Nate Tsegaw

Mark Forrester

ENGL 398L

12/11/2017

My Brother’s Speaker: A Rhetorical Comparison between Malcolm X and Khalid

Muhammad

Abstract

Within the civil rights movement in the United States came the rise to prominence of several new

leaders and philosophies. One of the most influential leaders within this movement, well known

for his charisma on stage and powerful messages, was Malcolm X. One of the most influential

philosophies, was that of Black Nationalism, which held that Black people should have pride in

their race and should strive to become economically self-sufficient. It was made popular by

several organizations, although most notably by the Nation of Islam, which Malcolm X served in

at one point in time. In a similar vein, Khalid Muhammad, at one point in time a member of the

Nation of Islam known for his strength on stage and his somewhat bombastic rhetoric, advocated

for the philosophies of Black Nationalism to be the foundation in which Black people release

themselves from oppression. Within the differing historical contexts of both Malcolm X’s exiting

of and Khalid Muhammad’s release from the Nation of Islam, this study aims to compare the

rhetoric between the two. This study’s analysis is guided by a rhetorical framework in which

each orator’s most popular speech is analyzed in regard to their effectiveness and strategy in

influencing their intended audience. This method of analysis is used to explain the reasoning

behind the thesis that Malcolm X can be characterized in his speech, “The Ballot or the Bullet”
as appealing largely to logos, but not fully in his assertion against The White Man while Khalid

Muhammad can be described as a speaker who largely appeals to pathos, but not fully when

forming his assertions on The White man in his speech at Kean College. These assertions are

analyzed using literature on the subject of rhetoric in the case of both speakers in addition to

transcripts and live recordings of each speech.

Keywords: Black Nationalism, Nation of Islam, Opressor, Orator, Rhetoric

Introduction

The principle objective of this study is to get a better understanding of the methods in which

Malcolm X and Khalid Muhammad, who are perceived as radicals by many (in differing

degrees) capture the belief of their audience. In addition, an analysis of the reasoning behind

their motivations for giving their speeches will be presented. In Malcolm X’s case, “The Ballot

or the Bullet” will be the chief focus and in Khalid Muhammad's case, his speech at Kean

College speech will be the primary focus. The time frame covered for both speakers will be

around the time in which they exited or were kicked out of the Nation of Islam. The speeches

that this study will place great importance on are significant in that they were both given within a

month of them not being in the Nation of Islam. For Malcolm X, he exited due to a change in his

core philosophies that went against the Nation of Islam’s and for Khalid Muhammad it was

arguably because his remarks at Kean College were so inflammatory that the Nation of Islam

could no longer condone his words or keep him as a member.

 Significant variations in the rhetoric along with variations in their motivations as noted

through historical examples will be examined in order to understand the difference between these

two ex-Nation of Islam members who at one point in time held similar positions, were lauded for

their ability to speak, and caused controversy not only amongst the general public but within the

Black community. This controversy among Black people refers to the idea that at the time of

Malcolm X’s speech and Khalid Muhammad’s speech one of the main tenets of their personal

philosophies that they exclaimed was that Black people are not doing enough. There was the

sense among both speakers that greater action had to be taken, sometimes referring to the use of

violence. The major research questions that are addressed in this article are the following: 1)

How does “The Ballot or the Bullet” by Malcolm X and Khalid Muhammad’s Speech at Kean

College compare in their use of ethos, logos, and pathos? 2) How does the historical context of

Malcolm X’s and Khalid Muhammad’s delivery of the speech compare? 3) How effective is each

orator in influencing their audience? Answering these research questions draws its significance

from understanding how wide the range of beliefs stems among those in the civil rights

movement who not only shared membership in the same organization but also claim adherence

to Black Nationalism. The understanding of the variety of thought that goes into civil rights is

often seen as Malcolm X on one side (often the most radical) and Martin Luther King Jr. on the

other. By understanding the rhetoric of both Malcolm X and Khalid Muhammad, readers who do

not already understand, will come to know that the types of ideologies ranged to extremism in

some cases. Furthermore in regard to this article’s significance, those in the field of spoken

rhetoric can begin to learn strategies in which to effectively deliver their speech though an

understanding of the faults and successes both men have had.

Literature Review

The sample literature reviewed here is presented in a chronological order of publication and is

chiefly focused on understanding the motivations behind the rhetoric of both Malcolm X and

Khalid Muhammad individually. In addition, contextual information is provided by the literature

in order to analyze their speeches with a greater understanding of the positions they were in.

Thomas W. Benson in his article titled Rhetoric and Autobiography: The Case of

Malcolm X, discusses the portrayal of Malcolm X in his autobiography and how many differ in

their interpretations of him. In the article, the author argues that the effects Malcolm X had were

not concrete, rather they were abstract in their effect on the minds of many Black people, youth

in particular. Furthermore, he makes the case that due to the relatively new nature in which he

approached civil rights with, there was not enough time to convince the public of following

through with his philosophies. This along with his assasination, is focused on why the rather

poignant rhetoric of Malcolm X did not penetrate in full effect the larger part of African-

American society.

In the Condit et al. article, a similar point is made within the context of the L.A. Riots

that they argue many saw as a resurgence of the “militant” ideals that many including Malcolm

X seemed to advise for. Furthermore, they make the point that many of the ideas proposed by

Malcolm X went misunderstood by many as they were very complex. The example they provide

is in regard to the Ballot or the Bullet speech. It was seen by many as a call for violence but the

authors make the point that it was a speech calling for African Americans to peacefully carve out

a space for themselves within American society. They follow by noting that while it cannot be

said whether or not his ideas would lead to a peaceful transition, it is incorrect to say he

advocated for the use of violence. The article then makes the comparison of four stages in his life
in which his rhetoric can be traced to: as a rebellious youth, prisoner, member of the Nation of

Islam, and after his trip to Mecca in 1964. The reasoning behind his philosophies and the

shortcoming noted through hindsight are listed in this article.

In The Fallout From Khalid Abdul Muhammad's Speech at Kean College, what is

presented is quotes from a variety of sources along with analysis of those who heard his speech.

Not only are opinions from a variety of sources like newspapers and journals about Khalid

Muhammad given, but so are opinions of the Nation of Islam and Minister Farrakhan. Illustrating

that his speech had an effect on not only his perceived character but also those who were

affiliated with him or the organization he belonged to. Tracking the fallout among so many

groups is telling to just how much of an impact Khalid Muhammad’s speech at Kean College had

around the time he delivered it.

In the Race Relations on Campus Spring, 1994 article, background information regarding

Khalid Muhammad’s speech was given. In it, the author notes that Khalid Muhammad got paid

to speak at the school and caused an uproar especially among the White and Jewish populations.

Additionally, it is noted that he spoke at another college after Kean and was much more subdued

in his rhetoric.

In Laurence R. Marcus’ book titled Fighting Words: The Politics of Hateful Speech, he

brings up the debate had after Khalid Muhammad spoke at Kean College. Questions like whether

he should have been allowed to speak and whether the format of the event was wrong have been

brought up and discussed by many due to the controversy surrounding the school for accepting

him to speak. Khalid Muhammad’s inflammatory comments began a discussion as to whether or

not the principles of academia should protect his right to deliver that speech, and for other people

to do the same. Marcus discusses the nature of his speech and if it served as a forum in which
debate among those who listened to the speech was the appropriate response or an action plan to

prevent that kind of speech from happening again.

In Robert E. Terrill’s Colonizing the borderlands: Shifting circumference in the rhetoric

of Malcolm X, he discusses the notion that Malcolm X’s tendency to speak without providing

concrete policy objectives or goals was in fact a means in which those listening could

fundamentally change their perception of their value. Many criticize Malcolm X for leaving very

little behind, but Terrill argues that because his rhetoric was largely focused on separating

oneself from the clutch of the dominant culture he provided himself as an example of what

stepping away looked like. Terrill notes that Malcolm X is not trying to start a movement, but is

instead focused on changing the mindset of African Americans. The point was made that Martin

Luther King Jr. was the leader in charge of the movement while Malcolm X would attempt to

shape the minds of those who were caught in the “dual consciousness” of Black and the

dominant White culture.

Robert E. Terrill’s article Fighting Words: The Politics of Hateful Speech conveys the

importance of three aspects of Malcolm X’s rhetoric: protest, prophecy, and prudence. This is

meant to serve as a means to understand the most dominant rhetorical strategies that Malcolm X

employs in his speeches. In regard to The Ballot or the Bullet, Terril begins by noting that it

marked a shift in Malcolm X’s rhetoric that meant to spur African Americans to to openly defy

the standard practices of the dominant culture. In competition with other philosophies on how to

begin solving the issues of racism and segregation, he was against standard practices that to him,

were ineffective. Malcolm is described as unwilling to be compliant and in many of his speeches,

not just The Ballot or the Bullet, this can be seen.

 De Guissmé et al. in Competition over collective victimhood recognition: When perceived

lack of recognition for past victimization is associated with negative attitudes towards another

victimized group, illustrates the tendency for minority groups to often assess another group’s

exclamation of suffering as a direct lack of recognition of their own groups suffering. In regard

to Khalid Muhammad, he directly draws comparisons between the suffering of Jewish people

and Black people over time and displays this competitive victimization quite literally. This

article’s use is derived from its ability to explain some aspects of the rhetoric ofKhalid

Muhammad uses to talk about Jewish people.

Analysis

The rhetoric studied by both men will derive from one of their speeches. For Malcolm X, The

Ballot or the Bullet and for Khalid Muhammad, his speech at Kean College. Each work will be

interpreted with attention to their use of rhetorical strategies, the effectiveness of their speeches,

whether or not they appealed to the same audience, and how the two compared with one another.

Comparing the two will be of primary importance to this research paper as it stands to be an

example of how the principles of Black Nationalism can be interpreted so very differently.

To understand the motivation behind each speech context is provided. In regard to

Malcolm X, one needs to understand The Ballot or the Bullet represents a shift in the

philosophies he previously endorsed. As a member of the Nation of Islam he was barred from

participating in the political process and pushed to adhere to a separatist agenda. In The Ballot or

the Bullet, while he does push for Black people to have a space in the United States of their own,

he admits that participation politically can in fact be used as a method to gaining the

representation they deserve. This movement away from some of the tenants of the Nation of
Islam can be traced back to his visit to Mecca in 1964, the same year he delivered the speech. In

Mecca, he understood that in the struggle for civil rights, an international perspective could help

to further develop his own philosophies on what it means to be Black and Muslim. The same

year, he stepped down from his position in the Nation of Islam for these differences and could be

seen delivering speeches with regard to philosophies that could be interpreted as being derived

from an amalgamation of experiences he has had with the several philosophies he studied.

Khalid Muhammad on the other hand was a high ranking member of the Nation of Islam

who strongly adhered to separatist philosophies. His rise to prominence could be traced to not

only his strong presence but the rather expletive language and appeals to violence that he often

uses when speaking. When it comes to his speech at Kean College it becomes obvious that due to

his popularity rising as he spoke inappropriately, there was an opening at Kean College for a full

disclosure of his beliefs and ideals, both on a philosophical level and in reference to concrete

objectives. As a national representative under Minister Louis Farrakhan, he had a powerful voice

within the organization and maintained his position despite previous cases of inflammatory

remarks being said about those who disagreed with his beliefs or belonged to a group that has

historically oppressed Black people. In addition to his rise to prominence being in part due to his

inflammatory comments, he has in fact participated in several protest efforts, namely against the

several cases of police brutality that arised in the 1990’s.

When Malcolm X made the speech in 1964, he gave it to a largely Black audience at the

Cory Methodist Church. Khalid Muhammad also gave his speech to a largely Black audience. In

the video of his speech the camera pans at one point to reveal the crowd. Malcolm’s speech was

largely reminiscent of a sermon with him speaking and the audience often in a roar when an

engaging point was made. Khalid Muhammad’s speech was labeled to be a lecture for the
students of Kean College. As lectures go, he gave his opinions and was also open for questioning

by the students.

In a comparison of who the two appealed to, when viewing it from a broad perspective it

was largely the same audience. Both orators attempted to appeal to African Americans who were

bold enough to reject the dominant white culture. At the time of Malcolm X’s speech, he was

seen as radical and somewhat militant. Though to his intended audience, it was less militant and

more separatist. In the case of Khalid Muhammad, he too attempted to appeal to Blacks however,

in comparison to Malcolm X’s message, he was far more radical and militant in his beliefs. So

while the audience’s intended for both speakers were similar the audience that best received the

message was different. For Malcolm, he appealed greatly to many African Americans to this day,

and is credited by many as providing the Black community with a sense of pride for their culture.

In Khalid Muhammad’s case, those who he appealed most to seemed to be people whose views

were already somewhat radical. Furthermore, the manner in which he spoke differed greatly

depending on his audience. For some, they would adopt the philosophies of Black Nationalism

but for others the inflammatory remarks would be alienating.

Both speakers are similar in that they outright reject the dominant White culture of their

time and appeal to their audience to do so. Some labeled both Malcolm and Khalid as being

racist due to this, and shared a mistrust by White America. It was because of the aggression and

acceptance of getting the job done by any means necessary that gave both figures such a negative

image. Similar to his style of speech, Khalid Muhammad however could be characterized as

having a much worse reputation as he would with little regard speak ill of White America. His

style of rhetoric favored brash statements that made no attempt at masking his hatred for White

culture.
 On to the speeches in comparison, interestingly enough, both speakers begin by including

with the introduction of their topic, a notice to those in the audience who are not Black. In

Malcolm’s case he says, “brothers and sisters, friends, and I see some enemies” followed by

applause and laughter. For Khalid Muhammad, he says, “To the Whites in the audience, let me

say to you before we get started [mocking caucasian tone] it’s gonna be a rough ride buddy”.

This too was followed by laughter and applause. Immediately both speakers utilize pathos in

their attempt to grip their audiences attention by setting up a common enemy they can bond over.

Additionally, both men needed to make sure that the religious difference would not alienate their

intended audience so they acknowledged Christianity in a positive manner. For Malcolm X it

was simply by stating that regardless of their faith they still share the same struggles and history,

a call for unity perhaps. Khalid Muhammad on the other hand brings a copy of the bible on stage,

quotes it several times, talks highly of Jesus Christ, and calls the book a tool for liberation. In

their appeal it is easily apparent that within the Black community, Khalid is aiming to convince

those outside the Nation of Islam of his beliefs.

Most common between both speeches was the importance of pathos in forming their

argument. It is obvious to both sets of audiences that racism was a key issue, it was the manner

in which it should be addressed that was at stake. Getting the audience to agree meant not only

making sense, but also motivating them to change their mindset and take action. Comedy and

anger remain the most used form of pathos between the two. Their delivery however is very

different. With comedy, both speakers aimed to control the mood in the room, however with

Malcolm the comedic appeals were used primarily to make fun of the hypocrisy of racial

relations as it was. With Khalid Muhammad, his use of comedy was much more cathartic in that

he would imitate Whites and Jews, mocking them. He did this multiple times throughout his
speech and it would consistently get laughs. While one cannot always see the audience in the

video it is safe to assume that those laughing were not White or Jewish. Malcolm X would joke

about how the White man’s sensitivity precludes him from fighting in the Jungles of Vietnam.

Khalid Muhammad at one point said that European Jews came from caves, would sleep with the

dead, and eat their own “poo poo and pee pee”. Immediately this illustrates that regardless of

what audience he is trying to reach, he is appealing to those who may already hold extremist

views or are in a colloquial sense less mature. Throughout the research there will be this

recurring theme of both speakers utilizing similar methods but in different ways and with

differing levels of effectiveness.

Examining their use of pathos in regard to tragedy, it seems as though they have much

more in common. Both bring up either oppression or the slave trade into discussion and utilize to

differing degrees historical facts to evoke an emotional response. For Malcolm, his logos is

intertwined with his pathos in that he will create a logical path in which the audience follows that

ends in a shocking manner. An example of this is when he describes the importance of spending

your dollar within your own community. He says “The community in which you spend your

money becomes richer and richer [and] the community out of which you take your money

becomes poorer and poorer...and then the community in which you live becomes a slum...and

then you have the audacity to complain about poor housing in a run down community. Why you

run it down yourself when you take your dollar out” followed by a loud applause. This structure

of rhetoric can be found when he speaks of Black Nationalism, the Vietnam War, the Civil

Rights Movement, voting, and the use of violence. His appeals to logos far outweighs that of

Khalid Muhammad. Khalid Muhammad does use the rhetorical device, although in this speech it

is intertwined with his ethos. His mention of the bible and ‘shout outs’ to Jesus that turn into a
call and response with the audience seem to be meant as a tool for the audience to see him as a

credible source of information regarding how racism and oppression should be handled in the

United States. Not to simplify his use of logos however, he does, similar to Malcolm X often

provide the audience with detailed statistical and historical data to back up his characterizations

of mainly Jewish people. This was to dispel the idea that Jewish people played no role in the

oppression of Black people throughout history.

Viewing both speeches as they are present day, it is easy to say that Malcolm X had the

more effective speech. The fallout, was nowhere near as bad as that of Khalid Muhammad. It

could be argued that Malcolm X was killed because of his departure from the Nation of Islam,

however his voice carries weight even after death. Many scholars cite his ideas as a part of the

foundation of the civil rights movement until this day. Khalid Muhammad on the other hand did

not seem to expect the lashback he got. This can be deduced through reports of his speech given

directly after Kean College to be far more neutral. This may indicate his regret of letting loose.

Furthermore, his firing from the Nation of Islam did not seem consistent with his desires, as he

still spoke highly of his fellow members during the speech. As time went on however he rode the

wave of publicity, speaking without censorship and participating on talk shows like The Phil

Donahue Show. After being reprimanded he still went on national tv saying that all White people

had a little bit of Hitler in them for example. In this regard, his rhetoric can be seen as effective

as it got him a wider audience but it does not seem to be on purpose. Furthermore, not much of it

has carried into popular culture after the 1990’s. Much of the reference to Khalid Muhammad

remains focused on the hatred he carried but not an in depth analysis of his ideas. Much of the

scholarly analysis done on Malcolm X focuses much more on his life as it relates to his speeches

but not the specific rhetorical methods he employs during a speech.

Conclusion

Both speakers share several similarities with one another but it is clear that the delivery

of each speakers rhetoric differs greatly. Malcolm X’s use of both logos and pathos far

outweighed Khalid Muhammad’s. Khalid Muhammad used pathos singularly at a much greater

rate. Each speaker appealed to ethos, logos, and pathos to make their case. Though years after

both men have spoken and passed away, it is clear that Malcolm X’s ideas stood the test of time

while Khalid Muhammad’s more expletive remarks are what he is best known for. Each had

success’ of different caliber so it remains difficult to judge who appealed to their audience the

best. On one hand Malcolm’s reach was far larger than Khalid Muhammad, but Khalid

Muhammad’s presence in the press skyrocketed after the speech at Kean College. Though now,

it backfired as his less offensive beliefs and philosophies remain hidden behind the mountain of

insensitive comments he has made. As one time members of the Nation of Islam, leaders in their

communities, and fearless orators they stand as interesting figures to compare. Along with the

research questions it is the goal of this paper to make sure that a record of analysis is kept on

prominent civil rights leaders regardless of their radical beliefs. Understanding the rhetoric,

methods, mistakes, and success’ both men have had can lead to a better understanding of the

construction of African American political philosophies, a part of American culture that can

often go over simplified.

References
Benson, Thomas W. "Rhetoric and autobiography: The case of Malcolm X." Quarterly Journal

of Speech 60.1 (1974): 1-13.

Condit, Celeste Michelle, and John Louis Lucaites. "Malcolm X and the Limits of the Rhetoric

of Revolutionary Dissent." Journal of Black Studies 23.3 (1993): 291-313.

“The Fallout from Khalid Abdul Muhammad's Speech at Kean College.” The Journal of Blacks

in Higher Education, no. 3, 1994, pp. 84–85. JSTOR

“Race Relations on Campus.” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, no. 3, 1994, pp. 111–

111. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2963125.

Marcus, Laurence R. Fighting words: The politics of hateful speech. Greenwood Publishing

Group, 1996.

Terrill, Robert E. "Colonizing the borderlands: Shifting circumference in the rhetoric of Malcolm

X." Quarterly Journal of Speech 86.1 (2000): 67-85.

Terrill, Robert. "Protest, prophecy, and prudence in the rhetoric of Malcolm X." Rhetoric &

Public Affairs 4.1 (2001): 25-53.

De Guissmé, Laura, and Laurent Licata. "Competition over collective victimhood recognition:

When perceived lack of recognition for past victimization is associated with negative attitudes

towards another victimized group." European Journal of Social Psychology (2017).

 Rhetorical Situation Memo

Audience

The journal I have selected to write for is The Oswald Review. This is an undergraduate

journal run by the University of South Carolina which focuses on the field of English and puts

great emphasis on understanding the complexities of English language. From what I understand

about the readership, meant for English faculty at that specific school and undergraduates who

aim to do professional research in the future. The requirements of the journal are that you get

approval from a faculty member working within the English department at the University. The

articles published by this journal in the past do not relate in subject matter to my article however

the theme of analyzing language falls within the requirements of the journal.

Context

The context needed for my audience to understand my research is who Malcolm X and

Khalid Muhammad are. In short, I will explain in my research their roles in civil rights

movement both in the ‘60s and in the ‘90s. It is my assumption that most of my readers will not

know who Khalid Muhammad is because he is a bit niche. I will focus on explaining who he is

just a bit more than Malcolm X, because Malcolm is much more popular worldwide. I will

include this information within my introduction so that I do not need to keep explaining myself

during the analysis of both speeches.

Situating the Argument

 The scholarly sources I will use in order to situate my argument are the The Journal of

Blacks in Higher Education’s article titled “The Fallout from Khalid Abdul Muhammad's Speech

at Kean College” in order to understand the reaction at that time to this speech. Additionally I

will be using Robert Terrills article titled “Protest, Prophecy, and Prudence in the Rhetoric of

Malcolm X” in order to get a better understanding on how to analyze the rhetoric of Malcolm X.

A skill that will prove especially useful with “The Ballot or the Bullet” which is dense with

information and ideology. In order to refute, confirm, or expand on these articles I will not only

be reviewing the recordings and transcripts of each speech but looking at publications at that

time reacting to both men. Furthermore my expansion relies on my ability to compare their

rhetoric, which has yet to be done in a scholarly fashion.