The Merits of Non-Violence

Both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK) want liberation, but both have different perceptions on what means to use to get to their desired end. While Malcolm does not discourage violence, MLK is stridently opposed to it, instead opting for peaceful and economic protests. 

I think the reason the decision to be non-violent is so difficult to understand is because it feels unnatural. When put in a difficult position, fighting is an instinctual defense mechanism. Our oldest laws, the code of Hammurabi, dictate "an eye for an eye" and since then that mentality can still be seen today in many laws. This notion of equality and fairness, and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" has been internalized by all through various religions and teachings. It is especially hard to wrap your mind around peaceful protests when the African Americans have had much more than an eye take from them. They have been lynched, burned, worked to death, raped, and slaughtered. They have been robbed of their names, their language, their faith, and most importantly their freedom. And the most they can hope to get back, even using violence, is a couple eyelashes to avenge their lost eye. Non-violence feels inherently unfair, not that any of this is fair, but it seems unfair to a greater extent. 

At the same time I can see how peace is the ultimate radical form of resistance. It says we will not stoop to your level. We will remain dignified and potentially die knowing we did not give in to the same vices you do. It is such an incredibly big ask to make of the African Americans. In MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail, he writes "We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, 'Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?' and 'Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?'"

This concept of "self purification" seems like an unfair burden on the oppressed to legitimize their requests. Even when trying to change the rules of the game, they have to play nice and abide by the current oppressive rules. Malcolm strongly disagrees with playing nice because he feels that is what we are being forced to do. In his Message to the Grassroots, he says "someone has taught you to suffer-peacefully. The white man does the same thing to you in the street, when he wants to put knots on your head and take advantage of you and not have to be afraid of your fighting back". Malcolm refuses to be easy or convenient and will not idolize suffering. 

In an essay Audre Lorde says "for the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change". Although Lorde was referencing sexism, this quote can also be used to think about laws and lawlessness in regards to protesting injustice. You can interpret it to fall both into Malcolm X's and MLK's ideology. If you are not anti-violence you can say we must take power, and refuse to protest according the the laws that also oppress us. We must take our rights, and not wait for the laws and people who took them away to grant them back in the same legislature that declared you the property of other men. Alternately, we could look at violence and aggression as the masters tool, for that is certainly the way this story started. In that case, a peaceful protest would be the only was to set a new precedence of respect and dignity. 

Ultimately both forms of protest and resistance seem incredibly brave, but I must commend the peaceful protesters for not giving into the natural urge to defend oneself. I am unsure of how I would chose to protest given those incredibly difficult circumstances but I can say I have immense respect for both camps.