Violence is a behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Most onlookers and activists, during the Civil Rights Movement, would agree that violence was not a route that they wanted to take. Non-violence and self-defense both center on this concept of violence. To accurately identify if self-defense and non-violence are opposite tactics defining the two concepts independently in the contexts of the Civil Rights Movement is crucial. Understanding the thinking of the men that upheld these ideals are also very important. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for non-violence and Malcolm X’s defended the idea of self-defense. The popular narrative will have the public believing that these two men and
…show more content…
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had, “… no limit to his advocacy of nonviolence in conflict situations”. King viewed non-violence as, “… the most potent weapon for both blacks in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement and for other oppressed peoples struggling for justice throughout the world”. The idea of non-violence that King practiced and defended was pulled from ideas about civil disobedience, and his Christian faith. This ideology means that King encouraged men, women and children participating in the Civil Rights Movement to take the abuses imposed on them during demonstrations without retaliation. King believed that, “nonviolence bestows courage and self-respect to oppressed people who were once consumed by fear and low self-esteem”. King knew that civil disobedience met with brute force would create nationwide sympathy for the Civil Rights Movement. The sympathy evoked by non-violent people being harassed and abused would create a national and international outcry against the violence. The media attention it self was a defense against violence. This method does contrast very much they idea of self-defense however they don’t completely appose each …show more content…
“Nonviolence was widely thought of by many people as ‘doing nothing,’” this was in part because accepting violence from their oppressors was what they were doing to begin with. Malcolm X, Black Nationalist, was arguably “the most formidable race critic in American history”. Malcolm, like King, emphasized the idea of black self-respect. “Unlike [King] who had no taste for violence in any form, Malcolm viewed [self-defense] as a necessary response to criminal acts.” Malcolm defended a man’s right to self-defense because it is, “an essential element in the definition of humanity”. Malcolm commonly referenced the fact that America was a country built on violence and that, “ Patrick Henry did not practice the virtues of nonviolence … [and] … George Washington was no pacifist.” The abuses that King engorged his fellow demonstrators to endure were the very reason why Malcolm justified, “ … black people[s] rights to protect them selves ... [because] … the government does not protect [them]”. He viewed self-defense as necessary in creating an equal playing field for the American Negro by making them a forced to be reckoned
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had, “… no limit to his advocacy of nonviolence in conflict situations”. King viewed non-violence as, “… the most potent weapon for both blacks in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement and for other oppressed peoples struggling for justice throughout the world”. The idea of non-violence that King practiced and defended was pulled from ideas about civil disobedience, and his Christian faith. This ideology means that King encouraged men, women and children participating in the Civil Rights Movement to take the abuses imposed on them during demonstrations without retaliation. King believed that, “nonviolence bestows courage and self-respect to oppressed people who were once consumed by fear and low self-esteem”. King knew that civil disobedience met with brute force would create nationwide sympathy for the Civil Rights Movement. The sympathy evoked by non-violent people being harassed and abused would create a national and international outcry against the violence. The media attention it self was a defense against violence. This method does contrast very much they idea of self-defense however they don’t completely appose each …show more content…
“Nonviolence was widely thought of by many people as ‘doing nothing,’” this was in part because accepting violence from their oppressors was what they were doing to begin with. Malcolm X, Black Nationalist, was arguably “the most formidable race critic in American history”. Malcolm, like King, emphasized the idea of black self-respect. “Unlike [King] who had no taste for violence in any form, Malcolm viewed [self-defense] as a necessary response to criminal acts.” Malcolm defended a man’s right to self-defense because it is, “an essential element in the definition of humanity”. Malcolm commonly referenced the fact that America was a country built on violence and that, “ Patrick Henry did not practice the virtues of nonviolence … [and] … George Washington was no pacifist.” The abuses that King engorged his fellow demonstrators to endure were the very reason why Malcolm justified, “ … black people[s] rights to protect them selves ... [because] … the government does not protect [them]”. He viewed self-defense as necessary in creating an equal playing field for the American Negro by making them a forced to be reckoned