The main idea of this article is the unattractive contrast shown between the civil rights movement and black lives matter. The audience is those just like me wanting to understand how violence was ever a key principal in Dr. King’s movements and how it ties in with black lives matter. My Post colleague Simone Sebastian wrote a provocative column on the Black Lives Matter movement that matched its headline. The thesis of “Don’t criticize Black Lives Matter for provoking violence. The civil rights movement did, too” can be found in the third paragraph. Quoting from Martin Luther King’s 1963 “Letter From a Birmingham Jail,” in which he called for “direct action” to “dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored,“ Sebastian writes, “In other …show more content…
King NEVER ‘invited’ violence,” Jones told me via e-mail. “It is turning history on its head to say ‘Violence was critical to the success of the 1960s civil rights movement, as it has been to every step of racial progress in U.S. history.’ ” “What was critical to the success of the 1960’s civil right movement was the ability of Dr. King to awaken and raise the conscience of white America to the immorality of racial segregation,” Jones continued, “and its contravention to the precept and principles enshrined in or Declaration of Independence and the provisions of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to our Constitution.” He added, “To say violence ‘has been critical to every step of racial progress’ is an interpretation of the Civil Rights Movement and earlier 19th and Century struggles of Negroes to be free is at worst cynical and at best simply an immoral interpretation of our Freedom Struggle.” “The Black Lives Matter movement at this time and place is not intended to say that white lives don’t matter. It’s intended to say that in the recent period of time, we have looked at the application of law enforcement and it appears that there’s been unnecessary, repetitive use of lethal force against young African-American men and, in some cases, African-American women,” he …show more content…
The Black Lives Matter movement, like its civil rights antecedent, is perceived by its detractors to incite violence. But to feed into the perception that Black Lives Matter actively incites violence to achieve its goals robs it of the moral suasion needed to ensure that black lives matter in America the way all lives
In the article, In Response to the State of the Union Address, the Black Lives Matter movement dissects in detail the
Recently you have received a letter from Martin Luther King Jr. entitled “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” In Dr. King’s letter he illustrates the motives and reasoning for the extremist action of the Civil Rights movement throughout the 1960’s. In the course of Dr. King’s letter to you, he uses rhetorical questioning and logistical reasoning, imagery and metaphors, and many other rhetorical devices to broaden your perspectives. I am writing this analysis in hopes you might reconsider the current stance you have taken up regarding the issues at hand.
In the following quote he writes, “I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. If you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.” In this quote, King shows how the police officers would let the dogs out to bite the Negroes. It would be more understanding if the Negros were retaliating with violence. However, they were doing nonviolence protest and the police would use violent attack against the people. The police were treating the Negros as if they were not human just because they look physically different. This is unbelievable because you would not expect law enforcers to mistreat old Negro women and young Negro girls. They were not just picking on one group of people; they would bully people from young to old. Dr. King agrees to the point that they need to have law enforcement; however, he cannot join this group of law enforcers. They are not being fair to the people in the community and they are using their power in a negative
Until the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., his life’s work was dedicated to the nonviolent actions of blacks to gain the freedoms they were promised in the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 by Abraham Lincoln. He believed that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (King, 1963). These injustices had become so burdensome to blacks that they were “plunged into an abyss of despair” (King, 1963). The nonviolent actions of the sit-ins, boycotts, and marches were so the “individual could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths…to help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism” and ultimately lead to “inevitably opening the door to negotiation” (King, 1963). Not only was King’s approach effective with the older black generation, it was also successful with white people. They did not feel threatened when approached by King. White people gained a sense of empathy towards the plight of black freedom as King’s promise of nonviolence did not threaten their livelihood. Malcolm X viewed the world similarly to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., however; his beliefs to changing the status quo were slightly different from his political counterpart. Malcolm X realized that “anger could blind human vision” (X, 1965). In realizing this, X knew that in order to achieve racial freedom blacks had to “forget hypocritical politics and propaganda” (X, 1965). While Malcolm X was more so an advocate for violent forces against white people than King, X merely used force when it became necessary for defense. According to X, “I don’t go for non-violence if it also means a delayed solution. I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to American black man’s problem” (X, 1965). However, this le...
Shortly after the news of Martin Luther King’s assassination spread, “sporadic violence erupted in Harlem and Brooklyn’s . . . section . . . in two predominantly Negro communities” (Johnson 1). With a total of twelve men arrested and violence brea...
Today there are many controversial subjects discussed throughout the media. One of the most discussed is race and the Black Lives Matter movement. Recently, I came across an article titled “The Truth of ‘Black Lives Matter’”, written by The Editorial Board. The article was published on September 3, 2015, to the New York Times. In the article, The Editorial Board writes about what they believe African Americans are facing as challenges in society today, including the all-too-common police killings of unarmed African-Americans across the country. The Editorial Board is right that some African Americans have been treated unfairly, but all ethnicities have been. Life is a precious thing that comprises all ethnicities. This brings us to ask; why
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a very prominent part of the movement to end Jim Crow laws. In 1963 he and the SCLC organized a boycott and marched to challenge these laws in Birmingham, Alabama. He and many others were arrested for this and while in jail he wrote to a response to the white ministers that were critiquing him. King was not afraid to stand up to the white people. He explained two kinds of laws, just laws; laws that needed to be followed, and unjust laws: laws that needed to be disobeyed. He is speaking about the Jim Crow laws, they were the unjust laws meant to be broken, these were the laws that needed to go away and go away for good and African Americans were not going to stop until the unjust Jim Crow laws were gone for good and they were not afraid of a fight. But within the African American community there were two opposing forces; the church force who had a non-violent approach and were very complacent, and the militants who were advocates of violence, believed white people were blue- eyed devils and that African Americans were better off not integrating and should create their own nation. King placed himself in the middle of these two forces. King was smart in placing himself in the middle of the two forces because he created a spectrum of options for himself and others who want to join him. King may have been oppressed by the whites, but he was not afraid to fight back and tell them how he felt, and by placing himself in between the church and
A free society operates on principles of continuous advancement in the social and economic spheres of the society. A free society would be able to disobey laws that they perceive as backwards and limiting on a people group. This group of people practicing civil disobedience must be able to unite and prepare a plan in order to achieve their goals. In the ideal free society, civil disobedience would only progress the society positively.
Again, Mr. King uses religion as a guide to explain why violence could never be used to get the end of the segregation. At that moment and as a strategy, he was probably right. The forces between the parts were to uneven. Besides, Mr. King knew that the federal government barely has capacity of action since they were stuck in a horrible and unpopular war in Vietnam, and riots and demonstrations were happening everyday in the universities across the country. However, if we look at his decisions from today’s point of view and attending to the fact that minorities are still suffering the injustice of economical segregation and the police force abuse, among others injustices, we can say that he didn 't go to far. Then may be we can rethink if appealing to violence to avoid those problems could be considered just as self-defense. For example: when communities are being devastated by poverty, drugs, and criminality, and the authorities don’t do anything to protect them just because they are black, Latin, or American Natives, don’t they have the right to fight back? Moreover, when they have to watch everyday in television the awful crimes that some authorities commit against minorities with no punishment in most of the cases. Don’t they have the right do defend their own life? It is a fact that violence is not desirable, but we have to remind that the end of slavery in the United States cost a civil war, that the
“Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a movement against police violence that is, as argued by BLM supporters, disproportionately and systematically directed at black people. The movement has highlighted incidents in which police have harassed and killed black men and women. BLM is considered one of the most visible and controversial civil rights movement of the last decades.” (Black Lives Matter. 2016) “Black Lives Matter is an American social activist organization devoted to stopping violence and injustice against African Americans. The group was founded in 2013 following the acquittal of In the sixties African Americans began a Civil Rights Movement that, to some, still continue today; hence, the Black Lives Matter movement. During the sixties, the
The statement “Black Lives Matter” has greatly evolved within the last year. If you support this side, you believe these words correlate with the unneeded and over excessive use of police brutality against African Americans compared to police brutality against whites, bringing racism soaring back into the US. As you may know, the statement became more predominant after the murder of African Americans
Black Lives Matter is an international activist movement, originating in the African American community. It campaigns against violence toward black people and has become a uniting call for an innovative chapter in the black freedom fight. The clearance of Trayvon Martin’s killer in 2013 and the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014 stimulated this movement. Black Lives Matter isn’t just about the loss of Black lives; but mainly about the lack of consequences when African American lives are taken by Caucasian officers. The question is; do black lives truly matter to those that claim to protect it? The answer is no they do not because the movement’s alleged “peaceful” protests continuously
Overall, many believe that the undeviating war on racism in today’s society is fueled by police brutality and anti-police violence. Specifically, The Black Lives Matter movement which is the source of controversy regarding these topics. To summarize, this campaign is “both a hashtag and a political project that formed after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the 2012 killing of Trayvon Martin.” (Miller). Later in the article Chelsea Fuller, senior communication associate of The Advancement project which is a multi-racial civil rights organization, states “The Black Lives Matter movement is to deal with anti-black racism, to “push for black people’s right to live with dignity and respect” and be included in the American democracy that they helped create” (Miller). In discussions of The Black Lives Matter movement, a controversial
Why do Black Lives Matter as opposed to All Lives Matter? When a person thinks about Black Lives Matter, he or she may visualize African Americans fighting for justice and equality. The movement Black Lives Matter was created to bring awareness to the systematic racism, police brutality and social injustice that African Americans face on a daily basis. In contrast, All Lives Matter downplays the fact that black people are looked down upon in society. All Lives Matter may seem like an innocent title, but it emphasizes that justice for black people is not necessary.
One of the most prominent grassroots movements currently at work in the United States is, undoubtedly, the Black Lives Matter movement. A multifaceted reform movement, it tackles the issue of institutionalized racism against black people in the United States. The movement began as a hashtag on Twitter in 2013 in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the Treyvon Martin case. Zimmerman shot Martin to death, claiming it was in self defense as he felt the young man looked threatening because it was dark and he was wearing a hoodie. He was acquitted of both manslaughter and second degree murder. Activists felt that this case was an extreme example of how little value black lives seem to have to the greater community. How could a young, unarmed black person get shot and killed while the white person who shot him simply gets to walk away? This all started as an anti-racist