Nonviolence and Self-Defense: Complementary or Antagonistic?

Two of the most prominent individuals in the Civil Rights Movement were Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X.  As Professor McKinney discussed in class, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a proponent of order theory as advocated by nonviolence strategies such as peaceful sit-ins and marches. Malcolm X was a supporter of conflict theory as evidenced through self-defense approaches such as protecting one’s own by any means necessary. Both Dr. King and Malcolm X were radical in their ideologies, in that each wanted to evoke monumental change toward racial equality.  Examples of this can be seen in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a Dream Speech” and Malcolm X’s “Ballot or the Bullet” speech. However in the master narrative taught to us in our secondary education, we primarily learn about the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. whereas Malcolm X and his ideologies are framed as undermining the goals of Dr. King. Scholars of this movement argue that in some cases, such as in rural areas of Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana nonviolent approaches were ineffective in relation to the severe acts of racist’s violence enacted upon African Americans. For example, in Civil Rights from the Ground Up, Emilye Crosby mentions that in Lowndes County, Alabama, “where the movement was built around voter registration and political organizing, tactical violence was nonexistent and self defense was commonplace”.  Professor McKinney suggested that Dr. King and Malcolm X resembled a “good cop” and “bad cop” relationship in which Dr. King wanted effectual change in a peaceful manner, and Malcolm X was unopposed to using violence to enact change. He suggested that each fueled the goals of one another and ultimately the progress of the Civil Rights Movement? In your opinion, were the nonviolent and self-defense strategies of the Civil Rights Movement complementary or antagonistic in evoking change in the morals and ideals of the nation?