More handpicked essays just for you.
Non violence in the civil rights movement
Major turning points in us history
Martin luther king's contribution to society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The point of a non-violent protest is to “…create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue” (King). Its goal is to force attention on the problem. It ultimately gives to the community no other choice but to face the problem and try to fix it. What Martin Luther King wanted was for it to gain attention so that they will be able to negotiate with “white moderates” and agree on a common ground. He did that to be able to negotiate which was his second step but it did not work.
As time went on, SNCC, CORE and SCLC all began having different opinion of the march. What had once seem to be a well, thought out plan was now crumbling. Some black marchers refused to shake hands with whites, muttered rude responses to polite conversation and growled at reporters. (57) Many people had difficulties with King’s way of approaching the march because nonviolence asked its practitioners to occupy a higher moral plane.
Martin Luther King Jr. tried to talk to the people of the community and enforce the idea of nonviolence, but it did not work. This attack sparked the Watts riots in 1965. In 1966 at the civil rights march in Chicago people began to throw bricks and bottles. The marchers caught them and threw them back. This act indicted that nonviolence was not going to work in the North anymore.
And although the idea of peaceful protest was to have zero violence, it never seemed to happen that way. Lewis tell us, “Violence does beget violence, but the opposite is just as true” (Lewis and Ayden en 1:100)(see figure 1). At least so they hoped. MLK, Lewis, and Lawson all believed that if they did not start any problems and remained peaceful then there would be no issues. They were wrong.
Martin Luther King Jr., the leader of nonviolent Civil Rights movements, once proclaimed, “...non-violent resistance does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding... The aftermath of non-violence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness” ( MLK Jr. Doc 11). The Civil Rights Movement began as a nonviolent movement in order to integrate white and black Americans to create an equal nation.
The 1960s brought a completely different aspect to police violence in that police brutality was the most prevalent among African American communities that were trying to achieve social and political equality through peaceful or radical means. As social tensions rose, African Americans across the country tried to change the dogmatic thought of African American inferiority through either peaceful or radical social movements. Martin Luther King Jr, a prime example of peaceful integration of African Americans into American society, led nonviolent resistant movements that allowed some movements to be successful, and others to be catastrophic in terms of brutal police intervention. For example, The Birmingham Civil Rights Protest of 1963 clearly
Participating in a protest, even the nonviolent kind, was a massive risk, and by partaking in one, a person could sacrifice many things. During the second Selma march, police were determined to stop the protestors and armed themselves with tear gas, clubs, and even police dogs. At the sight of the heavily armed police, unafraid to use their weapons against innocent people, Dr. King decided to turn around. He believed that the time was not right, and in the meantime, they should all pray and reflect on the purpose of the march before trying again. But for many, the urge for voting rights and equality was stronger than the desire to be safe.
Protestors were beat, jailed, and tormented for standing up for their beliefs. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “I am in a Birmingham jail because injustice is in here.” The law enforcers were disobeying the laws and they were not peaceful. They stripped the protestors right to freedom of speech while terrorizing the marches and their participants. This was not the American way.
The people who lived during the Civil Rights Movement used both violent and non- violent protests , marches and speeches. No matter how anyone look at the past, it carved a better future for many African Americans.
As our nation grows we become more violent people get killed everyday and no one can really control it. Violence since the 1960’s has almost tripled. As our country gets older the crime rate will keep increasing. There are a lot of people who don’t like violence, but there are also lots people who want violence and try to make it. Part of the reason there is so much violence is because our nation isn’t good at accepting others for who they are.
Civil disobedience has been discerned in numerous time periods of American history. The definition of disobedience can be interpreted when one or a group prioritizes their conscience of their beliefs over the dictation of laws through rebellion. Notable historical events of slavery and independence has been marked with the disobedience of government laws. Even though the disobedience of societal laws can undermine the corruption of the government, disobedience has undeniably steer societal progress. A form of civil disobedience was the fight for independence of the colonies in the American Revolution.
Who was a non-violent civil rights activist that believed in nonviolence? Mahatma Gandhi was the primary leader of india's independence movement and on January 30, 1948, the 78-year-old Gandhi was in new delhi’s birla house on his way to a prayer meeting when hindu extremist Nathuram Godse shot Gandhi three times in the chest. The assassination of Gandhi was unjust because Gandhi was non-violent, he was a non-violent civil disobedience leader, and Gandhi wanted the best for everyone who stood with him. The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi was unjust because he did not respond to anything with hate or violence.
The importance of pro-black movements, specifically the Black Lives Matter movement, was discussed within the Speaker Series event, “The Importance of Non-Violent Protests to Oppose Racial Injustice in Ferguson.” Speakers Cori Bush and Osagyefo Sekou stressed the need African Americans have for their lives to be considered as important as the lives of non-minorities, recognition of anti-black terrorism, and the lack of safe spaces for blacks. The motives of the Black Lives Matter movement has been given connotations that do not equate to motives expressed by Bush and Sekou. The movement is described as radical and anti-white by non-allies and black youth are portrayed as exempt from those considered engaged citizens. This disconnect and miscommunication
The anti-lynching movement was a civil rights movement in the United States that aimed to eradicate the practice of lynching. Lynching was used as a tool to repress African Americans. The anti-lynching movement reached its height between the 1890s and 1930s. On President Abraham Lincoln's birthdate in 1909, Ida Wells and W.E.B. DuBois helped organized the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in response to the lynchings of African Americans. In 1919, the organization published Thirty Years of Lynching in the United States: 1889–1919 to call attention to the issue.
Nelson Mandela was a South African nationalist and leader of the African National Congress, which began in the 1940’s. He helped bring an end to apartheid. As a member of the African National Congress party, he believed in non-violent disobedience. Boycotts, strikes, demonstrations, and the burning of the hated passes Africans were required to carry are examples of the non-violent disobedience they performed. All of these actions were similar to and influenced by the tactics that Gandhi had established in South Africa and used in India 20 years earlier.
