the movements that emerged during this period used various forms of art to pass their message across that time has come for the blacks to take full charge over their lives and destiny (Mike 280).
It was during the Black Arts Era that many blacks were inspired to start their own publishing houses, theaters, magazines, novels, and art institutions, aimed at instilling a voice of demanding their rights from a society that was overly biased towards the whites. According to Mike, the era is “notable for its sophisticated and politically inflected drama, theater, and performance” (278).
Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. adhered to the overall philosophy of this era by fighting for the injustices presented to blacks through engaging their strong oratory prowess as a form of art to appeal to blacks to be strong in the face of adversity and demand what is rightfully theirs.
Luther’s ‘I have a dream’ speech is still remembered to date for rallying the black American community to espouse their identity and willingness of both mind and character to fully take charge of their own destiny (Pitney 47). It is imperative to note that both King and Malcolm fought against the injustices from the confines of Civil Rights movement.
Both King and Malcolm were young and charismatic leaders, exuding a lot of confidence in the public gatherings they attended, thereby drawing huge, almost fanatical following.
Despite their common goals of demanding for equality, the styles of the two men were interestingly divergent, and their philosophies for achieving the stated purpose of fighting injustices equally different. King was a staunch campaigner of employing non-violent demonstrations and civil disobedience as a means of triggering social change in the white-dominated society (Mike 282).
On the other hand, Malcolm X was a firm believer that all methods, including violent actions, should be used to wage a spirited war on the perceived oppressors, with the explicit aim of changing the status quo which equated a black person to someone who could not be in control of his own destiny, and therefore required to be led.
The activists employed the above styles to achieve their purpose – equality and independence of the minority black community. Their strong oratory prowess ensured the sense of purpose and financial independence were also engrained in the mindsets of the black populace.
According to Mike, the leaders’ “…saw the situated, communitarian, and traditionalist implications of the spoken word as the best way to articulate a critical philosophy anchored in everyday activism” (278). Their purpose of ensuring equality was realized, but not before both of them paid the ultimate prize of death for waging the campaign to free the Black Americans from the chains of racism and subjugation
The audiences targeted by King and Malcolm were personalities in authority as well as members of the black community. To those in power, mainly from the mainstream white society, King and Malcolm wanted to see them enact legislation that would eventually recognize the blacks as human beings with similar fundamental rights as members of the white community (Pitney 64).
Both King and Malcolm also appealed to the blacks themselves to stand up to the occasion and be counted as Americans rather than as members of a minority group. It was an uphill task to instill confidence in Black Americans that they should stand up for their rights especially after undergoing many years of subjugation, but the movement of the 60s swept across America like a volatile hurricane, delivering blacks from a myriad of social and political problems that existed before
Works Cited
Mike, S. The Voice of Blackness: The Black Arts Movement and Logocentricism. In: D. Krasner & D.Z. Saltz (Eds) Staging Philosophy: Intersections of Theater, Performance, and Philosophy. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. 2006
Pitney, D.H. Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and the Civil Rights Struggle in the 1950’s and 1960’s: A Brief History with Documents. Michigan: Bedford/St Martins. 2004
Martin Luther King was a prominent political activist who advocated non-violent resistance of African-American people against segregation and discrimination. His books such as Stride toward Freedom or Strength to Love tell the readers about the injustice committed to black people and their aspirations for freedom.
His famous I Have a Dream speech was delivered in 1963 during the rally near the Lincoln Memorial. Later it was published by in various magazines, newspapers, books, and anthologies. In it, Luther expresses hope that American society will not be indifferent about the suffering of black people and that economic and political discrimination against them will be ended.
Summary
At the beginning of his speech, King refers to the Emancipation Proclamation which granted freedom to former slaves. However, he also emphasizes the point that one hundred years later African-Americans were still “crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination” (King).
He argues that America democracy failed to address the needs of colored people. To elaborate his point of view he refers to the Constitution which stated that people were equal in terms of their political rights, and shows how African-Americans were disfranchised by the government.
Additionally, Martin Luther King emphasizes the point that African-American community became more active and unanimous. In particular, he says, “those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content, will have a rude awakening” (King). This phrase means that these people will be content only with real changes rather than promises.
He points out that these protesters came to cash the promissory note given to every American citizen. In this speech, he demonstrates that African-American people were determined to struggle for their rights. To some extent, his major argument is that American society will not come to rest until political discrimination of black people is stopped. This is one of the main messages of his speech.
Finally, Martin Luther King expresses hope that sometime white and black people will be able to live in harmony. Namely, he hankers after the time when “sons of former slaves and sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood” (King). At the end, he urges listeners to forget about their racial, ethic, or religious differences and join efforts in an attempt to achieve peace and liberty.
Comparison and contrast
At this point, it is necessary to compare I Have a Dream with the article The March on Washington written by James Murray Kempton. It should be noted that Kempton was a famous American journalist and a writer who worked with such periodicals as the New Republic, the New Yorker or Newsday.
He wrote article about various social, political, and cultural issues. His article The March on Washington was published in the New Republic in 1963. In it, he argued that political activism of African American people took an unexpected form of pilgrimage. Moreover, he believes that such demonstrations can eventually change the political landscape of the United States.
First, Kempton points out that many people believed that the March on Washington would not be peaceful. In particular, he says that “Washington waited for the avenging Negro” but this march turned to be the largest religious pilgrimage in the history of the country. In his article, James Kempton focuses primarily on the experiences of those white people who witnessed or joined the March.
Both authors agree that this event was bound to raise people’s awareness about the problems of segregation and discrimination in America. Moreover, one can say that Kempton and King believe that racial inequality can be ended only if people representing different religions and races work hand in hand.
They share the belief in the ability and willingness of American people to fight against injustice. In his article, James Kempton asks the reader if white people could accept “the duty to march” in order to protect the rights of African-Americans. Overall, he seems to give a positive answer to this question as does Martin Luther King.
The main difference between the two authors lies in their perception of the march. To describe it, Kempton frequently uses words like “revolt”, “revolution” or “revolutionaries” (Kempton). These words imply the idea of violence. This rhetoric is absent from King’s speech; at least he tries to avoid such words.
He emphasizes political activism and unity rather than aggression. Secondly, Kempton believes that in some ways the March on Washington was “a demonstration of power” (Kempton). However, for Martin Luther King it was an attempt to attract other people’s attention to the hardships of African-American people. Finally, it is quite noticeable that James Murray Kempton avoids speaking about the actual difficulties that black people had to face. In contrast, King vividly explains how African-Americans were victimized.
Conclusion
The comparison and contrast of these works shows how different people could perceive the same event. Moreover, in this way, one can better understand the feelings and emotions of people who represented different races and classes of society. Finally such an examination enables the readers to understand what kind of expectations people set for political and social change.
Martin Luther King is optimistic that African Americans will have basic rights including voting and other social rights in the future. Such rights will allow African Americans to vote, live in good neighborhoods and interact with White Americans without any discrimination (Gates 107).
In a perfect society, all Americans will be treated equally by the constitution. According to Martin Luther, freedom is about people being judged based on their characters, but not ethnicity (Gates 107). In a perfect society, the constitution will protect all citizens equally. Martin Luther defines freedom as the ability to live how individuals want and to attend any school or motel of choice without restrictions based on race (Gates 108). Luther urges people not rest until freedom is attained.
The speech “I have a dream” by Martin Luther King continues to challenge leaders today (Hansen 23). Today, this speech has continually challenged Americans to recognize everybody’s potential in areas of politics and leadership among other fields.
However, cases of police brutality and incarceration of African Americans are relative high in the American society today (Gates 109). Just recently, there was an African American young man who was shot three times in the neighborhood for walking in White’s settlements. When lobby groups enquired about this incidence, police officers argued that the boy was a criminal. This is an indication that Americans have not yet attained freedom.
The coming of President Obama to power has given most African Americans hope (Gates 109). In fact, the number of African Americans who turned out to vote in the last election is an indicator that Americans are ready to attain freedom. Evidently, Africans and White Americans are now getting to a level where they are putting their differences aside for development.
Works Cited
Gates, Louis. The Norton Anthology of African American Literature. New York, NY: Norton press, 2004. Print.
Hansen, Drew. The Dream: Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Speech that Inspired a Nation. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2003. Print.
Martin Luther King was a leader an activist of the movement which fought for the civil rights of African Americans. In addition to these he also served as a clergy man in America. Martin Luther is a prominent leader who used non-violent approaches of fighting for peoples civil rights in the United States and other countries in the worlds. Martin Luther borrowed a lot from the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi. He is among the most recognized leaders in American history (Garrow 58).
Martin Luther King Theory
On the 28th day of August 1963, demonstrations were held in Washington Town. More than 25 000 people attended the demonstration. People were fighting for freedom and creation of job opportunities. This was the largest demonstration which had ever taken place in Washington. The police in Birmingham attacked the protesting group with the use of dogs and fire horses.
The protestors were mainly teenagers and young children. This is the time during which Martin Luther was arrested and jailed. During his time in jail, he wrote his letter in which he wanted people to disobey government rules which were not just. The letter was a reaction against the argument that injustice should not be fought on the streets but in the court made by the clergy men (Garrow 62).
According to this letter written on the 16th day of April 1963, a person of faith learns that people can use power to impose laws which favors them in expense of other people. Luther and the other Protestants were against discrimination laws imposed by the government. In America, African Americans were highly discriminated especially in public schools in which whites were favored. The police were brutal to the demonstrators because they had power over them and could not be questioned even after killing them.
This is the reason why they threatened the demonstrators and harassed them. The government had used its power to impose such laws. African Americans were mainly the people disadvantage because they did not have equal opportunities with other people and could not ask because they did not have the power (Stears 160).
The letter teaches people of faith that they should use peaceful means in demanding for their rights. Blood shed and civil wars which lead to death of people should not be used. Like Luther, peaceful demonstrations can be of great help. People should not give up in fighting with people in power for their rights.
They should demand for their rights even if it means going through difficulties. We also learn through the letter that freedom is never achieved voluntarily. People have to fight for the rights. This means that justice can never be achieved if there is injustice in the society. Common people should be treated well by people in power (Stears 165).
Conclusion
People of faith belief that power can not be used to oppress and exploit other people forever. A time will come when people will come to know their rights and demand for them. In conclusion, them letter by Martin Luther advocated for the respect of human rights.
The government used power to oppress people and prevent them from having their own rights. He advocated for the end of discrimination between the blacks and whites which led to unequal treatment especially in schools and job opportunities. People in power may use it to exploit people but there is still hope of enjoyment of peoples rights (Stears 170).
Works Cited
Garrow, David. Martin Luther King, Jr: Civil rights leader, theologian, orator, Volume 2. Washington: Carlson Pub., 1989. Print.
Stears, Marc. Demanding democracy: American radicals in search of a new politics. Washington: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print.
I want to thank you for this interesting and properly built discussion about how justice and the law are combined in the speeches by Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. Although these two activists used different methods of impact and developed various attitudes toward violence and human rights, their contributions are of the same importance. I think you are correct in choosing the quote about the threat of injustice and justice in American society. This argument is one of the strongest ideas in his speech because it proves how urgent, unfair, and permanent the problem of racial discrimination is in the United States. King underlined the presence of “an inescapable network of mutuality” in American society, which explained the impossibility of getting rid of injustice and violence (1). However, compared to Malcolm X, who was ready to be violent and harsh, King continued promoting his nonviolent intentions.
Today, people try to find similarities between Kind and Malcolm X, but I believe that their differences matter. The indefatigable aggressiveness of the latter and the peaceful determination of the former are the qualities that fascinate and inspire. Understanding these characteristics allows me to recognize the remedies prescribed to encourage social changes. Malcolm X saw the necessity not to wait until the white man did what he wanted but integrate black nationalism at all levels and take a moral stand as soon as possible. King was also against waiting and showed how full the cup of endurance could be. Still, his metaphors and courtesy provoked ambiguous emotions, while Malcolm X was straight in his intention to choose between the ballot or the bullet. Thus, my main suggestion for your discussion is to focus on the differences between the men to learn their speeches’ worth and true intentions.
I like reading your post and understanding your vision of the relationship between the law and social justice in American society. The speeches by Malcolm X and Martin Luther King contain many interesting details and recommendations of how people could or should change to achieve their purposes and create an equal and fair community. You properly identify that King saw the law as a significant element in keeping order. I also noticed that King was confused about the dilemma between breaking some laws and obeying others. This position helps comprehend many aspects of King’s plan to change white-black relationships. King tries to identify what determines just and unjust laws, using the concepts of morality, harmony, and other natural characteristics. Anyway, one should remember that the law is a code, and its recognition by all community members is integral.
In addition to King, Malcolm X remains one of the brightest social aggressors not satisfied with the conditions under which all African Americans had to live in the middle of the 1900s. Your choice of statistics is a good way to demonstrate the background that challenged Malcolm X in his speech and made him conclude that it was high time for Americans to wake up and see the truth about inequality and injustice. Malcolm X was angry that many Negroes could not have good jobs and use their opportunities similar to the options available to the white people. His past and childhood left many unforgivable wounds and traumas that made him definite in most intentions and actions. Malcolm X was not afraid to use clear statements and strict orders to motivate the community and explain to the government that black society did not want to keep silent and do nothing. His speech is solid evidence of how just and discriminatory the law could be at the same time.
Works Cited
King, Martin Luther. Letter from Birmingham Jail. California State University Chico, 1963, Web.
Malcolm X. The Ballot or the Bullet. Social Justice Speeches, 1964, Web.