Martin Luther King and Malcolm X both used different ways and views in advocating for the same fact; peace and a free society. Malcolm X endorsed the use of force to push for his point using his “By any Means Necessary” expression while, on the other hand; Martin Luther King used appealing words to promote peace and freedom in a non-violent way (Bermanzohn, 2000). Using non-violent method seems a better option since; over the years both blacks and whites had been subjected to inferior violence. Therefore, this new approach as opposed to violent one by Malcolm X was the best and what the civil society needed to answer the situation (Bermanzohn, 2000).
Malcolm X believed that integration was giving in to the whites whose values and society he totally rejected (Cone, 1991). On the other contrary, Martin Luther King advocated for peace and integration amongst different races. King motivation was Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings on non-violent tactics. He learnt that the ability to change a society lies in love and sacrifice for the enemies. This was not enough, and they non-violently pressurized President Kennedy’s government in the famous rally where he delivered the “I Have a Dream” speech. This pressure leads to new laws to end segregation (Bermanzohn, 2000).
It was not until his pilgrimage to Mecca that Malcolm X stopped being a segregationist. The fact that he was suspicious of whites makes his quest for peace a bit complicated and uniting the society a challenging task (Cone, 1991). If he had lead the Civil Rights Movement, more violent ways would have been witnessed since his will to use “any means necessary” would have been employed by his helpers and followers. Instead of the effects that Martin Luther King produced, Malcolm X could have produced retaliatory and resistance from the administration since it would have been a repeat of what had been happening. Humbleness, showing love and being non-violent proves to be the best mechanisms against segregation and integration as advocated and applied by Martin Luther King (Bermanzohn, 2000).