To overcome oppression, Martin Luther King Jr. pursued it with nonviolence, while Malcolm X, believed the only way to achieve freedom was though violence. Both men believed it was imperative that something be done, however their ideas of obtaining freedom were polar opposites. Martin Luther King Jr. always made it a point to argue how violence is immoral and through the use of a number of biblical references to reach his audience he made sure everyone could understand. Malcolm X’s opinion was centered mostly on pointing fingers, blaming someone and Black Nationalism. The contrasted views of these men, alludes to a divided community, either supportive of a peaceful solution or ready to bare arms against the white man to reach integration.
Martin Luther King Jr. believed the way to set the oppressed free was through a moral code that strictly prohibited any form of violence. He believed there was three prominent ways to go about responding to oppression; one being acquiescence; when the oppressed do nothing to help themselves and are sentenced to their doom, physical violence or corroding hatred, and nonviolent resistance. The one promoted by Martin Luther King Jr. was the nonviolent resistance; it is composed of everything he exudes, strength, strong morals and intelligence over force.
King attempted to speak to all of the African American community, some of which who are uneducated and unable to read. However through biblical references and teachings from the bible he knew he would be able to capture the attention of more African Americans in the community, because mostly everyone attended church in the black community where they were taught the messages of God through singing and praise. Nonviolence is what is preached at church, what is acceptable in the eyes of God. The teachings prelude with everyone being a child of God, and end with that same notion, so why would violence be acceptable? Martin Luther King Jr. believed anyone who succumbed to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document