When it comes to tactics that organizations commence to doing something as a way to make change, the SCLC, SNCC, and self-defense strategy are the three types of organizations that took care of it. However, when it comes to their philosophies and strategies on taking on racism that grew violent, they had differed there. With two organizations (SCLC and SNCC) created by Ella Baker with the former being taken over by Dr. King and his advisors, the “armed self-reliance” strategy that Robert F. Williams created was something entirely different. The SCLC was created as a organization with church-leaders being the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement so as to not copy the NAACP. The goal for the SCLC is this: “to emphasize nonviolence as a means …show more content…
of bringing about social progress and racial justice for southern blacks… [relying] on the southern black church for its base of support” (Ransby 175). This, however, became something akin to the NAACP once Dr. King took over the role as leader, and yet the true founder was Ella Baker herself. The same could be said for the SNCC: while they didn’t stray from their goals (which is embracing nonviolence with love), their founder is Ella Baker herself. The difference between the two is the fact that the grown men and women were a part of the SCLC while the younger men and women were a part of the SNCC. While their goals are the same, how they go about it is extremely different. For example, before the creation of SNCC, the young men and women performed sit-in demonstrations, which caught the Civil Rights Leaders and members of the SCLC by interest. This, however, does not comply with “armed self-reliance,” which did not embrace nonviolence at all. What makes the “armed self-reliance” strategy different from the two is that while an African-American man runs it, it was not going with the “nonviolence against violence” trend the other two organizations were going for.
Instead, he wanted people to arm themselves in self-defense, shown when “[he] and the other black veterans organized self-defense networks” and the women wanted to get involved (Tyson 551). With this, they allowed the blacks to arm themselves against white men. Ironically enough, Williams was in the NAACP as one of its leaders at the time. This “armed self-reliance” strategy was shot in its imaginary foot after the charges were dropped, “although [Shaw] had failed even to appear in court” (Tyson 557). This caused Williams to “[turn] to wire service reporters and declared that it was time to “meet violence with violence”” (Tyson 557). This self-defense strategy is what makes itself different compared to the other two organizations, as they focus on nonviolence. Although the SCLC and SNCC did not fight back, Williams’ self-defense strategy allowed it only if they were being harmed, but his outburst marred that strategy and made people denounce it. Because of this outburst, this strategy was as lesser known as Jo Ann Robinson was known for sending out flyers for the Montgomery Bus
Boycott. One thing to note about the self-defense strategy that was created by Williams was that there was always violence in the United States of America. That violence began back with Nat Turner and his rebellion, and they were armed to the teeth with weapons. In their day, there were guns and there were several times than people were armed with their guns. As stated in the name itself, the self-defense strategy is just that: a way that black people can protect themselves from violence. This is because, in Williams’ words, that the government was not going to help them, thus they have to fight their own battles and protect themselves from harm. This, as seen with the Freedom Rides and the Little Rock Nine cases, is not the case. The government is kind of helping them, but they aren’t helping them enough to make a change. In any way, the outburst about “[meeting] violence with violence” was so controversial that NAACP and SNCC gave him backlash for it (Tyson 557). The members of the SCLC, SNCC, and “armed self-reliance” strategy were all part of the NAACP somehow. Williams, as stated in the previous paragraph, was the leader of the organization for a bit while Ella Baker herself worked as a secretary for them. The youth in the SNCC, however, were not involved due to Baker wanting them to be more involved with the SNCC organization and nothing else, as she saw that the leaders of the said organizations were taking control of it all.
Over the course of five chapters, the author uses a number of sources, both primary and secondary, to show how the National Negro Congress employed numerous political strategies, and allying itself with multiple organizations and groups across the country to implement a nationwide grassroots effort for taking down Jim Crow laws. Even though the National Negro Congress was unsuccessful in ending Jim Crow, it was this movement that would aide in eventually leading to its end years later.
The clergymen claim colored people have become very violent towards civilians to the point that authoritative figures have been necessary in order to stop the commotion and protect the civilians in Birmingham city. King did a great job in ...
Moody’s “nonviolent” sit-in at the Woolworth’s lunch counter may be her most famous act not just during the Movement, but possibly her life. The idea behind the sit-in was to request service at the segregated lunch counter of Woolworth’s. As the sit-in progressed, the white population became more aware of what was happening, and they started heckling and threatening Moody and her fellow activists. Nonviolence turned to violence when a white man rushed Memphis, one of the sit-in members. He was beaten up and arrested. Moody was dragged out by her hair, and her friend was taken from her seat by force. A few days after the sit-in, a group of Negro ministers went to the mayor with demands. The mayor ignored them. The nonviolent sit-in was supposed to be a message to the community and the country. Unfortunately, the sit-in, in the eyes of Anne Moody, was a failure because it had accomplished nothing. ...
- Williams had been in the Marine Corps and when he got out he knew he wanted to join the NAACP, so he did
Since the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement in the mid-nineteenth century, African American leaders have proposed many different theories and methods to address the injustices posed by the white majority on to the African-American population. One point that all the leaders agreed on, however, was that things had to change, the injustice and discrimination that the black community faced couldn’t be tolerated anymore. The most well known of these leaders was Martin Luther King who amongst others started one of the most prominent civil rights groups in the struggle for African American rights in the sixties: The Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Founded by college students, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating
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...
The use of threats and name-calling indicates that those threatened by the boycott had reached a place of desperation caused by the continued optimism and small successes of the boycotters. Before the boycott of Montgomery’s buses, those opposed to integration were openly confident about their supremacy and arrogant about their ability to retain their power. Though their belittlement of African Americans in this document proves their arrogance remains, it is clear that their confidence is waning. Just like the rebels, the boycott of Montgomery’s buses was changing the mindsets of whites in
#4. While Booker T. Washington’s tactics of racial solidarity, peace, and non-confrontation became the foundation of the strategies needed for the success of civil rights mov...
Throughout Chicago there were many fights that blacks had to fight. It was not easy for blacks to live in the city because everywhere they went they were faced with whites trying to get them to move out. Led by comedian Dick Gregory, 75 people protested in the Bridgeport neighborhood. As these protestors walked many people of the Bridgeport neighborhood threw eggs and tomatoes, showed Ku Klux Klan signs and shouted, "Two-four-six-eight, we don't want to integrate and Oh, I wish I was an Alabama trooper, that is what I'd really like to be-ee-ee. Cuz if I was and Alabama trooper, I could kill the niggers legally" (Biles, 112).
The strength is in the numbers. African Americans make up a huge majority of the population in the major cities and states in the south. If they had them out numbered, why didn’t they fight back? On July 10, 1964, only eight days after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, Earnest Thomas and Frederick Douglas Kirkpatrick created an African-American group in Jonesboro, Louisiana, called the Deacons for Defense and Justice.... ... middle of paper ...
Between 1865 and 1970 leadership; motivating, persuading, encouraging and inspiring the masses to engage with a vision was vital to the progression of the African-American civil rights movement. It is a common notion that individual leaders held dominant roles within the movement and used the power from this to lead the grassroots and make decisions on behalf of organisations. Additionally, it is believed that leaders were the strategists who shaped the methods of the movement; allowing them to win the nation’s allegiance and convince them to make sacrifices for racial justice. However, this traditionalist perspective ignores much of the conditional causes that in fact triggered outstanding leadership accomplishments. More recent historians
After putting up with political discrimination for decades, many African Americans were willing to “raise the terrible weapon of self-defense.” (The New Negro) Although they should have received equality promised to them after the Civil War, they were left empty handed and instead struggle against biased laws. Their demand for political progress itself is a step forward because white people supporting political equality were uncommon and groups such as the Ku Klux Klan intimidated them out of doing it. Their peaceful protests, and reasonable pleas were often overlooked and ignored. With their demands neglected and scoffed at they wanted to prove they were serious. By refusing to accept their problems forcefully they would not be thought of as bluffing. The problem with this is that even though there were African Americans demanding it, they were a minority and many white people did not want to help them because they benefitted from it and racism was still rampant. One evidence of white people benefitting from racism was when Wining Boy tells a story of how after an African American buys land with berries growing, the former white owner would “go and fix it with the law
Since its beginning, and with increasing emphasis since World War II, the NAACP has advocated nonviolent protests against discrimination and has disapproved of extremist black groups such as SNCC and the Black Panthers in the 1960s and 70s and CORE and the Nation of Islam in the 1980s and 90s, many of which criticized the organization as passive.... ... middle of paper ... ... DuBois, Thurgood Marshall and Roy Wilkens and the hundreds of thousands of nameless faces who worked tirelessly cannot and must not be forgotten (NAACP 1). The history of the NAACP is one of blood, sweat and tears.
In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of the Brown v. the Board of Education. This was a very historical moment because their ruling eliminated, the "separate but equal " doctrine. Their ruling called for school integration, although most school were very slow in complying if they complied at all. The NAACP, National Association for the Advancement of Color People, viewed this ruling as a success. The schools lack of the obedience toward this ruling, made it necessary for black activism to make the federal government implement the ruling, and possibly help close the racial gap that existed in places other than public schools. During one of the boycotts for equality, a leader emerged that would never be forgotten. Dr. Martin Luther King, who was leader of the Montgomery bus boycott, quickly became the spokesperson for racial equality. He believed that the civil rights movement would have more success if the black people would use non violent tactics. Some say he was adopting the style of Ghandi. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, SCLC, was formed by King and other activist in 1957. They were a group of black ministers and activist who agreed to try and possibly help others see the effects of a non violent movement. Also following the strategies set by the SCLC, a group known as the SNCC or the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, began a string of sit-in and campaigns as the black population continued it's fight for equality. It was the undying efforts of the two groups that paved the way for the march on Washington. This march which drew a crowd of at least 200,000, was the place that Dr. King, gave his famous "dream speech." Both the SNCC, and the SCLC were victims of lots of threats and attempted attacks, yet they continued to pursue freedom in a non violent fashion. However near the late 60's they had another problem on their hands. There was a group of activist known as the Black Panthers who were not so eager to adopt the non-violent rule. The believed that the civil rights movement pushed by Dr. King and is non-violent campaign, which was meant to give blacks the right to vote and eliminate segregation, was not solving problems faced in poor black communities. This Black Panther group, stabled the term "black power", which was used a sort of uplifting for the black self esteem.
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