| Date | May 2021 | Marks available | 6 | Reference code | 21M.1.BP.TZ0.15 |
| Level | Both SL and HL | Paper | Paper 1 - first exams 2017 | Time zone | TZ0 |
| Command term | Compare and contrast | Question number | 15 | Adapted from | N/A |
Question
Note: in Source O the word “Negro” is used to reflect the place and time of the original English language source. Today, in many countries, the word is no longer in common usage.
Source O Robert Weisbrot, a professor specializing in African American history and civil rights, writing in the academic book Freedom Bound: A History of America’s Civil Rights Movement (1990).
King urged Negroes to sacrifice, to go to jail if necessary, not to defeat whites but to free all Montgomery from injustice … Gradually he accepted absolute nonviolence as the spiritual foundation on which to build any movement for justice. After discussions with his wife he rescinded [withdrew] an application for a gun permit and dismissed the volunteers guarding his home, despite dozens of death threats against him and his family. When a bomb narrowly missed killing his wife and children, in January 1956, King upheld his faith in nonviolence by dispersing a mob that had gathered outside the remains of his dynamited front porch. Hurrying home after the blast, he arrived in time to hear a Negro provoke a policeman, “Now you got your .38 [gun] and I got mine; so let’s battle it out.” Fearing an imminent race riot, King told the armed and angry mob that there was a higher way: “We must love our white brothers no matter what they do to us. We must make them know that we love them.” To the astonished relief of white onlookers, King’s Negro listeners quietly returned to their homes … The [Montgomery bus] boycott lasted nearly a year … Late in December 1956, blacks boarded the buses in Montgomery as peacefully as possible, in accordance with the instructions of boycott leaders. Several whites took seats beside Negroes, and there was little violence.
[Source: From FREEDOM BOUND: A HISTORY OF AMERICA’S CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT by Robert Weisbrot. Copyright © 1990 by Robert Weisbrot. Used by permission of W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. This selection may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the publisher. https://amzn.to/2TEBuuj.]
Source P Steve Estes, an historian writing in the academic book I Am a Man! Race, Manhood, and the Civil Rights Movement (2005).
Nation of Islam members and ministers called civil rights leaders unmanly cowards, in large part because of their allegiance to the philosophy of nonviolence. Discussing the student sit-ins that swept across the South in 1960 and inspired the formation of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Malcolm X told reporters, “Anybody can sit. An old woman can sit. A coward can sit … It takes a man to stand.” Likewise, when Martin Luther King led a nonviolent civil rights campaign in Birmingham, Alabama, Malcolm questioned his recruitment of women and children for marches. “Real men don’t put their children on the firing line.” …
More to Malcolm’s liking were southern rebels who recommended armed self-defence. Like these men, Malcolm and other ministers in the Nation articulated [voiced] their support for self-defence in terms of protecting womanhood. “You’ve got Ku Klux Klan (KKK) members knocking Black women down in front of a camera and that poor Black man standing on the sidelines because he’s nonviolent,” Malcolm said, scolding those who responded peacefully …
Malcolm and King were both “God’s angry men,” but the two charismatic ministers were far apart philosophically. King’s faith in Christian love and nonviolent protest seemed unstoppable. This contrasted dramatically with Malcolm’s equally passionate faith in complete racial separation and the Nation of Islam.
[Source: From I AM A MAN!: RACE, MANHOOD, AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT by Steve Estes. Copyright © 2005 by the University of North Carolina Press. Used by permission of the publisher. www.uncpress.org.]
Compare and contrast what Sources O and P reveal about the struggle for civil rights.
Markscheme
Apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and award credit wherever it is possible to do so. The following material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. It is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive and no set answer is required.
Comparison:
- Both sources state that the struggle for civil rights encountered violent opposition.
- Both sources claim that acts of disobedience were supported.
- Both sources identify non-violence as one of the methods used during the struggle.
Contrast:
- While Source O focuses only on the leading role of Martin Luther King, Source P also discusses the role of Malcolm X.
- Source O’s emphasis is about the application of love in the face of violence, whereas in Source P Malcolm X advocated the use of violence in self-defence.
- In Source O, Martin Luther King seeks an end to segregation. In contrast, in Source P, Malcolm X seeks complete separation between black and white people.
Examiners report
Although the performance on this question was varied from excellent responses that offered developed comparisons and contrasts to far more limited responses that tended to describe each source, the majority demonstrated an understanding that this question requires the comparison and contrast of two sources. Most candidates approached the question appropriately and were able to identify at least two linkage points, comparisons and/or contrasts. For example, in Q11 many candidates found that both sources suggested there were similar aspirations in German and Italian foreign policies, whilst also identifying that while Source K claimed Italy and Germany were together mainly because of their common enemies, Source L claimed that they also had ideological affinities. Similarly, for Q15 candidates readily identified that both sources stated that the struggle for civil rights encountered violent opposition and in contrast that Source O detailed how Martin Luther King sought an end to segregation whereas in Source P Malcolm X sought complete separation between black and white people.
It was pleasing to note that most candidates identified themes or points that could be compared/contrasted and wrote a running commentary rather than separate explanations of the content of each source. However, there were responses that described the provenance of the sources. To attain the top markband more than one comparison and contrast, for example two comparisons and two contrasts, should be identified and developed (although there need not be an equal number of each). In addition, comparisons and contrasts should be clearly stated.
