Nonviolence In The Civil Rights Movement

The purpose of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s was for blacks to achieve rights equal to those of whites. While this was the common goal, there were differences in the methods used to achieve them—the nonviolent and violent approach. People such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated for the use of nonviolence. On the other hand, people such as Stokely Carmichael supported the use of violence to achieve these aforementioned goals. While the ideas behind Carmichael’s interpretation of Black Power—such as unity and self-pride—are essential, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s nonviolent approach is most effective for the task.

Life is a game. While playing, one must never forget the object of the game—to win. This is precisely the outlook that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had on the civil rights movement when promoting the peaceful approach. Albert Einstein says it best when he says, “You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else.” Dr. King

realized that in order to “win the game”, he had to play smart. He had to play by the white man’s rules and beat him at his own game. In order to accomplish this task, he realized that violence could not take place as a part of the equation. For starters, blacks were outnumbered. It would be a suicide mission for blacks to try and start a violent uprising against whites. In Dr. King’s book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?, he says, “If a method is not effective, no matter how much steam it releases, it is an expression of weakness, not strength.” Fighting back would be a weak and ineffective way to combat racist whites, and it would only reinforce their racist attitudes and their negative connotations of blacks. Violence adds another dimension of pandemonium to the already chaotic situation. It does not lend a solution to any problems; it only makes people angrier, thus, creating more problems than there were previously.
The saying, “You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar,” is a direct testament to the effects of the nonviolent civil rights movement.

When comparing the effectiveness of the nonviolent approach and the violent approach, King says, “Nowhere have the riots won any concrete improvement such as have the organized protest demonstrations.” The nonviolent approach produced progress, whereas, the violent approach did not. King points out, “The 1960s sit-ins desegregated lunch counters…The 1961 Freedom Rides put an end to segregation in interstate travel…The 1965 Selma movement brought enactment of the Voting Rights Law.” The nonviolent approach was proven effective, and to some extent, it appealed to the conscience of the government, those not involved, and the perpetrators. If people would have seen blacks fighting back, many would not have had sympathy for them. As a result, many would not have solicited their support thus making the civil rights movement as a whole

ineffective.
Although the nonviolent approach to the civil rights movement did not reach everyone, it was proven to be more effective than the violent approach. There were numerous advancements made in the black community, and they were made because of the nonviolent method to the civil rights movement. Also, people solicited their support because they say how blacks were being victimized. Peacefulness appealed to people in a way that violence would never be able to do; it was the smarter way to approach such a delicate situation.