King v. Carmichael

           In Martin Luther King's book  Where Do We Go From Here he makes a strong point about the power of non-violence as a means of black Americans taking a stand and participating in their government. Martin Luther King considered non-violence to have a place in the progression of society, non-violent acts such as mass marches were a way for Black Americans to be a part of the change that needed to take place in their lives. Adversely, Stokely Carmichael felt that non-violence was a buzzword used to stop black people from defending themselves against  the prevalent violence used against them by the white man. Carmichael expresses that violence is a domineering factor in our society whether it is being used at home or in wars overseas. He says that non-violence seems to have no place in white america until they themselves are faced with violence. Although Carmichael brings up a good point in talking about the use of non-violence as a buzzword, I am more inclined to agree with Martin Luther King in his ideas that non-violence can be utilized to make change in our society. I do not disagree with Carmichael's thoughts on the amount of violence used against black Americans but I do feel he is wrong in his implications that the notion of non-violence can only exist as a means of  further oppressing African-Americans.