Non Violence In The Civil Rights Movement

Black protest in America in the 1960s developed into two opposing stances, the non-violence of the Civil Rights movement in the South and the violent protests of the urban poor blacks and black power organisations in the North. In the early 1960's the main protest form was the Civil Rights movement. This was predicated on non-violent protest. It fo0lowed the principles of non-violence successfully used by Mahatma Gandhi

The American Civil Rights Movement in the late 1950s and 1960s generated massive international following and controversy, which made the movement one of the most important in U.S. history. The movement’s legacy can still be felt today, with the positive aspects, such as voting rights to African Americans and wide spread desegregation of public facilities, still being felt in the United States, and in many similar models across the globe. Although there were many “battlegrounds” where civil issues were debated, many people who know of the movement today would argue that the movement’s heart was rooted in the Deep South, ironically where it could be argued that the mentality of people living in the area at the time were the most violently opposed to such civil rights. In contrast, those who championed the Civil Rights Movement chose the tactic of nonviolence, at least at first, as a tool to dismantle racial segregation, discrimination, and inequality. They followed models that Martin Luther King Jr. and other activists had commissioned, using principles of nonviolence and passive resistance. Civil rights leaders had understood that segregationists would do anything to maintain their power over blacks. So, in consequence, they believed some changes might be made if enough people outside the

Many African Americans would have separate schools, bus seats, and even fountain drinks for the “colored”. If an African American would ever break these “laws”, they were either jailed, beaten, or killed for it. In response, many Africans saw the negative effects of violence and instead of choosing to fight back violently, they chose to protest through “nonviolence [,] as it grows from Judaic-Christian traditions [and] seeks a social order of justice permeated by love” (Doc. A). Many African Americans believed that through nonviolence it would help benefit the fight for equality because it would help them gain sympathy and support from the people through the sight violence being used on peaceful people. However, many African American’s were getting frustrated at how long it was taking to gain equality, protection of civil rights, and justice in courts so many thought that the time had “come for black people to arm themselves against [violence] before it [was] too late” (Doc. F) Many African Americans then started to turn to violence to try to push the fight for equality, but this was ultimately a disastrous decision because this caused the Civil Rights Movement to lose a lot of support they had from the

America stands for equality, freedom, and choice, but upon looking into the history behind America the everlasting struggle of racism, bigotry, and inequality are revealed. Through the 1950s to the 1970s, the fight for civil rights by African Americans was prominent throughout America. Schools, restaurants, and all public facilities were segregated, African Americans were blocked from voting through literacy tests and poll taxes, and The KKK, a white supremacist group, would lynch African American men. The need for the immediate cease of these practices and the desire for equality gave way to the Civil Rights Movement. Leaders and groups arose from this movement, such as Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, and the Black Panther Party. The overall goal was to achieve rights but there were two significantly different methods of achieving this goal, non-violent civil disobedience and “black power”. The shift from non-violent civil disobedience to “black power” was caused by the emotional toll of being complacent during personal attack and the truth that immediate change calls upon the use of force, and the result of the shift was the further spread of violence.

Many people turned to violence during this time, but Martin Luther King, Jr., a legendary front-runner of this movement, advocated for peace. In his “I Have a Dream” speech, one that is still quoted by American citizens today, he voiced his wish that “one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will he able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers” (King). Rather than using his position of power to communicate rage to the masses of people gathered before him, King relayed messages of optimism. As a result, the Civil Rights movement was one built on the notion that peaceful resistance was the key to equality. The Montgomery bus boycott, marches in Selma, Birmingham, and Washington, D.C. were all intentionally nonviolent. Protesters, calm in the face of brutal police retaliation in order to defend their rights, eventually achieved equality under the law (Simkins). Footage from the “Bloody Sunday” march in Selma, displaying passive African-American protesters being beaten down by police, was rapidly spread through the media, eventually reaching President Lyndon B. Johnson and motivating him to take action against racism, passing measures such as the 1965 Voting Rights Act (History.com) Though radical protesters did resort to violence during the movement, we remember it and teach it for its emphasis on

However, with the introduction of sharecropping and the powerful Jim Crow system, blacks were segregated and once again lesser citizens under the law. They were beaten, lynched, and lived in constant fear of overstepping their bounds set upon them by the white southerners. Over time, resentment grew and out of this resentment came the Civil Rights movement. It was the culmination of decades of resistance starting as early as WWII and carrying on through the Cold War, as both provided opportunities for Americans to reflect upon the hypocrisies in the US’s political agenda. While progress was made, a lack of support by the federal government severely hampered progress and the movement came to the realization that confrontation was the only way to move civil rights forward. Through the use of mass demonstrations and careful use of the media, the movement gained support which eventually led to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights

When people’s rights are suppressed, they have to stand together for themselves in order to win those rights back. In the 1960s, African-Americans marched together in a series of peaceful demonstrations in order to demand the right to vote which was a right that had been long suppressed. The Civil Rights Movements led to the Voting Rights Act which was a great achievement for African-Americans on their way to attaining equal rights because this act protected African-Americans’ right to vote from being suppressed by state governments.

Throughout the 1950s and the 1960s, civil rights activists started protesting for change. In the US and Australia there were many significant protests undertaken by different groups of brave individuals all to invoke change. Some of the most influential protests were the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the American and Australian Freedom Rides. These protests mainly used the tactic of non-violent protests however, they also used boycotts and demonstrations. These protests brought great change to the way that the African Americans were treated in the US and the Indigenous people in Australia, because it forced the public to acknowledge the hardships that they had to face from segregation.

Harris County sheriff, Ron Hickman makes this statement at a press conference after a police officer was brutally murdered. “At any point when the rhetoric ramps up to the point where calculated, coldblooded assassinations of police officers happen, this rhetoric has gotten out of control. We’ve heard ‘black lives matter.’ All lives matter. Well, cops lives matter too. So why don’t we just drop the qualifier and just say ‘lives matter,’ and take that to the bank.” With this statement Hickman is insinuating that black people never protested for peace amongst all races. During the civil rights movement (1954-68) leaders such as A. Philip Randolph, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Thurgood Marshall fought for equal rights and to stop the senseless race killing. But as we fast forward 50 years later it seems like we nearly fighting the same battle. So when we say black lives matter, yes we mean only black because it seems to have been forgotten, or never learned. Recently though the movement has come under scrutiny and has been labeled by some as a hate group. I believe BLM is not a terrorist group instead due to all the years of turmoil and hardships it’s about time we fought back to stop the killing and discriminating of black people.

Peaceful resistance is positive in the way that it draws attention to an issue in society. This point is important because when we live in a country where individuals come from all different ethnic, racial and monetary differences. It is important because these vast differences tend to blind us to the problems of others with different backgrounds than us. This is most evident in the racial issues that still exist within today's society. It is hard being a white middle class teen to see the mistreatment that is still occurring today to my African American peers that has had a lot of attention drawn to it recently. Had the peaceful protests done

The nonviolence tactic was more effective than violence in the Civil Rights Movement because it caused many throughout the nation to feel sympathy for the African American cause. Particularly, many White people began to sympathize with African Americans. Many joined organizations, thus supporting various forms of protesting including sit-ins, pray-ins, wade-ins, marches, boycotts, rallies, and Freedom Rides (Blumberg 1).The cooperative work between Whites and African Americans helped with the integration objective. In addition, the turmoil occurring throughout the country drove the two presidents of

Martin Luther King unlike Moto X contended that nonviolence was the most potent weapon for both blacks in the US civil rights movement and for the oppressed people struggling for justice throughout the world. Growing up he always had a negative attitude toward whites he had been introduced to a racial prejudice at a young age. His negative attitude toward whites started to change after he become more religious and was much more educated.

The success of the fight for racial equality, also known as the Civil Rights Movement, in the United States was characterized by major campaigns of civil resistance. Between the 1950s and the 1960s, civil rights activists practiced non violence in hopes to end racial segregation and discrimination across the country and worldwide. Leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., Jim Lawson, and John Lewis believed strongly in this philosophy of nonviolence as the key of success for the Civil Rights Movement.

When faced with injustices on an almost insurmountable scale, how do we fight back? It is this psychological, sociological, and philosophical question that has endured and resurged throughout the modern history of mankind: do we pursue nonviolent or violent resistance? Particularly prevalent within the Civil Rights Movement, this debate is unique in that it forces us to look deep within ourselves and outward simultaneously as the realities of each option are both personal and macroscopic. How do I fight back? And, what effect does this have on society at large? In this paper, I’ll endeavor to put forth arguments for and against each ideology through the viewpoints of the two most distinctive, eloquent men of the African-American struggle for equality.

In recent years, a wave of activism has swept across the nation in volume unheard of since the 1960s. Peaceful resistance has become somewhat of a rite of passage for young people, with protesting for or against various causes being treated as vogue in a similar vein to other more traditional youth activities such as attending nightclubs and going to concerts. Strikingly, the youth culture has both normalized protest and come to encourage it, similar in peer-pressure to smoking or underage drinking. Older adults who are undeniably disconnected from most of the youth culture partake as well, albeit to a smaller degree. This scenario raises the question: is this societal shift towards peaceful resistance and activism a positive one? The answer