Non-Violence or Non-Existence

Blog - Week 5

The torch of light that guided the oppressed Afro-Americans towards the path of a civil rights movement for a desegregated America, Martin Luther King was nothing less than a symbol of hope, peace, and the possibility of an equal and inclusive America. His advocacy and dedication towards a nonviolent resistance movement not only won the hopes and hearts of the tyrannized blacks, but also aimed to win over the support and commitment of the whites. It can be argued that he endorsed nonviolence not only because it was the morally right and imperative principle to uphold, but also because nonviolence was the most strategically reasonable option that would leave room for negotiation and reduce the possibility and legitimacy of the whites increasing force and brutality upon them. 

There are several pieces of evidence from the Letter From Birmingham Jail that make us believe that nonviolence was used by King as a technique for the civil rights movement. The entire purpose of the letter was to convince the eight white religious leaders of the reasoning behind the demonstration organized at Birmingham. Throughout the letter, we see King adopting a soft tone towards the people being addressed, as if careful not to use any words that will incite any anger or promote hatred. Calling them “men of genuine good will”, “white brother” and giving them reaffirmations like “You are exactly right in your call for negotiation”, we can picture King politely explaining a difficult idea to someone in a way as to not enrage them and make them understand it. Using words and phrases like this would make the audience more open to listening to them. Furthermore, King demonstrates an awareness of the implications of being associated with violence in this letter. He reiterates that the reason why the clergy issued a statement of caution was because the actions of the blacks “precipitate violence” or are “extremist”. He then goes on to explain why these actions cannot be termed as violent or extremist and why it is morally wrong to label them as such. This leads us to believe that King did understand that a nonviolent approach is something that can be explained and justified and the entire reasoning behind it is something that has the possibility of being heard by and accepted by the white people as violence is what they have the primary issue with. If the blacks started resorting to violence, the little hope they had of winning the support of the whites and being heard for some form of negotiation would become extremely blurred. Violence would further legitimize and justify the actions of police brutality, arrests and suppression of the whites towards them because the blacks would be seen as instigators of violence. Since the whites are the group in majority and hold power over institutions that have a monopoly on legitimate violence, the blacks have little choice but to try resort to nonviolent means, appealing to emotions and empathy and retaining hope in the white moderate to extend their support, despite the “disappointment” they have caused, as King does so in letter in the paragraph where he tries to make the whites “understand why we find it difficult to wait”. Additionally, we also know that King proclaimed for a desegregated and inclusive America and rather than for black nationalism and homecoming to Africa. In this case, nonviolence would be the best strategy as violence would only lead to a “frightening racial nightmare” and “floods of blood” that would entrench the divides between blacks and whites and diminish the possibility of them living together in harmony. Nonviolence, on the other hand, improves chances of cooperation but opens the possibility of whites supporting the black cause, which would greatly strengthen the civil rights movement.  

However, it can also be argued that King advocated for nonviolence primarily because it was morally upright and not because it was the best strategy for an oppressed group. King drafted an entire document on the Philosophy of Nonviolence, calling for the means to be as pure as the ends, which appears as a universal outline for the exercise of nonviolence and is not specifically tied to the black situation. Moreover, “self-purification”, which involves training one-self for nonviolence, is also a crucial part of his preachings. Yet, we see that this preaching of non-violence is ultimately linked to his methods. He calls the Philosophy of Nonviolence a “technique of action” and “self-purification” is considered a component of a nonviolent campaign. Nonviolence is considered as a means towards a particular end. King also acknowledges that there is a likelihood and a justification for violent outburst among the blacks when he talks of their “pent-up anger and latent frustrations”. This shows that he himself understands the reasoning behind such actions, but still prefers nonviolence as it creates the doors for cooperation and negotiation between both communities. Ultimately, for the oppressed black community, it is not a choice between nonviolence and violence but nonviolence and nonexistence.