Historically, kings were solely responsible for the well-being of their kingdoms. Although they had a court with whom they consort on occasion, the king held the ultimate power and little could be done or said to question his authority. Most nations that were formerly ruled by kings, however, now have some sort of constitution in place that prescribes a more democratic approach to government. The role of royals, in such cases, is now more to serve as the face of their kingdoms. The royalty maintains formal titles and acts as heads of their nation but have little, if any, political power. In the case of commonwealths, such as that of Great Britain, the king or queen is also a uniting force for all of the member nations and territories. Kings
…show more content…
Johnson. He did not attend segregated events, urged movement leaders to continue challenging congress, and ultimately acknowledged the legitimacy of the civil rights movement (Milkis, et al. 647). This served as a political opportunity for the organization since collaboration at the federal level legitimized the movement. With endorsements by elected officials, SCLC found it easier to negotiate for civil rights and mobilize resources by peaceful means. Through this political opportunity, a powerful network between civil rights movements and executive powers emerged that “joined presidential prerogative, grassroots mobilization, and partisan polarization” (Milkis, et al. 643). President Johnson’s desire to collaborate with movement leaders provided the SCLC with the leverage of having a reliable political arena to mobilize while retaining their peaceful …show more content…
Scholars such as Umoja argue that SCLC’s mobilizing tactics were made possible through factors of class orientation and internal hierarchical structure rather than existing political opportunities (559). Since the organization consisted primarily of elites, they resorted to their own resources which helped them avoid armed protesters. Furthermore, analyzing through a gendered lens, scholar Wendt states that for numerous male African Americans, it was a sense of manhood that stimulated their use of violence to defend their friends and family against opposing assaults (543). Due to this, male activists who worried about their manhood dismissed the orthodox principles of SCLC, which then allowed the organization to recruit only those who favoured their peaceful ideologies. Finally, violent protests in the civil rights movement are seen as an advantage by some, such as Ted Gurr who argues that Black Power militants would be able to negate the stereotype of black male frailty and instead generate a powerful African American identity for the social movement (18). Contrary to scholar Meyer, Ted Gurr would look at political opportunities as a factor that facilitated violent protests rather than peaceful
Johnson. He did not attend segregated events, urged movement leaders to continue challenging congress, and ultimately acknowledged the legitimacy of the civil rights movement (Milkis, et al. 647). This served as a political opportunity for the organization since collaboration at the federal level legitimized the movement. With endorsements by elected officials, SCLC found it easier to negotiate for civil rights and mobilize resources by peaceful means. Through this political opportunity, a powerful network between civil rights movements and executive powers emerged that “joined presidential prerogative, grassroots mobilization, and partisan polarization” (Milkis, et al. 643). President Johnson’s desire to collaborate with movement leaders provided the SCLC with the leverage of having a reliable political arena to mobilize while retaining their peaceful …show more content…
Scholars such as Umoja argue that SCLC’s mobilizing tactics were made possible through factors of class orientation and internal hierarchical structure rather than existing political opportunities (559). Since the organization consisted primarily of elites, they resorted to their own resources which helped them avoid armed protesters. Furthermore, analyzing through a gendered lens, scholar Wendt states that for numerous male African Americans, it was a sense of manhood that stimulated their use of violence to defend their friends and family against opposing assaults (543). Due to this, male activists who worried about their manhood dismissed the orthodox principles of SCLC, which then allowed the organization to recruit only those who favoured their peaceful ideologies. Finally, violent protests in the civil rights movement are seen as an advantage by some, such as Ted Gurr who argues that Black Power militants would be able to negate the stereotype of black male frailty and instead generate a powerful African American identity for the social movement (18). Contrary to scholar Meyer, Ted Gurr would look at political opportunities as a factor that facilitated violent protests rather than peaceful