The main claim of this article is that both Martin Luther King’s tactic and Malcolm X’s self-defective strategy mirror violent and nonviolent dichotomies and this can be explained through their different background. Bennett supports his argument by comparing King and X’s backgrounds separately. He finds out Malcolm X is from “ lumpenproletariat” and he educated himself in order to “make himself one of the most eloquent speakers and debaters of his time.”(72) In contrast, Martin Luther King went to the college and he obtained doctor degree. And King is also a Christian. Therefore, Bennett thinks Malcolm X’s strategy seems violent and most people do not tend to adopt his ideology because it was influenced by his childhood and education experience.…show more content… To support his sub claim, he mentions about explanation why both activists were assassinated. Both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were assassinated when they organized movement against economy injustice and institutional racism. People under imperialism felt that their economic benefits would be affect if Martin Luther King’s purpose of helping African Americans became real. He concludes that MLK’s violently non-violent strategy has contributed a lot in desegregation in America but it is also the main factor why integration between two races (White American and African American) has not completed
