Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Williams were both influential figures in the fight for civil rights. Both shared a common goal of ending oppression and discrimination against African Americans, but differed in their approach. Williams argued for self-defense, including the use of violence if necessary, while King advocated for nonviolence as the only means of producing social change. King’s non-violent approach was less productive because it exposed protestors to potential risk and allowed oppressors to continue to use violence without consequences.
Williams believes that the oppressed cannot rely on the police or the government to protect them, and that they must be prepared to defend themselves. His philosophy on armed self-defense can be seen as controversial, but his position is justifiable given the violent and oppressive environment in which African Americans were living at the time. However, his approach was problematic to some because it legitimized violence and could easily escalate into a cycle of violence and retaliation. Williams’ ideas were a necessary response in the face of extreme violence and oppression.
Williams believed
…show more content…
King saw nonviolence as a way to break the cycle of violence and hatred that had perpetuated racial discrimination and inequality. He used non-violent techniques such as sit-ins, boycotts, and marches to protest against racial segregation and discrimination. This meant that even in cases where violence was being used against peaceful protestors, they were expected to endure it without retaliation. This approach put protestors in danger and allowed oppressors to continue to use violence with impunity. Williams mentions this idea of impunity in his book, Negroes with Guns. King was committed to his beliefs, and he did not allow for violence under any circumstances and instead he advocated for respect and unity among all