Hindsight allows us to be critical of history.  Looking back on the civil rights movement, individual's actions and words can be evaluated and it can be decided whether they were good or bad, or wrong or right.  Modern civil rights activists like Cornel West have the benefit of basing their views off of the course of history.  Malcolm X didn't have that same benefit.  Malcolm X's 1963 speech "Message to the Grassroots" and Cornel West's 1999 writing "The Moral Obligations of Living in a Democratic Society" take different approaches to creating progress in the civil rights movement.  History allows us to understand who advanced the civil rights movement and who did not.  With hindsight it is apparent that Malcolm X's civil rights beliefs did not work and West's writing shows how other arguments prevailed over time.

Malcolm X focuses on the unification of all blacks against whites.  Because Malcolm X's 1963 speech is from a time of severe racial division in America, Malcolm X cites the white man as the common enemy to all blacks (Malcolm X).  This was a valid hostility because of the racial tension and segregation at the time.  Now this hostility toward whites and teaming up against them would not promote Malcolm X's vision for the improvement of black's rights and elevation in society.  In fact, in present day this would do the exact opposite of what Malcolm X was trying to achieve.  Alienating whites from blacks and unifying against them would further create a division between blacks and whites.  This increased divide would worsen African Americans position in society and diminish chances for black's achievement and success. Malcolm X names whites as a whole as a "common oppressor, common exploiter and a common discriminator" of black people (Malcolm X par. 4).  This was not true in 1963 at the time of his speech and is certainly not true now.  Although in 1963 many whites did oppress, exploit and discriminate against blacks, there was a large population of white Americans who were not racist.  Although it was more valid in 1963 than now, Malcolm X's union of blacks against all whites was an incorrect way of gaining rights and standing in society.

Instead of focusing entirely on race as the main divider of society, Cornel West talks about the extreme gap between the rich and the poor.  West cites the top 1% owning 48% of financial wealth and the top 20% owning 94% of financial wealth (West 457).  Unlike Malcolm X who places the blacks completely against the whites, West places the common man, the bottom 80% or more against the rich.  While the rich keep getting richer, the bottom 80% "[experiences] stagnating and declining wages" (West 457).  West's unification of the bottom 80% against the rich is much more successful and a more widely supportable argument, as it is more inclusive, while still advocating for African Americans rights specifically.  West expresses the further extent of the problem in blacks by citing that 51% of blacks in America live in poverty (West 457).  With this addition to his argument, West clarifies his position as not just a rights advocate for the common person, but more so for black people.  West's argument is more modern and triumphing then Malcolm X's.  West's stance on the income gap is still alive in contemporary times.  West's talk about the income gap is similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement of 2011 (Roberts).  This movement protested the growing social and economic inequality in America and worldwide (Roberts).  The Occupy Wall Street movement united Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike and attracted people of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds (Roberts).  Similarly to West's unification of the bottom 80%, the Occupy Wall street movement coined the slogan "We are the 99%" (Roberts).  The Occupy Wall street movement is a modern success story of the unification West was advocating for, showing that West's strategy of ignoring racial lines to unite the masses was an effective way of not just gaining rights for the common man, but also blacks. While Malcolm X's outdated argument pinned blacks against whites, West unites blacks and whites through the common problem of poverty, strengthening his movement.

Malcolm X discounts the use of democracy while West praises it.  Malcolm X talks about two types of blacks, those who use "we" to refer to America and the government, and those who do not. Malcolm X condemns African Americans for using "we" to refer to American society and the government because Malcolm X doesn't consider blacks to be part of them (Malcolm X par. 23).  Malcolm X argued that there was no democracy for blacks. I agree with the merit of Malcolm X's frustration of democracy and society for blacks at this time.  American government and society largely didn't recognize blacks as valued members of society and constituents of the government.  Jim Crow laws exemplified this de-facto form of denying African Americans the freedom and rights the rest of Americans had in order to belittle their position in society (Pilgrim).  Jim Crow laws worked to segregate blacks from the rest of society and prevented them from having a political voice through disenfranchisement (Pilgrim).  Instead of writing off democracy, West says democracy is the tool to be used for solving the problems of the oppressed, blacks and the poor alike.  Because West is writing in the setting of 1999 America as opposed to 1963 America, the Jim Crow era of separating African Americans from white society and preventing them from exercising voting rights was over.  Because of the change in political climate, West advocates for democracy as a means of getting the government to look out for the common man with which he empathizes.  West describes democracy as mutual respect, personal responsibility and social accountability (West 459).  These ideals of democracy represent the goals of both West and Malcolm X.  Unlike in 1963, at the time of West's writing the use of democracy for economic and racial justice is possible.  West's support of democracy and Malcolm X's incredulity of it shows the development of civil rights, society and views of civil rights leaders over time.

Malcolm X calls for violent revolution while West encourages working within the system.  Because of the lack of political voice for blacks at the time of Malcolm X's speech, he believed the only way of invoking change was through violence and anger.  With hindsight, this was wrong.  Violent revolution didn't help Malcolm X's cause, but rather widened the divide between blacks and whites and made whites think less of blacks.  Violent revolution would only support stereotypes that blacks were violent and uncivilized (Berry slide 30).  This support the bigotry that was already occurring.  Also, revolution against the establishment would not work.  The establishment Malcolm X is trying to start a revolution against is too powerful to revolt against.  West realized the power of the establishment.  This is why West's approach of working within the system to create change is the only possibility of gaining rights and justice.  Malcolm X was also wrong to criticize Martin Luther King's march on Washington.  Malcolm X criticized the march by pointing out the "infiltration" of whites into the march, which he says weakened the march and changed its message (Malcolm X par. 36).  The integration of whites into King's march on Washington didn't weaken it, but rather strengthened it by spreading the message of universal acceptance and making the black rights movement more inclusive and relatable to all, just as West strives to do.  King's march in Washington is exactly what West agrees with; using words, civic responsibility and the freedom of citizens to assemble in order to promote their cause.  This shows how Malcolm X's approach of violent revolution to gaining black rights didn't work back then and would not work now, and how King and West's approaches worked and are continuing to work in today's society.

Malcolm X's propositions would not be possible for average African Americans.  Malcolm X advocated for the angry revolution of blacks.  For many African Americans living in America during the time of the civil rights movement, acting in a violent and rebellious way against the white establishment could have gotten them killed.  No typical African American would be willing to join Malcolm X's revolution out of fear.  Without people willing to provide support, there would have been no civil rights movement at all.  Malcolm X also promoted the segregation of blacks and whites.  This would have amplified the already existing issue of white superiority and conflict between the races by further alienating the two.  Malcolm X's ideas on the advancement of the civil rights movement were not positive.

Looking back, it is apparent that if Malcolm X's tactics would not have been successful if widely embraced by the African American community.  Malcolm X's strategies would have prevented the flourishing of other civil rights leaders whose tactics turned out to be successful.  Cornel West's more modern writing on civil rights mirrors what has been proven to be what led to the success of the civil rights movement; using political processes, dialogue and individual voice and freedom.  Malcolm X's lack of mass support allowed for other leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis and Roy Wilkins, figures who prefaced Cornel West's views.  These leaders used the power of universal brother hood, the political system and organizations to advance civil rights.  If these leaders didn't prevail over the power of Malcolm X's violence and revolution, America may not be as free and have as much equality that it has today.

