James H. Cone, in Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream Or A Nightmare, presents the thesis that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, for all their perceived personal and political differences, were leaders whose vision of America and its racial problems were growing increasingly close to one another. This is not to say that if the two men had lived longer they would have advocated the same philosophies and policies, but it is to say that there were many areas where their visions were complementary rather than contradictory:
Integrationists and nationalists complemented each other. Both philosophies were needed if America was going to come to terms with the truth of the black experience. Either philosophy alone was a half-truth and thus a distortion of the black reality in America. Integrationists were practical. . . . Nationalists were desperate (16).
Cone also argues that Martin and Malcolm did not originate these two positions, but instead were parts of a long historical process which included both philosophies and approaches: "To understand Martin King's and Malcolm X's perspectives on America and their relation to each other, it is important to see them in the light of these two different but interdependent streams of black thought" (4).
In exploring these arguments, Cone delineates the major ideas and influences shaping the race relations views of both men, as well as their successes and limitations as leaders. This study will examine those ideas, influences, successes and limitations.
We will see that some of the stark and well-publicized differences between the two men are genuine, while others are exaggerations which fail to take adequate notice of similarities between the two men. The differences emerge from many sources---backgrounds, philosophies and tactics; the similarities spring from one well---both men were intelligent and impassioned black leaders who desired one great goal, a life of greater freedo...