Racial friction in the south during the 1950’s and 1960’s was becoming increasingly worse. On April 12, 1963 eight clergymen from Alabama wrote a statement that was published in a newspaper titled “A Call For Unity”. These clergymen criticized Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., saying that his demonstrations were “unwise and untimely.” Urging their black citizens to withdraw their support from the demonstrations being led by Dr. King, an “outsider”, so they said. To solve the problems of racial injustice the clergymen said that the problems should be pursued in the courts with honest negotiation within their own community. However they also criticize king for breaking laws, provoking violence, and being an extremist. When King reads their published
…show more content…
First they would examine all the facts of the situation to see if there is actually injustice going on. They would then try to negotiate with the leader of the town or state, which they did try to do on many occasions and were constantly denied. After promises had been made and not kept; Dr. King says in his letter that a shadow of deep disappointment settled on them. With no other alternatives given to them they took the third step and went through “self-purification.” This process is to help control them selves when action is taken against them, so they do not retaliate with violence. The way of nonviolence, king says, became the entirety of the cause. The nonviolent direct action was to put pressure or “tension” on leaders. This creates a crisis that they cannot ignore and will be forced to confront the issue. There is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth, says …show more content…
His response to this a parallel to a man being robbed because he has money; King asks, isn’t this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money caused the evil act of robbery. No, society must protect the robbed and punish the robber (p.918). In this case the blacks were being robbed of their rights and freedoms, and the police were being commended. His hope that the “white moderate” could understand his methods and see that the demonstrations were the only way to expose the injustice was too
First they would examine all the facts of the situation to see if there is actually injustice going on. They would then try to negotiate with the leader of the town or state, which they did try to do on many occasions and were constantly denied. After promises had been made and not kept; Dr. King says in his letter that a shadow of deep disappointment settled on them. With no other alternatives given to them they took the third step and went through “self-purification.” This process is to help control them selves when action is taken against them, so they do not retaliate with violence. The way of nonviolence, king says, became the entirety of the cause. The nonviolent direct action was to put pressure or “tension” on leaders. This creates a crisis that they cannot ignore and will be forced to confront the issue. There is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth, says …show more content…
His response to this a parallel to a man being robbed because he has money; King asks, isn’t this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money caused the evil act of robbery. No, society must protect the robbed and punish the robber (p.918). In this case the blacks were being robbed of their rights and freedoms, and the police were being commended. His hope that the “white moderate” could understand his methods and see that the demonstrations were the only way to expose the injustice was too