Human Bodies Are Much Like Carefully Crafted Machines

Olivia Harris Mrs. Gerhart Health 7/21/2016 Intricate human bodies are much like carefully crafted machines. Each function has a purpose, and each need has a particular function. And, much like a machine, bodies can replenish their power, repair themselves, and fail and break down. One particular necessity for human bodies is sleep, and if not acquired, many complications can emerge. Sleep deprivation is a common problem all too often overlooked as a mere loss of a night’s rest. Most people do not realize the potential problems sleep deprivation can cause. From undesired grouchiness and uninhibited yawns to constant illness and a failing mental state, sleep deprivation is a condition to never be taken lightly. In fact, it can cause an†¦show more content†¦REM, or Rapid Eye Movement is when a brain engages and enters the dream state. During each state, a healthy body will replenish energy, repair muscles and tissues, activate the brain, and release certain growth hormones. For a body to do this, though, it mu st first acquire enough sleep, which many people find difficult to do. An average of 7-9 hours of sleep for an adult, and 8-9 hours of sleep for a teenager is the desired time to gain the most benefits from sleep, allowing for several REM cycles, and more recharging time. Anybody who fails to sleep enough will not experience the healing process, and instead become sickly and weak, becoming sleep deprived. There are two kinds of sleep deprivation. The shorter one, or acute sleep deprivation is a loss of 1 night to a few days of slumber, compared to the longer term Chronic sleep deprivation, which results from multiple days deprived of rest. Both acute and chronic sleep deprivation show various symptoms to a victim of it. When a person becomes sleep deprived, they will begin to feel lethargic throughout the day and experience microsleeping when doing everyday tasks, such as driving or eating. A sleep deprived person will also find it hard to concentrate, have little control over their emotions, and easily anger over trivial matters. A sleep deficit can derive from numerous interconnected actions or problems. Many people treat their bodies poorly

Jamaic Out Of Many, One People - 1245 Words

Jamaica: Out of Many, One People History of the Culture One would think that an island would have a culture of its own with very little outside influence, however that is not the case with this island. Located in the Caribbean Sea, Jamaica is rich in culture from its European and African history. Jamaica was first populated by the Taino people, who were also called Arawaks, in AD 600. It was then found by Christopher Columbus in 1492, and shortly thereafter became a Spanish Territory. A decade later, the population was equally split between Spanish and slaves with a small percentage of free blacks and the native Taino people. In 1655, the English army captured Jamaica and fifteen years later, Jamaica formerly concedes to England. A decade later, the slaves, making up eighty four percent of the population, decided to rebel. However, full emancipation from slavery happened in 1838, almost a century later despite the gross population unbalance. Beginning in 1841, the island started having more outside influence when the first indentu red workers arrived from Africa, India, China, Syria, Lebanon and the Mediterranean. In 1962, Jamaica gained full independence from Britain after almost two decades of self-government formation. The history and vast cultural influences of Jamaica makes the country’s motto of ‘Out of many, One People’ ring true. (Mordecai Mordecai, 2001) Slavery of a nation is a tragic hardship of the people, however the abolition of slavery brought

Scottish Independence Free Essays

Contents Introduction ————————————————————————– 3 Chapter I General information —————————————————————- 4 Chapter II Arguments for and against the Scottish independence Arguments for the independence ———————————————– 6 Arguments against the independence —————————————– 7 Conclusion ———————————————————————à ¢â‚¬â€Ã¢â‚¬â€ 10 Bibliography ————————————————————————- 11 Introduction The subject I have analyzed in this research paper is the possible independence of Scotland. I chose this topic because the Scottish independence is a problem of great importance not only for the UK and Scotland, but also for the whole Europe. While doing my research I found very strong and opposing opinions about this recent topic. We will write a custom essay sample on Scottish Independence or any similar topic only for you Order Now Scottish independence is a relevant and important matter that has been debated for many years but is now at the pinnacle of debate. Both public and politicians and opposing opinions about independence and throughout this work I will evaluate the most current and most emotive arguments for and against independence. First, I will speak about the historical background of this issue and about the parties â€Å"fighting† for independence. Next, I will represent for and against arguments, which will help to understand this complicated issue. Chapter I General information Scotland was an independent country from 843, with the unification of the Scots and Picts. In medieval times, Scotland fought for freedom from England, which Mel Gibson dramatically depicted in his Academy Award-winning movie â€Å"Braveheart. † Not long after Wallace died in the early 1300s, Robert the Bruce led Scotland to independence, and it remained an autonomous nation until the Act of Union joined Scotland and England in 1707. Since then Scotland has been one of four countries in the United Kingdom. However, the United Kingdom returned some autonomy to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and gave them the right to form their own parliaments, in the late 1990s. Thus, in 1999, Scotland received devolved powers for a new parliament in Holyrood. And now, more than 700 years after William Wallace died fighting for Scottish independence, and more than 300 years after Scotland and England came together in a United Kingdom, a new agreement could lead to an independent Scotland. Since the Scottish National Party (SNP) came to power five years ago (in 2007) there has been a wave of nationalistic fever sweeping the country and independence is on their agenda. Increasingly people see autonomy as a panacea for all the difficulties Scotland faces. Thus, in 2014 Scotland will decide to maintain the UK or to dissolve it, and this decision will shape not only the future of Scotland, but also of the whole UK. The question of various debates is can Scotland take the next step and become a fully functioning independent state again, and will this be good for Scotland and the rest of UK, or at least for one of them. As I have already mentioned, the Scottish independence is supported most prominently by the Scottish National Party, which is currently the largest political party in Scotland. But other parties also have pro-independence policies. These are the Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity. Seventy-two of the seats in the Scottish Parliament are now held by parties/members who have expressed pro-independence sentiments, over 55% of the total. These are the 69 Scottish National Party members, the two Green members and Margo MacDonald, an independent politician. It is also important to know, that SNP forms a minority government in the Scottish Parliament. On the matter of Scottish independence British Prime Minister David Cameron and his Scottish counterpart, First Minister Alex Salmond, signed a deal in Edinburgh, Scotland, on Monday paving the way for Scots to vote on independence from the United Kingdom. The referendum, expected to be held in 2014, would allow Scots a straight yes-or-no vote on staying in the union. On this case the â€Å"Yes Scotland† campaign was launched in May. This campaign tries to â€Å"build a groundswell of support for an independent Scotland†. However, Cameron has vocally opposed Scottish independence. In February, he said † I am 100% clear that I will fight with everything I have to keep our United Kingdom together,† since an intact United Kingdom, consisting of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, â€Å"is stronger, safer, richer and fairer. † Rather, the SNP claims that a positive vote for independence in a referendum would have â€Å"enormous moral and political force†¦ impossible for a future government (Westminster) to ignore†, and hence Westminster will declare Scotland independent. After this agreement was signed, different surveys were released, and almost all these surveys showed that less than 50% of the Scots polled wanted to break away from the United Kingdom. It’s fair to say that not enough people want independence. The fact that the SNP are in power now cannot be considered an indication that Scotland wants independence. The United Kingdom, and its constituent parts by proxy, are signatories to the United Nations Charter and as such any action to deny the people of Scotland a right to vote would be in contradiction to the obligations to uphold self-determination. Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) reads: â€Å"All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. â€Å" The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 15) further states that everyone has the right to a nationality, and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality. However, there are certain factors that give rise to the possession of the right to self-determination These are: ? a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory ? a distinct culture ? a will and capability to regain self-governance Chapter II Arguments for and against the Scottish independence 1. Arguments for the independence Now I want to speak about the reasons why many Scots consider they should their independence back. First and foremost, Scotland is its own country. It is a distinct country which has its own culture, people, history, traditions, national dress, land and sea borders, health service, legal establishment, education system, flag and a history of nationhood that. So beyond any reasonable debate, it qualifies under all three criteria (the Scottish Parliament representing the â€Å"capability† section), and any attempt to frustrate the people’s right to self-determination will find itself on the wrong side of both domestic and international law. The next argument is that Scotland considers that UK spends some of the country’s money not appropriately and effectively. They say that while the UK’s position as a â€Å"power of the world† has dwindled in the last fifty years – and especially in the last ten years – it unfortunately still spends money like a superpower of the world. This can be seen with it investing in nuclear weapons for the next 35 years at a cost between ? 20bn to ? 35bn. This is a substantial amount of the deficit, that the current UK government is trying to save through cuts to schools/universities, hospitals, police, and other public services. Thus, if Scotland were independent, they would invest their elsewhere. Control over North Sea oil and gas, which is expected to generate ? 56bn in revenue over the next six years, is also a major battleground in the run-up to the independence. Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister, claims Scotland would take control of 90% of North Sea fields after independence, helping it to become one of the world’s richest countries. Furthermore, for the next fifty years, renewable energy is seen as a key industry worldwide. Scotland has a strategic position for wind, hydro, and tide powered energy. With over 40 years of North Sea oil still available, the profits could be poured into renewable energy – instead of being sent to London. Nowadays a great rise of nationalism can be observed in Scotland. Thus many Scots stick to the point that if Scotland were to become independent, it would emphasize their greatest individuals, businesses, and achievements instead of having them blended with Westminster politicians. 2. Arguments against the independence From all the above mentioned we can conclude that there is obviously a case for Scottish Independence, but before doing this we shall discuss the reason against the Scottish autonomy. Through being a part of Great Britain Scotland has managed to become one of the top financial powers in the world but some are still trying to fix Scotland when in fact it isn’t broken. People think they should have more control over their own country and demand more rights. However they do have control over their country as they decide on matters like health, education, transport, housing, environment and local affairs. Isn’t that enough? Scottish devolved parliament has been working independently since 1998 with no major issues so why should this be changed, if it can bring many problems. People complain that Scottish devolved parliament doesn’t have enough power yet they have Scottish MP’s sitting in Westminster deciding on English issues, whereas no English MP’s are sitting in Holyrood. The Scottish parliament has only Scottish MP’s deciding on its affairs but down in Westminster England have Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English MP’s deciding on theirs. How is that fair? If anyone should be complaining it should be the English. Scotland has its own devolved parliament but also has 258 Labour seats down in Westminster deciding on British and English issues. First of all they are lucky to have as much power as they do being even less than a tenth of the population of Britain. So, why should this be changed, if it can result in many problems of different types. Moreover, for unionists, the main argument against Scottish independence is the Barnett formula – a rule that Scotland receives 10 pence of every pound made in the UK, while only having 8. % of the population. Social issues would not be our only problem; Scotland would encounter numerous other issues if we were to become independent. Problems with passports or currency what would be done about them? What would be the solution? Tell a six million population to apply for a new passport and exchange all of their money to Euros. Also problems like defense or immigration and the other issues wh ich affect the whole of the British island which are now dealt with in Westminster. How would separate independent states decide to split these responsibilities? The assumption that independence is achievable with the costs and problems involved is something the Scottish taxpayer would have to bear the burden of. Scotland’s strong position in Britain is not the only reason against autonomy. The fact that people simply don’t want independence is another vital argument. This is being ignored by the SNP who are still campaigning for Scottish independence explaining that independence is going to help Scotland â€Å"prosper† but why then after 7 years of SNP campaigning only 37% of Scotland votes for independence in polls. Another barrier is that numerous commentators have raised the objection that since a vote for independence would affect the entire UK, then residents of England, Wales and Northern Ireland should also be entitled to vote. Others have raised the issue of whether Scots not currently resident in Scotland should have the right to vote. More problematic would be Scotland’s status as an independent EU member state in the area of foreign and particularly defense policy. It currently remains unclear if an independent Scotland would remain part of the British military forces or if it would develop its own military capabilities and consequently an independent defense and security policy. This is probably the biggest concern for the British government which has to fear that the withdrawal of Scottish forces from the UK’s military capabilities would substantially weaken the status of a smaller Union consisting only of England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the EU’s defence and security pillar. To exit from the United Kingdom certainly poses substantial and unforeseen risks for Scotland, most of all in terms of the country’s economic and budgetary development. However, England potentially has most to lose overall from Scottish independence. If Scotland splits from the rest of the UK and turns out to be relatively viable as an independent country it is possible that Wales, and even Northern Ireland, will follow its example. As a smaller country existing outside the Eurozone, England’s influence over the political and economic agenda of the EU would be diminished. It would then only be a matter of time for the Eurosceptics in the Conservative party and the UK Independence Party to get their way and for a public referendum on England’s EU membership to take place. Hence, English Eurosceptics who consider Scottish independence as an opportunity to push their country quicker towards EU exit should think again. Scotland might have the last laugh after all. Conclusion Thus, in this research paper I spoke about the issue of Scottish independence. This is a matter of global importance, and in the first chapter of my work I tried to give general information about the history of his question, about the parties which want their country gain independence, about different surveys held on this issue. In the second chapter I represented the major for and against arguments. This arguments help us understand what are the main reasons some Scots want independence and what are the objections. Thus, we can come to a conclusion, that if the Scottish nation al party’s irrational campaign for independence does succeed one day Scotland would be looking at a whole different range of problems. The separation of Britain would provoke competition, bad relationships and ambiguity in various questions. And in my opinion even if the idea of this independence does have good points for Scotland, this nationalistic pride will only make both Scotland and the rest of the UK more vulnerable. Bibliography 1. http://www. markedbyteachers. com/as-and-a-level/english/scottish-independence 2. http://edition. cnn. com/2012/10/15/world/europe/uk-scotland-independence/index. html 3. http://wingsland. podgamer. com/weekend-essay-the-right-to-decide/ 4. http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/uk-scotland-13326310 5. http://topics. cnn. com/topics/scotland 6. http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19942638 7. ttp://edition. cnn. com/2012/10/15/world/europe/uk-scotland-independence/index. html 1. http://interstateinaninstant. wordpress. com/2012/02/04/the-case-for-scottish-independence-regional-trade-energy-and-power/ 8. http://www. charliedavidson. net/scottish-independence/ ——————————————†“ [ 1 ]. http://www. markedbyteachers. com/as-and-a-level/english/scottish-independence [ 2 ]. http://wingsland. podgamer. com/weekend-essay-the-right-to-decide [ 3 ]. http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/uk-scotland-13326310 [ 4 ]. http://topics. cnn. com/topics/scotland How to cite Scottish Independence, Papers Scottish Independence Free Essays Should Scotland be Independent? There has been a wave of nationalistic fever sweeping the country ever since the SNP came to power in 2007. Independence is on their agenda and now there is a referendum set for 2014. But why should we go independent? After all, we have been married to England for over 300 years and our country is ‘too poor’ and ‘too wee’ to square up to the economic giants in the global market today and what would happen if the our banks were to self-destruct again? Would we manage to govern our own country independently? Increasingly people are beginning to see autonomy as a panacea for the predicament Scotland faces. We will write a custom essay sample on Scottish Independence or any similar topic only for you Order Now However, there are masses out there that are still worried about the myriad of ‘unanswered questions’ about independence. Furthermore, misconceptions are conceived through the unionist’s tactics, ‘throw enough mud and hopefully some will stick’, and now that the referendum date has been announced, we can observe the wild thrashing Scotland will receive through the masses of propaganda that the London controlled media will propagate. Firstly, it is important to consider if Scotland is prosperous enough to survive on its own. Scotland is a rich country, yet many Scottish people are poor. Scotland has a surplus of energy, yet many Scottish people struggle to heat their homes. Scotland produces an educated workforce thanks to our tradition of free education for all, yet Scots are forced to emigrate to find work. Why is that, if the Union has been so great for us? Poverty, which disfigures much of our country, is a direct product of the Union. If Scotland really is so poor, a derelict society dependent on handouts, then just why is it that Westminster is so desperate to keep a hold of us? Those opposing Scotland’s independence claim that she would be unable to cope in a situation like the HBOS and RBS bailouts. The truth about one of the bailouts is illuminated if we consider the name – HALIFAX Bank of Scotland – it was not solely a  Scottish bank; it was run from Halifax, in Yorkshire, England. All the management and decision-making was carried out in England. So half of the blame deserves to be placed on the avaricious muttonheads at Halifax. After all, it was coping just fine before Halifax came along. Unlike what the media skewed towards, Scotland actually deserves the minority of the blame for the crash at RBS too. As Andrew Hughes Hallett, Professor of Economics at St Andrew’s University put it, speaking on Radio Scotland. â€Å"†¦by international convention, when banks which operate in more than one country get into these sorts of conditions, the bailout is shared in proportion to the area of activities of those banks, and therefore it’s shared between several countries. In the case of the RBS, I’m not sure of the exact numbers, but roughly speaking 90% of its operations are in England and 10% are in Scotland†¦ â€Å"1 Therefore, in reality, Scotland was only responsible for 10% of the crash at RBS. Which is quite a substantial deviation from what the media proposed. I wonder how they managed to dodge that fact. Oil is a finite resource and eventually it is going to run out. But what is the point in pretending it’s not there now just because there’s a chance that it may only last 30-40 years? According to the oil companies. Which I am sure must be absolutely 100% accurate. Why would an oil company want to underestimate the length of time their reserves will last? It does not at all sound like simple business logic to me. Let’s all face it; if a doctor tells a family that their granny has three years left and she passes in six months — the doctor will be met with a multitude of beetroot faces demanding explanations. In addition, the more people that begin to think that oil is drying up the higher the price will be. And that means mega bucks for the oil companies; when they make money – Scotland makes money (that is if it were independent). As it stands, Scotland currently wants to set up an oil fund. It does not sound like a bad idea; that is how the Norwegians powered their way through the recession. They were smart enough to seize the opportunity. However, the UK is against this because it wants the money for bank bailouts and nuclear toys. So what happens when it eventually does run out? Well, as it runs out, a 50% reduction does not exactly translate to a 50% fall in revenue; prices will rocket and despite this possibly not boding well with the consumers, it will still boost the nation’s economy. In addition, it is possible we will stumble upon even more financially viable reserves – which no one seems to account for in the ‘horrifying’ statistics. If not, then we will just simply have to be a bit more economical and is Scotland not the perfect place to go green? We are geographically sound in terms of wave and wind energy. With the oil fund pot, that we will have if we go through with autonomy, we will be able to fully open the door into the renewable industry. This will propel us through any economic crises that may face us later down the line. And the country will be clean. However, if we do not go through with independence now, before our oil runs out, then yes, we probably have very little chance of independence being successful. I bet David Cameron would happily let us devolve after that. Scotland is not uniquely incapable of governing itself. We are not too ‘wee’. We have a larger population than the Irish Republic, Norway, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Slovenia. We have approximately the same population as Denmark or Finland. In area, we are larger than Slovenia, the Irish Republic, Belgium†¦ We are approximately the same size as the Czech Republic or Austria. Plus, the Scottish parliament appears to be plugging away just fine and if all of these countries can manage on their own why can’t we? People of Scotland, vote for independence while we can in 2014! After 300 years of a helpless bickering marriage, I think it is time for an amicable divorce. It happens every day. Sometimes it just does not work out and it is time that we all come to grips with that fact. 1 â€Å"http://www. muzzerino. com/2011/08/truth-about-hbos-and-rbs-bail-out. html† http://www. muzzerino. com/2011/08/truth-about-hbos-and-rbs-bail-out. html â€Å"http://www. newsnetscotland. com/index. php/scottish-opinion/4341-a-unionist-lexicon-an-a-z-of-unionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation#poverty† How to cite Scottish Independence, Papers

Rights vs rights Essay Example For Students

Rights vs rights Essay During the twentieth century Black people faced a huge amount of discrimination from the whites and found it very difficult to achieve civil rights. They were at one stage deprived of voting, being entitled the same things as blacks and going to a white school. In order for blacks to achieve civil rights they really needed someone to follow, they needed a leader. Many black leaders did emerge for the fight for civil rights, such as, Malcolm X, James Baldwin, Martin Luther King, Marcus Garvey, some had some ways of thinking some had others. Two of the most powerful and influential leaders of the twentieth century had to be Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. These two leaders had different approaches, and different views towards white people, perhaps their different approaches of violence and non-violence stem from their original opinions of how capable the whites are of being good, but fought for the same thing. Freedom. These great leaders came from vastly different backgrounds which is shown in their thinking on life, especially early on. Martin was a Christian from the rural south, whilst Malcolm had become a Muslim from the urban north. King called for love of your neighbor, integration and nonviolence, which was part of his American Dream. Malcolm X called for self-love, separation, and by any means necessary, which was part of his Black Nationalism. Throughout their lives their views were constantly changing, largely affected by each other, but also by the many events in their lives. Malcolm X forced King to become more radical and to look into the problems of the urban north. King made X become more politically active and work much more with the Civil Rights Movement. Although many have often said that they were like oil and water, these two men, however different they may have seemed to be, had the same goal. They wanted to end exploitation, discrimination and racism. Also, for both, religion was primary in defining their lives and ideals. There are two d istinct phases in their political lives. For King, the change in his outlook came when he looked at the social problems of the urban slums, and the extent of racism of his previous allies. This turning point came with the riots in Watts, Los Angeles. For Malcolm X, the major change came when he broke from the Nation of Islam and went on his trip to Mecca, when he realized the anti-racist nature of true Islam. It must be remembered, however, that Martins second phase came well after Malcolms death. Their achievements will not be looked at, but throughout there will be a discussion on how and why their aims and methods were formed. Not all of the whites involved in the problem of racism supported it. Some were actually trying to help fight for the blacks. Unfortunately, it took Malcolm X a long time to figure that out. He is constantly criticizing whites as a whole. He does not consider, even for a moment, that a white could actually support equality for all men. Usually, its the white man who grins at you the most, and pats you on the back, and is supposed to be your friend. He may be friendly, but hes not your friend. However, in a later work of his, 1965(1), one can see that Malcolm X was learning to accept whites as possible allies. Yet, while Malcolm learned over a period of time that not all whites are evil, Martin Luther King entered the scene already fully aware that good whites existed. In fact, where Malcolm underestimated the goodness in whites, King seems to have overestimated it. Yet, even after he found that he did not receive as much white support as he had hoped for, Martin Luther King never lost faith in the white community. .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79 , .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79 .postImageUrl , .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79 , .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79:hover , .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79:visited , .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79:active { border:0!important; } .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79:active , .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79 .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u90d4cab83714bab87446b279aef95c79:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Analysis Of The Kingdom Of Mat EssayAltogether, these views of white society as expressed by Malcolm X and Martin Luther King are reflected in their methods of fighting racism. Malcolm X, who supported the use of violence to achieve equality, most likely reached the conclusion that this was the only way to fight the whites based on his original view of them as heartless and uncaring. One place in Malcolms The Ballot or the Bullet, where his categorizing of whites with violence and cruelty can be found, is during a passage in which he compares the white man with a Guerrilla warrior. Youve got to have a heart to be a Guerrilla warrior, and he (the white man) hasnt got any he art. Malcolm X sees the whites as a violent group. He most likely came to his theory, that nothing important could be accomplished without violence, through the reasoning that only violence can be used to stop a violent group. Violent people would not understand the use of peaceful means to reach an agreement. Therefore, it is not really the violence itself that he supports as much as it is the reason for using it. He justifies his use of violence by trying to explain that there is no other way to get through to the white people. In contrast, Martin Luther King sees the whites more as victims of violence than creators of violence. He blames the violence, itself, on evil forces. In Pilgrimage to Nonviolence, Martin Luther King calls the problem of racism The tension is, at bottom, between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may be unjust. Therefore, one can see why King rejects the idea of using violence to achieve his goals. Only love can defeat evil. The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness. Aside from their basic methods of achieving their goals, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King have also talked about solutions for the racial problem. What could put an end to racial prejudices in America? For Martin Luther King, part of the answer to this question would include the elimination of unjust laws. Unjust law said by Martin Luther Kin g is Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. These are laws which the white man expects the black man to follow, without following the laws himself. Everyone should be required to follow the same set of rules. These rules should also be consistent with the moral law. Malcolm X answers this question a little more concretely. In 1965, he suggests that whites, who wish to help, should work with other whites to change the beliefs of the white system as a whole. They should teach friends, family, and any one else they know about non-violence. Supportive whites should work together to change Americas racist view of blacks in the society. Likewise, he expects the blacks to do the same in their communities. In this manner, both sides of the racial problem can be dealt with at the same time, making an end to the racial problem more acceptable. It is obvious that Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were fighting for the same cause, racism. Although their views on white Americans, which affected their methods of approach, were originally different, both activists came to realize that not all whites could be classified as good or bad. They began to see that, instead of discouraging whites from helping, they could use eager whites to create more of an impact within the white communities. This is important because it shows that it is possible for whites and blacks to work together for a single cause. It leaves hope that maybe one day, all traces of racism can disappear and leave behind a united society in which everyone can work together for the good of the country. .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5 , .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5 .postImageUrl , .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5 , .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5:hover , .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5:visited , .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5:active { border:0!important; } .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5:active , .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5 .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u2fea1bbd614a87db0121761f7d0440d5:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Frado Our Nig EssaySo overall Martin Luther King was much more educated then Malcolm X. He had seen life the easy way compared to Malcolm. Martin Luther King hadnt been through what Malcolm had been through, while Malcolm x was busy being a criminal, Martin Luther King was busy doing his Ph.D. Malcolm X spent about ten years of his life in jail, which in that time he learned to hate the white man, his belief towards whites was they were blue-eyed devils. I think towards the end King became more radical because he became more critical of the government, mainly because King had seen laws being passed and civil rights being achieved politically but still socially he felt that black people hadnt achieved civil rights. The case for Malcolm X is not however the same, while his journey to Mecca Malcolm finds out there are white Muslims, therefor discover that not all white people are devils.