Is the introduction successful in convincing you of this? Why or why not?
The introduction was successful in making me believe the two leaders were polar opposites in their ideas of a revolution. They both, however, had the same agenda, to fight for the rights of the black man.
King believes it is dangerous to organize a movement against self-defense. He says there is no need to kill the principal if you want to go to school or burn a factory that you intend to go work. Pitney brings out King’s ideas in his book in the form of the speech. “I am convinced that for practical as well as moral reasons, nonviolence offers the only road to freedom for my people.”1 Kings tell his people about the record of changes in the South of America with a nonviolence approach to redeeming his people.2 The people of the South had made progress regarding integration between blacks and whites. Malcolm X believes the only way to redeem his people and get their land was through violence. Malcolm X preached violence for the black people to be able to achieve a revolution. He compares the black peoples revolution to that in Africa, where the people had to be violent to receive their land. He believed in African Americans owning land to be equal to the white people. “So I cite these various revolutions, brothers and sisters, to show you that you dont have a peaceful revolution. You dont have a turn-the-other-cheek revolution. Theres no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. The only kind of revolution that is nonviolent is the Negro revolution. The only revolution in which the goal is loving your enemy is the Negro revolution”.3 The quote is part of Malcolm X thoughts regarding nonviolence of the African Americans towards the revolution.
Martin Luther King was looking forward to a time when the black and white people would be sitting at a table together as brothers. Malcolm X first interest on the other hand was African Americans to