Why is mere persuasion inadequate?
a) The usage of persuasion and reason would have had no effect towards the fight of ending segregation. As seen in Fredrick Douglas’ My Bondage and My Freedom, slaves would have been punished if they spoke against their owners. Moreover, back then it was unlikely that slaves knew how to speak for themselves and therefore had to use violence to stand up for themselves. Essentially, persuasion is only useful when in power, but is not when one is born into slavery. b) Persuasion lacks the use of action and force,
Why is direct action necessary?
a) Because it sets one as an example for later generation, seen as someone who fought for what one believed against the government. As Malcolm X says, “if you don't take a stand, your little children will grow up and look at you and think “shame”, he believes that one must stand up for themselves and act as an icon. b) Direct action is necessary only when opposing parties have tried negotiate, but resulted in no agreement. Therefore, direct action attempts to highlight the problem, creating tension and adding pressure onto the opposing group. Different methods of direct action may be followed, such as Dr. Martin Luther King’s non-violent direct action or Malcolm X’s “any means necessary” direct action. Why is non-violent direct action ineffective?
a) Non-violence will not stop the brutal hits by slave-owners, or the white men with their police dogs. Malcolm X cleverly states, “it is criminal to teach a man not defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law”. b) Non-violence should only be used when others show non-violence, if violence is done to one than they must answer with violence and not be stepped on. However, non-violence is ineffective due to the fact that it does not show any forceful action toward a cause Malcolm believes that one has to “die for what you believe in”. Why is...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document