Although it did little to help improve the status and position of blacks, the acts still acknowledged federal responsibility, which encouraged civil rights activists to work for more legislation. So overall this shows that peaceful protest was not responsible for the success of the civil rights movement.
On the other hand I agree that peaceful protest was responsible for the successes of the civil rights movement to a large extent form the significant event of Birmingham 1963. King was largely involved in this die to the influence of non-violent demonstrations and tactics. King chose Birmingham as it was expected to produce a high rate of violent white opposition which was needed to gain national sympathy especially when the event was shown through mass media.
Black demonstrators were attacked brutally by police and their dogs but still blacks didn’t defend themselves. They continued to protest. King was a charismatic leader in which the black community had always looked up to mainly. So when king was arrested it attracted media attention, which then gained the black communities determination not to give up and to work harder as shown through the actions of their leader. This shows that peaceful protest was not only responsible for the successes of the civil rights movement but also the need for leaders within the black campaigns would encourage unity and motivation …show more content…
Hence this portrayed Americans as ignorant, racist and hypocrites. Peaceful protest helped achieve many things for the black community such as desegregation in public places and the right to vote. Although these results did little to improve the position of blacks as it took a long period of time to achieve something, results like desegregation helped motivated the black community to hold on and keep their ‘eyes on the prize’. Not only did improvement occur through a long period of time but also hard work, patience, unity and strong belief was essential for the blacks in order to achieve what they first strived