In this post I will be discussing the arguments of violent and non violent responses during the Civil Rights Movement.
Looking at the non violent approaches that occurred during the Civil Rights Movement, I think that an important turning point was during the Montgomery bus boycott that Martin Luther King Jr. was involved in. This seemed to be the beginning of the non violent protests. King was taking a stance for the black community. He was tired of waiting for justice to be served to the black community. Kings belief for the non-violent actions was guided by the principles of the Christian faith. The non violent protests such as the boycotts, sit-ins and marches were an effective way of being in the front of the white community to hopefully awaken their morals. These tactics were a powerful way to hopefully show the white community that the way blacks were being treated was immoral and wrong. Even though non violent protesters did not believe in violence as a way to bring about desegregation, they were often in the heart of violence during these protests. The protesters believed that they had to accept violence without retaliating violence. During the non-violent protests, a majority of the protestors ended up in jail and brutally beaten. I think that this was a way to show the white community that they were not going to give up just because they were jailed. The non violent protestors were hopeful that by being jailed and not retaliating that this would change the minds of the white community to look at possible desegregation.
From the 1880- 1950 lynching’s, sexual violence and abuse towards blacks was a way to maintain white supremacy and social control. It is no wonder violence became an apparent way for blacks to fight for justice. The blacks were tired of the whites having control. Activist like Malcolm X and Carmichael became influential leaders of violent protests. They believed it was time to arm black Americans and form “Black Power.” Carmichael stated “The nation is racist from top to bottom, and does not function by morality, love and non violence, but by power.” These leaders took the opposite approach of Martin Luther King Jr., and encouraged blacks to fight for their justice. They felt that if whites could kill blacks for no apparent reason then they could retaliate in the same regard. It was time for the blacks to defend themselves. In Malcolm X speech “The Ballot or the Bullet”, he made it clear that the black community was not getting anywhere with the non violent protests and it was time to fight for their freedom. He didn’t want the black community to go around shooting white men, but to demonstrate to them that the black man can be powerful too. It was time for a change and they were tired of waiting.
Both violent and non-violent protests seemed to be an effective and powerful way for the black community to fight for freedom and desegregation. I would have to say that if I was in the position that the blacks were in during this time, I could have easily been on either the violent or non violent side of the protests, as long as I could have seen change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like how you expressed the bravery of the non-violent activists must have possessed the will stand for their beliefs, even if it meant being attacked and imprisoned with out fighting back. Also how you set the violent activists apart from the white oppressors, even though they believed in the use of violence and power.
ReplyDeleteOkay, you say that King’s motivation for nonviolent direct action was “guided by the principles of the Christian faith.” But was that it? Did he only implement nonviolence because it was the Christian thing to do, or was there more to it than that? I feel that it was a bit more complicated than that.
ReplyDeleteHey, I’m glad that you used Carmichael as an example. I thought about it, but ended up just not doing it, but I’m glad that at least somebody did. I think that most people just used King, Jr. and Malcolm X as examples.
Also, I like that you put your own thoughts in. I’ve been asking people on the other blogs what they feel was the most effective or what they would have done. I, too, am a bit torn, but I think maybe I would have leaned more toward violent action.
I like the point at the end when you say that you could have chosen either side, the violent or non-violent side. I also think i would have a hard time choosing. I think that taking the King stance of non-violence would be a lot harder than what most people think. Walking with a group of people into a group of big white police officers with guns and bats and everything else. You have to be a strong person with a lot of will in order to do this. Yes, the self purification workshops would help, but still. If i had any person in my family abused, wrongfully put in prison or lynched, i don't know if i would have the strength to remain that calm and have that strong of faith.
ReplyDeleteI think Michelle L.'s point about personal involvement in the wrongdoings is what probably was most difficult for the non violent side to overcome. I imagine internally there was a conflict of getting revenge or creating a future. This may be why Malcolm X and MLK's goals were so different. To go back to talking about Tim's Blog I guess. Maybe Malcolm X's violent actions were motivated by revenge so there is no motivation to assimilate to the group you concider an enemy. But MLK Jr's outlook promoted a better future and was not as focused on revenge for the past.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and all these comments. To single out Pete's response i know if it were me it would be impossible to take non violent action if my family or friends were being hurt or killed. the internal involvement would have broken me to pieces. But i like how you covered both sides very well. It funny to see how if you compare all these post many people are focusing on many similar findings.
ReplyDeleteThis topic, i feel, is hard to talk about because we don't exactly what was going through the minds of many of the people. Sure we might have small insights of many of the leaders, but how did the masses feel?
I like how you introduce the audience to the beginning of what you believe was the turning point or well, start of the movement. But, I also agree with the second comment regarding the fact that there was definitely a lot more to Martin Luther King Jr. than the religion aspects of it. Even if he did believe in the faith and incorporated some of it into his movements, there was a lot more issues and reasonings to it.
ReplyDeleteOther than that, I truly did enjoy reading your blog and hearing about Carmichael since in most of these blogs that I have read he was not discussed in depth much so it was enjoyable to read about it here.
You mentioned that the non-violent acts were often the start of the violent ones. I guess I didn't put that into perspective while writing my own. Sort of ironic that something that was meant to be free of violence and a positive atmosphere turned into the exact opposite. But as you said also, they believed that they should not get involved in it ever if it was happening around them. Personally, I would not have been strong enough to do.
ReplyDelete