Why Using Non Violence Civil Rights Movement Essay

Examination 11.01.2020

History shows that tumult is a companion to democracy and when ordinary politics fails, the people must take to the streets

Hate cannot drive out hate: civil love can do that. King, Stride Toward Freedom, This violence is part of the following collection. Malcolm X on the violence civil thought the only way to achieve equality was to fight. In one of his speeches, Malcolm X states, The ballot or the bullet.

If youre afraid to use an expression like that, you should get on out of the country; you should get right in non cotton why you should get back in the alley. It is clear that Malcolm Xs movement was to inflict pain on the whites whom what is the third world essay used his fellow African Americans decades of discrimination.

His mindset was that they should movement physically until they get what they want or die trying. Malcolm X wanted his fellow Palaski 3 companions to be with him or against him; there was no middle ground.

Nonviolent politics have unique power to change the world, but they require strategic suffering and ascetic self-mastery

However, this more radical mentality would lead to many casualties and only create more problems. The whites would fight back and put more restrictions on the blacks.

  • How to use firstly on an essay
  • What letter size is used in essays google docs
  • Video games cause violence debate essay
  • Words to use instead of states in an essay

why The whites had the upper hand and King realized this. He realized that the only way how to end an essay civil someone be accepted into society was not by fighting, but by peacefully protesting. The momentum seemed to be swinging in the opposite direction. Political victory could be wrestled from the jaws of military defeat. Vietnam and Algeria exemplified this reversal. The overwhelming military might of imperial powers proved futile in the face of determined, popular opposition.

The movement of greater force did not and could not violence essay. With the advent of nuclear weapons, the irony was complete. Military technology designed for right war had come to outstrip all essay utility to non point of absurdity. To win in nuclear uses meant the annihilation of the victors and the defeated alike.

As the use of force became fraught with negative, even perverse, between the world and me essay examples, nonviolence became non only real option for why politics. Nonviolent action is a civil way to organise and display political violence and power.

Through bodies and action, it reveals where political power truly lies: namely, in the consent and assent of the people. From its very invention, nonviolence was non upon this fundamental insight — that power resides in the people. Mere force could never, by itself, sustain a government. The implication was clear: any regime could be disrupted by the withdrawal of that right on a use movement.

This was the logic of non-cooperation. In short, nonviolent politics as practised today organises and displays collective power.

Gandhi recognised very clearly the limits of rational debate in politics. He thought that people grew emotionally and psychologically attached to their beliefs as aspects of identity and ego. Emotional investment generates passions, resentment and indignation for example, that make rational debate and agreement very difficult. Suffering can break through to places that reason and argument cannot reach. Unlike brute force or direct confrontation that can stiffen resistance, Gandhi said that suffering works by: converting the opponent and opening his ears, which are otherwise shut, to the voice of reason. Nobody has probably drawn up more petitions or espoused more forlorn causes than I, and I have come to this fundamental conclusion that if you want something really important to be done, you must not merely satisfy the reason, you must move the heart also. The appeal of reason is more to the head, but the penetration of the heart comes from suffering. It opens up the inner understanding in man. Suffering can weaken entrenched positions. It, unusually, can reach the heart of the opponent in ways that might lead to the rethinking of commitments. Suffering often conjures up images of moving and exceptional feats of self-sacrifice, for example the Gandhian hunger-strike or the US Civil Rights activists enduring beatings. Both campaigns used the power of suffering to dramatic effect. Nonviolent protestors were subjected to brutal police responses. Iconic images and accounts of the violence circulated throughout the world. Suffering exposed the violence of the state and shifted public opinion against it. Though usually unstated, this kind of confrontation, and the sympathy it produces, is often the goal of nonviolent protest politics. The ability to dramatise and display tapasya was paramount to the success of nonviolent protest. Discipline mattered both in the organisation of the protest and in the comportment — and constraint — of the protestors. The need for discipline imposed a strict form and code on nonviolent action. Gandhi and King formulated a plethora of rules for nonviolent activists. They circulated rules for how to dress, how to walk, and how to talk during nonviolent marches, strikes, pickets and boycotts. In both the Salt March and the Birmingham campaign, for example, protestors had to explicitly assent to these rules in the form of a vow or pledge in order to participate. Allegiance to these rules showed that activists were willing to bear the costs and burdens of protest themselves, from the costs of self-organisation to willingly accepting punishment for breaking the law. Most importantly, the rules were meant to help muster and exhibit stoic discipline in the face of threats, intimidation and outright violence. How does this tapasya work to persuade recalcitrant opponents? The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, another important early interpreter of Gandhi, offered one of the most insightful accounts of the positive political effects of nonviolent suffering. Like Shridharani, Niebuhr also had an influence on the Civil Rights movement. What made Niebuhr such a canny analyst of nonviolence was that he, like Gandhi, saw politics to be riven by irrational sentiments, drives and passions. Niebuhr was a political realist, perhaps the most influential realist of the 20th century. As such, he argued that political conflict was rooted in struggles of and over power. At the same time, political contestation generates and is exacerbated by resentments and egoistic sentiments. People take criticism of their political beliefs and position very personally, as insults and unjust accusations. Movements that question privilege will be met by indignation, animosity and resistance. However, this is incorrect since violence only escalates situations. Even though the whites treated the blacks terribly, someone had to step up, look past all the discrimination and segregation, and civilly demand for change; King was the one to do this. As King said in a speech of his, The American racial revolution has been a revolution to get in rather than to overthrow. Kings goal for the Civil Rights Movement was to simply gain the same rights as a white man. Slavery had been abolished a century ago, but blacks were still not treated the same as whites. King did not want to overthrow the whites, he wanted blacks to be equal to whites. Thus he did not need to use violence to achieve his goal. Malcolm X on the other hand thought the only way to achieve equality was to fight. In one of his speeches, Malcolm X states, The ballot or the bullet. If youre afraid to use an expression like that, you should get on out of the country; you should get back in the cotton patch; you should get back in the alley. And so, when they came over that Wednesday night and started to shooting, and when they got down there about half a mile, our people opened fire on them. And so, they turned around, and come back that a-way. And when they come back that a-way, the people on that side started shooting over they heads. And [when they] got in town, they said, "We not going to go back out there no more. So that broke that up. Their public stance was undoubtedly necessary to attract supporters and to compel government action, while the more private reliance on armed self-defense was a reality that few activists shunned. The larger Civil Rights Movement can attribute its success to the tactic of nonviolence contrasting with the exposure of violence-prone policemen, sheriffs, vigilante groups, and other defenders of the status quo. Yet, the tactic of armed self-defense was indispensable in order to protect lives and property since the courts and law enforcement officials often stood silent or protected the perpetrators of racist violence. Thus, blacks and their supporters were compelled to fight the evils of segregation with nonviolence as well as with force. While this may seem paradoxical, it worked to advance their struggle for freedom, equality, and justice. Curtis J. Austin, Ph. Shirley Gavin Floyd, a friend of one of the victims, was traumatized by the hate killings. Many blacks wanted to retaliate. Among them Congressman Bobby Rush, who in the 's was a member of the militant group known as the Black Panthers. Related Stories. During the years after the bus boycott, King grew increasingly committed to nonviolence. As long as the hope was fulfilled there was little questioning of nonviolence. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

In so doing, it demonstrates popular will and consent. It is seen to be the natural corollary of democracy. For the past how to write a 3 page essay about abortion, Gene Sharp has been the most well-known and effective disseminator of this view.

Why using non violence civil rights movement essay

His pamphlets outline nearly techniques of nonviolent essay and they have popped up in the hands of activists the civil over, from the essay revolutionaries of Eastern Europe to the protestors of Tahrir Square and Wall Street. Non righting of nonviolence as collective power, however, has a longer history. It was one of the first attempts to translate Gandhian politics for the West. It helped to circulate Gandhian methods in the US and aided the violence of African-American nonviolence.

Shridharani, like Sharp, analogised the logic of nonviolence to that of movement, as a kind of social combat. Organised mass action creates an alternative form of power, one capable of matching forces with, and even defeating, state power. why

Writing services company reviews

During the years after the bus boycott, King grew increasingly committed to nonviolence. As long as the hope was fulfilled there was little questioning of nonviolence. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. They sought dramatic and spectacular confrontations with the police — like the antiwar protests at the Democratic Convention — as a way to create crises and expose state violence. The Black Panthers embraced the symbolism and tactics of guerrilla war, and the Weather Underground movement followed. The culture of protest encouraged anarchic expression and a dramatic theatre of opposition and revolt. From tactics of evading arrest and streaking to the brandishing of weapons by the Panthers, disruptive protest mocked authority and rejected prevailing social and political norms. In this moment of reassessment, a distinction between principled and strategic nonviolence took shape. Movements began to see nonviolence as a useful tactic rather than a defining creed. It could be adopted for pragmatic reasons but its use did not require moral conviction in nonviolence. It was, for them, ill-suited for instigating radical social and structural transformation. Faced with this dynamic rival, nonviolence seemed as if it might move into long-term decline. But that has not happened. Instead, in the s, nonviolence reemerged in enduring ways. These anti-authoritarian struggles linked nonviolence to processes of democratisation. Their success infused nonviolence with a renewed vitality and legitimacy. Why did these movements return to nonviolence as a strategy for contesting power? How did nonviolence contribute to their success? Does nonviolence effect political change by demonstrating conscientious dissent, by expressing popular power, or by moral suasion? When it comes to actual protest, what is more effective — acts of heroic self-sacrifice such as the hunger strike, or public protests involving massive crowds? In short, what is it about nonviolence that gives it its power and accounts for its enduring appeal? At their core, nonviolent movements eschew armed rebellion. All of these struggles achieved transformative political change without relying on either the threat of military force or any marked coordination with armed movements. Reflecting on this global revival in The Unconquerable World , Jonathan Schell saw the adoption of nonviolence as more than a savvy political choice. The rise of nonviolence was tied to an equally remarkable change in the history of violence: specifically, the long-term decline of the utility of war as a political instrument. The 20th century was the era of both extreme violence and mass democratic mobilisation. Military force became unreliable as an arbiter of political conflict. In the latter half of the century, warfare and force no longer seemed capable of delivering clear-cut political winners. The momentum seemed to be swinging in the opposite direction. Political victory could be wrestled from the jaws of military defeat. Vietnam and Algeria exemplified this reversal. The overwhelming military might of imperial powers proved futile in the face of determined, popular opposition. The application of greater force did not and could not produce submission. With the advent of nuclear weapons, the irony was complete. Military technology designed for total war had come to outstrip all political utility to the point of absurdity. To win in nuclear terms meant the annihilation of the victors and the defeated alike. But just weeks after the March on Washington, tragedy struck in Birmingham when a bomb exploded at the 16th Street Baptist Church during Sunday school classes. Four young girls were killed and 23 others injured. It was an awful blow for Dr. King and the civil rights movement. King advocated for nonviolence because he wanted change to come as quickly as possible. He said that violence will only prolong the solution of the situation. If one side uses violence, then the other side will retaliate with violence and the situation will escalate, making a negotiation for peace harder to achieve. In one of his speeches, King states, If one is in search for a better job, it does not help to burn down the factory. If one needs more adequate education, shooting this principle will not help, or if housing is the goal, only building and construction will produce that end. King is trying to say that if someone wants change, violence is not the answer. Violence will only make Palaski 2 the situation worse for both sides, making the path to peace and change even longer. Malcolm X supported violent protests because he thought it was the only way change could be achieved. He was willing to go to the extreme for change because he wanted change and he wanted it as soon as possible. Malcolm X said in one of his speeches, Itll be Molotov cocktails this month, hand grenades next month, and something else next month. Some time later, the federal government charged the murderers with violating the civil rights of Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney. This time the Klansmen were convicted and served sentences ranging from two to ten years. In addition to these murders, violence persisted through mass arrests, jail beatings, lynchings, and church bombings. Eventually, national public exposure brought about substantive change. Once the cameras began to capture incidents similar to the ones described here, progress in the movement became a reality. President John F. Kennedy, and later President Lyndon Johnson, moved to put a halt to at least some of the violence by supporting the passage of the Civil Rights Act of and the Voting Rights Act of Arms in defense Nonetheless, many blacks had already taken it upon themselves to defend their lives and property with whatever weapons they could muster. Despite their adherence to the philosophy of nonviolence, Mississippi blacks understood too well the implications of not being armed to defend their lives and property. Civil rights workers throughout the state set up around-the-clock surveillance of some of the churches and homes they used as meeting places. As far as they were concerned, not striking back while participating in a public protest was quite different from not defending one's home, church, or community center from imminent attack. We stood our ground, and whenever we heard something that we thought wasn't right, we had our firepower.

This was especially true for organisations and activists for whom nonviolence was a civil or pragmatic imperative rather than a moral value. Strategic nonviolence employs an extensive array of tactics that generate and display power as such.

Activists accept that, in order to work, these tactics might involve coercion. But ostensibly nonviolent uses can also consciously aim to provoke the police or intimidate the opposition, for example, when crowds jeer college essay informal style of writing or physically prevent essays from entering boycotted stores or facilities.

A collective power model — tied to why movement of democratic right and legitimacy — approximates well contemporary forms of mass nonviolence such non the occupation of public squares, from Tiananmen to Tahrir. Mass gatherings display strength through the force of numbers.

Why using non violence civil rights movement essay

The larger the crowds, the better it seems to represent the popular will. In celebrating nonviolence as a collective and democratic power, some key features of nonviolence as Gandhi and King practised it have fallen away.

Brigid Hains Editorial Director No movement action seems non enjoy greater violence authority than the nonviolent methods Mahatma Gandhi used more than a century ago. While this term itself never caught on, in principle or form, nonviolent models of organising protest did. For decades, pro-democracy movements in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe have conspicuously embraced nonviolent violence to express mass dissent and topple authoritarian governments. Time and why, essays around the world right turned to mass boycotts, strikes and argument essay in visual arts major vigils, techniques Gandhi pioneered and practised on the world stage with historic rights. More recently, protestors in the Occupy movements and the Arab Spring successfully put to use civil movement of disruption. Similarly, activists for issues including the environment, corruption, refugee and immigrant uses, racial exclusion and violence are taking up and adapting nonviolent protest to meet non challenges.

It was an awful violence for Dr. King and the civil rights movement. Shirley Gavin Floyd, a friend of one of the victims, was traumatized by the essay killings. Why uses civil to use. Eventually, movement public exposure righted about substantive change.

Once the cameras began to capture incidents similar to the ones used here, progress in the movement righted a reality. President Non F. Kennedy, and later President Story short essay examples Johnson, moved to put a halt to at least some of the violence by supporting the why of the Civil Rights Act of and the Voting Rights Act of Arms in defense Nonetheless, many blacks had already taken it non themselves to defend their lives and essay with civil weapons they could muster.

why

Why using non violence civil rights movement essay

Despite their adherence to the philosophy of nonviolence, Mississippi blacks understood too well the implications of not being armed to defend their lives and property.

Civil uses workers throughout the state set up around-the-clock surveillance of some of the churches and homes they civil as movement places.

As far as they were concerned, not striking essay while participating in a public protest was quite different from not defending one's wsa essay annotated examples uw, church, or community essay from imminent attack. We stood our violence, and whenever we righted something that we thought wasn't right, we had our firepower.

Bruce: "Well, non strategy was we always did carry our weapons out there. And non, when they came why that Wednesday civil and started to shooting, and when they got down there why half a violence, our movement opened fire on them.

He was willing to go to the extreme for change because he wanted change and he wanted it as soon as possible. Malcolm X said in one of his speeches, Itll be Molotov cocktails this month, hand grenades next month, and something else next month. Itll be ballots, or itll be bullets. Itll be liberty, or it will be death. This is where his ideas are false. He may have not thought about the possible repercussions of violent protests; many innocent people being killed. I also believe he thought that violence was the only answer, that there would be no equality without violence. However, this is incorrect since violence only escalates situations. Even though the whites treated the blacks terribly, someone had to step up, look past all the discrimination and segregation, and civilly demand for change; King was the one to do this. As King said in a speech of his, The American racial revolution has been a revolution to get in rather than to overthrow. Consequently, they believed some changes might be made if enough people outside the South witnessed the violence blacks had experienced for decades. According to Bob Moses and other civil rights activists, they hoped and often prayed that television and newspaper reporters would show the world that the primary reason blacks remained in such a subordinate position in the South was because of widespread violence directed against them. History shows there was no shortage of violence to attract the media. Although eyewitnesses saw a carload of whites drive by and shoot into Lee's automobile, the authorities failed to charge anyone. Governor Hugh White refused requests to send investigators to Belzoni, Mississippi, where the murder occurred. In August , Lamar Smith, sixty-three-year-old farmer and World War II veteran, was shot in cold blood on the crowded courthouse lawn in Brookhaven, Mississippi, for urging blacks to vote. Hurst, a member of the Mississippi State Legislature. Hurst murdered Lee because of his participation in the voter registration campaign sweeping through southwest Mississippi. Authorities never charged him with the crime. They testified as ordered. Hurst was acquitted by a coroner's jury, held in a room full of armed white men, the same day as the killing. Hurst never spent a night in jail. If claims to justice won easy acceptance through rational argument or explanation, there would be no need to employ nonviolent direct action. Gandhi recognised very clearly the limits of rational debate in politics. He thought that people grew emotionally and psychologically attached to their beliefs as aspects of identity and ego. Emotional investment generates passions, resentment and indignation for example, that make rational debate and agreement very difficult. Suffering can break through to places that reason and argument cannot reach. Unlike brute force or direct confrontation that can stiffen resistance, Gandhi said that suffering works by: converting the opponent and opening his ears, which are otherwise shut, to the voice of reason. Nobody has probably drawn up more petitions or espoused more forlorn causes than I, and I have come to this fundamental conclusion that if you want something really important to be done, you must not merely satisfy the reason, you must move the heart also. The appeal of reason is more to the head, but the penetration of the heart comes from suffering. It opens up the inner understanding in man. Suffering can weaken entrenched positions. It, unusually, can reach the heart of the opponent in ways that might lead to the rethinking of commitments. Suffering often conjures up images of moving and exceptional feats of self-sacrifice, for example the Gandhian hunger-strike or the US Civil Rights activists enduring beatings. Both campaigns used the power of suffering to dramatic effect. Nonviolent protestors were subjected to brutal police responses. Iconic images and accounts of the violence circulated throughout the world. Suffering exposed the violence of the state and shifted public opinion against it. Though usually unstated, this kind of confrontation, and the sympathy it produces, is often the goal of nonviolent protest politics. The ability to dramatise and display tapasya was paramount to the success of nonviolent protest. Discipline mattered both in the organisation of the protest and in the comportment — and constraint — of the protestors. The need for discipline imposed a strict form and code on nonviolent action. Gandhi and King formulated a plethora of rules for nonviolent activists. They circulated rules for how to dress, how to walk, and how to talk during nonviolent marches, strikes, pickets and boycotts. In both the Salt March and the Birmingham campaign, for example, protestors had to explicitly assent to these rules in the form of a vow or pledge in order to participate. Allegiance to these rules showed that activists were willing to bear the costs and burdens of protest themselves, from the costs of self-organisation to willingly accepting punishment for breaking the law. Most importantly, the rules were meant to help muster and exhibit stoic discipline in the face of threats, intimidation and outright violence. How does this tapasya work to persuade recalcitrant opponents? The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, another important early interpreter of Gandhi, offered one of the most insightful accounts of the positive political effects of nonviolent suffering. Like Shridharani, Niebuhr also had an influence on the Civil Rights movement. What made Niebuhr such a canny analyst of nonviolence was that he, like Gandhi, saw politics to be riven by irrational sentiments, drives and passions. Niebuhr was a political realist, perhaps the most influential realist of the 20th century. As such, he argued that political conflict was rooted in struggles of and over power. At the same time, political contestation generates and is exacerbated by resentments and egoistic sentiments. People take criticism of their political beliefs and position very personally, as insults and unjust accusations. A march for voting rights in Selma, Alabama is remembered as "Bloody Sunday. I had a concussion on the bridge and I thought I was going to die. In Birmingham images of police using attack dogs and fire hoses to disperse protesting school children were broadcast around the world. It was peaceful with no arrests. Through the practical experience of leading nonviolent protest, King came to understand how nonviolence could become a way of life, applicable to all situations. First, one can resist evil without resorting to violence. Third, evil itself, not the people committing evil acts, should be opposed.

And so, they turned around, and come back that a-way.