Opinion Assignment #1

The Gay Rights movement approach used both radicalism and assimilation to achieve their goal of equality for gay people. The action, which triggered this movement, was radical. The Stonewall Inn raid prompted an all out riot in New York against police officers. The actions taken by the GLF and other gay rights organizations after the Stonewall Inn incident showed that these people of different backgrounds could work together to achieve their overall goal of equality. Many individuals still used radicalism for recruitment and to make their cause known, but their radicalism did not bring harm to anyone, like the first radical act did.
The Vietnam War movement seemed to use assimilation tactics more than it used radicalism. I think that approach worked for that group because many people across the country could identify with not wanting to be involved in the war. They did not need to use radical tactics to ignite the flame of their movement because people were already enraged. Since so many people felt strongly about not being involved with the Vietnam War, people massively assembled themselves to protest at the nation’s capital and at schools. I think universities saw the majority of the protests because the people who were being drafted were the same age as the majority of protestors there. I believe this shared identity was a very important factor in the Vietnam War movement.
When thinking about these social movements, the Sudan issue, and Dr. King’s/Malcolm X’s strategies, I believe that all the strategies used by each of these groups had some validity. When deciding on how to approach a social movement or issue I think it depends on two factors: 1.) What your cause is and 2.) How the population feels about it. If people cannot identify you’re your issue, for instance not everyone is gay, then you need to be radical. But if the general population is being affected by something, like the Vietnme War, then radicalism is not needed because everyone is already emotionally involved. The strategy that I would use personally is Dr. King’s strategy. I think people are more likely to listen to a person who is calm and collected rather than angry and frazzeled with a situation. If someone comes at me with a “you owe me this” attitude (Malcolm X/ BBP) versus a “can we talk” attitude (Dr. King), I am more likely to listen to the latter. I do believe that Carson is right that both of these apptoaches can work if used properly.
I found it interesting how Carson compared their, meaning Malcolm’s and King’s, backgrounds. Malcolm’s childhood was really rough. His father was assassinated, his mother went insane, and he was thrown into foster care. On the other hand, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s father was a Baptist minister and he grew-up in a wealthy, loving environment (that’s what Carson portrays). Once I learned about their childhoods, it totally made sense how each man approached the Civil Rights social movement.
Malcolm had anger inside of him his whole life, which was portrayed in his approached to the Civil Rights movement and also displayed in his involvement with the Black Panther Party (BPP). I interpreted the Black Panther Party Manifesto as a completely radical document. The second point of the manifesto states that the government should be obligated to find man a job with guaranteed income. It seems as though the Black Panther Party wants to implement new laws for the whole United States, because the government is not obligated to find anyone a job and never has been. Another point of the manifesto that I found extremely radical is point number three. Here the BPP tries to compare the 100 acres and a mule compensation with how the Germans were compensating the Jews for the wrongdoings done to them in WWII. Forty acres and a mule were awarded to the freed slaves in 1865. The Black Panther Party Manifesto was written in 1966, one hundred and one years later. How are the people of 1966 responsible for what the people of 1865 promised? The Germans are responsible for what they did to the Jewish people because it was only twenty years after the fact. I believe in Civil Rights for everyone, but think Malcolm’s approach was too drastic and I understand why people did not respond to his approach.
I think the Civil Rights movement could have been more successful if MLK and the BPP joined forces. They were both fighting for the same thing, but coming from different sides, which is a good “attack” method, but one attacker had peace on his mind while the other had retribution. People do not like to state when they are wrong and that is what Malcolm and the BPP wanted, along with their rights. MLK did not care about who did what in the past, he just wanted a better future. I think if the BPP would have been less concerned with accountability, MLK would have joined forces with them and perhaps neither leader would have been assassinated while in pursuit of their civil rights. I do not have any suggestions for MLK and the way he approached the issue of achieving civil rights. His methods –marching, speeches, and bus boycotts- did not harm anyone while they got his point across.