Martin Luther King And Civil Disobedience

A passion for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” remains at the center of America’s civic code. Yet, many Americans remain largely unaware of how the nation gained those “inalienable rights.” To be clear, the ascent of America’s exceptionalism was established through hard fought violence--not civil disobedience. But when it comes to the protests held by people of color, society promotes “civil disobedience.” And even when peaceful protests do occur, white people often react in opposition and criticism. The hypocrisy surrounding civil disobedience has left people of color wondering what is the right way to protest injustice and political corruption. From the outset, the United States had a mission to expand. Americans evinced the

He argued that though they may be deplored, they should be understood. Like the American colonists at the Boston Tea Party and at the Second Continental Congress, he argued that protesters should also be treated as heroes. As should football player Colin Kaepernick. But instead, Kaepernick--- whose act of protest was to sit down as the “Star-Spangled Banner” played in order to call attention to the continued racial injustices people of color face in America---was faced with immense opposition: “I’m all for protesting, but I don’t think he did it the right way.” “It’s not that I’m against speaking out. I’m fine with that. I just don’t like the way he did it.” “What would Martin Luther King think about this?” Colin Kaepernick’s choice to sit during the national anthem was a clear-cut example of civil disobedience and yet critics managed to change the focus from why Kaepernick was protesting to the way he protested. The focus shifted from why are people of color consistently mistreated by the police to why didn’t he protest in the way MLK did. So what would Martin Luther King do? Maybe he would arrange a peaceful march, or sit at a lunch counter, or not take the public bus, or perhaps he would kneel silently during the national anthem at a football game. The

Protesters looted and burned vehicles and buildings. Though it was a tragedy that those damages were done, people, again, focused on the “riots” instead of the unanswered questions surrounding Freddie Gray’s death, the widespread allegations of police brutality, and the economic disparities that has left the citizens of Baltimore neglected. Instead people chose to wonder whether or not MLK would approve. Instead of having a conversation about real issues, people used Martin Luther King to tone police black anger, silence black rage, and shame riots. It is completely unfair to use MLK’s legacy as a sedative for black riots. It is completely unfair to ask for black people to only protest peacefully when historically white people have never done so. It is completely unfair to consider anything other than civil disobedience the “wrong” way to protest.

The problem with civil disobedience is that it only applies to a few. Society tells black people to be civilly disobedient; it tells native americans to be civilly disobedient; it tells minorities to be civilly disobedient. That is the hypocrisy behind civil disobedience: to be a majority in America and the beneficiary of systemic injustice, and then to assert that the marginalized speak to that injustice in a certain