Compare and contrast the approach of the black panthers and martin luther king. do you think black militancy in the 1960s or hurt the cause of civil rights?

Martin Luther King Jr. taught nonviolent protests and working through the system to change it. He wanted to show the establishment that it was time to change through peaceful means.

The Black Panthers, in the other hand, wanted to show the strength of the black man. They believed the only way they were going to get change was through force and threats.

I think the black militancy of the 1960s hurt the cause of civil rights. The people who held outdated beliefs about blacks that they were savage and a lower race than whites took the violence of the Black Panthers as proof of their bigotry. They didn't even hear the peaceful messages of MLK and others like him. It took a lot longer to get equal rights legislation passed than I believe it would have without the actions of the Black Panthers.

Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for nonviolent protests and working inside the system to bring about change. He wanted to demonstrate to the establishment that it was time for peaceful change.

The Black Panthers, on the other hand, sought to demonstrate the black man's strength. They felt that the only way to effect change was to use force and threats.

About Black Panthers and Martin Luther King:

I believe that the 1960s black militancy harmed the civil rights movement. People who held antiquated stereotypes about blacks, such as that they were savages and of a lower rate than whites, saw the Black Panthers' violence as proof of their prejudice. They didn't even pay attention to MLK's and others' nonviolent teachings. Without the Black Panthers' actions, I believe it would have taken much longer to pass equal rights legislation.

For more information about Black Panthers and Martin Luther King refer to the link:

link