Comparing The Civil Rights Movement And Black Lives Matter

The problem is racism. The Civil Rights movement and Black Lives Matter deal with different forms of racism and each in their respective times. The approach to formulating a movement that speaks out against inequalities is clear - nonviolence is the preferred method. Forming a movement to combat societal issues is not easy but Dr. King gives us a clear sequence of events: “collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action.” (King). Using this formula will serve as a litmus test for the effectiveness of both movements.
The difficulty in combating a widespread normative practice of discrimination, oppression or inequality is presenting a legitimate opposition built on solid moral foundation. Arguably the most effective avenue of dissent is the practice of nonviolent protesting. Nonviolent protesting is an American tradition, but most notably can be seen in the Civil Rights Era and most recently in the Black Lives Matters movement. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. based his views of nonviolent protesting on the principles of philosophy, history and religion. Dr. King combined elements of Christianity, Gandhi’s teachings of nonviolence, and borrowed heavily from Socrates’

Where they differ is in their leadership and approach to protesting against these social injustices. Nonviolent protesting and civil disobedience seem lacking from the Black Lives Matters movement where Dr. King warns us against violence against the oppressor, stating, “they know how to handle violence”. This shows his understanding that violence begets more violence, or that violence will diminish any good that is done. Violent acts further divide the population of America, and if the Black Lives Matter organization succeeds in overthrowing the system through violence would that not be “replacing one tyranny with