Tired of having no result and noticing that things did not change,
the students launched a new form of protest: the sit-ins. They were
independent from any organization. The first sit-in in Greensboro,
North Carolina on February 1, 1960 was followed by a lot of similar
actions. Franklin McCain, one of the students who initiated the
sit-in movement, explained that the idea was to stay at the
Woolworth's lunch counter until they get served. The Student
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) was created. This shows that
students had a real supervision power and would prove that they had
influence on the evolution of racial issues in America. Ella Baker, a
prominent figure of the Civil Rights Movements, was even an advisor
to the students. The Committee followed her lead focusing on local
leadership. It highlights the potential of this new form of action.
These protests, growing bigger and bigger, bore fruits quickly. In
October 1960, during the presidential election campaign, John F.
Kennedy committed himself to try to set Martin Luther King, Jr. free.
He was arrested after having participated in a sit-in in Atlanta.
Kennedy was elected, the black vote was an important factor in his
victory. He dedicated a part of his legislative agenda to the voting
rights violation and later, to the expansion of federal civil rights
laws. The Freedom Rides, introduced by the Congress of Racial
Equality (CORE), were another type of action consisting in
challenging segregation on buses and in terminals. Even if the
Freedom Riders experienced violent attacks, the movement went on. It
even forced the federal state of Mississippi to protect the Freedom
Riders. It seems that American society was transforming. The movement
had a new face, brought by this new generation and the rise of young
white activists.
The new waves of protests were not all nonviolent. The efficiency of
violence was actually a real debate during that time. Robert F.
Williams, the president of Monroe NAACP chapter, was convinced that
violence was necessary to get more rights. As the laws failed to
protect “the weak”, violence was the only way to protect
themselves. Passive resistance was not powerful enough to reach
desegregation. Williams insists on the capacity of violence to get
more justice: this is thanks to a group of black men that the Klan
was deprived of its constitutional rights in Monroe. Violence must be
the reply of violence. All the trials that resulted with no justice
for black people were intolerable. They would be “delivered from
bondage” only by fighting back. Martin Luther King did not advocate
violence but recognized the legitimacy of self-defense. For him,
violence as a means of advancement cannot bring people together and
position them as a weak minority. The power lies in congregation:
mass boycotts, sit-ins, strikes, mass meetings, mass marches...The
Gandhi model is a proof that massive nonviolent protestations are
successful to disband the enemy. Furthering that idea, Franklin
McCain explained that solidarity and patience were the key words of
the sit-ins which happened to be efficient.
There were clearly two schools of thought which emerged in the 1960s.
The first one followed the traditional path of nonviolence advocated
by the NAACP and Martin Luther King among others but chose a new way
of demonstrating. The second one advocated violence and weapons to
fight segregation. The Civil Rights Movement was then seen in a new
light and reached a new degree in the struggle for rights and
justice.
What's most interesting to me about this debate is the way in which King frames it. Although he briefly addresses the moral legitimacy of violence as self-defense, he focuses much more on the practical considerations of nonviolence as a tool. He essentially argues that by choosing violence, blacks would be agreeing to fight on the terms of their oppressors and would necessarily be at a disadvantage. Nonviolence, then, is not a morally superior option, but a pragmatic decision.
ReplyDeleteHe also seems to be addressing the stereotypes regarding black men in general and black activism in particular, pointing out that whites assume and are prepared for blacks to be violent, a point which Franklin McCain reiterates when discussing his encounter with the policeman. In the face of the students' nonviolent protest, "the big bad man with the gun and the club" did not know how to react and was totally "defenseless." Nonviolence, then, in its unexpectedness redefines the situation and spotlights the tragic absurdity of the violently-enforced system of segregation.
It appears to me that the categories suggested need to be amended to separate the NAACP view on nonviolence and the King version. The NAACP believed that litigation should be the main form of protest, and that activating the courts would allow precedent to be set for their cause. During these legal disputes the NAACP would be more willing to promote victims of protest in nonviolent ways because it would be more sympathetic to a judge and jury. This rational differs from King because they are looking for the right cases to try to protect rights where King is targeting people not policy. King's model is aiming at nonviolence because it seems to be a better way of winning the people over. I think there is some debate to whether King's views on winning the white people over would have also served in the NAACP's purposes, in having a more sympathetic white population would prevent white jurors from being as aggressive when living in a highly violent protest area.
ReplyDelete