Much of the recent media focus on Ferguson has been on the violence, looting, and property destruction that some protesters have taken to. Both following Michael Brown's killing and the recent decision of the grand jury not to indict police officer Darren Wilson, this focus on violence has led many to question whether violent action can achieve lasting social change.
Martin Luther King, Jr. has become a well-respected figure of the Civil Rights Movement. Yet, as Ta-Nehisi Coates reminds us in The Atlantic, "American society's admiration for Martin Luther King Jr. increases with distance"; it's easy to forget that "the movement he led was bugged, smeared, harassed, and attacked by the same country that now celebrates him." Yet compared to other leaders of the Movement—Malcolm X, in particular—his strategy of nonviolent direct action threatened little harm to white Americans (at least to those who claimed to not be racist). Because of this, it's easy still today for white Americans to encourage all black Americans to be more like him.
It makes sense, then, for many to ask what King would say about this violent protesting. In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in 1964 King stated, "Man must evolve for all human conflict a method, which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love." Clearly King would not describe the looting and property destruction happening in Ferguson as "[Rejecting] revenge, aggression, and retaliation." It makes sense, then for Americans to urge these violent African American protesters to engage instead in a nonviolent protest that King would approve of.
The Ferguson protests (both violent and peaceful) cannot be separated from the centuries of racism and oppression in this country. Likewise, the violent protests cannot be separated from the underlying frustrations that prompted them. Even with his pleas for peaceful protests, King encouraged understanding. However, it is difficult—and perhaps even impossible—for white Americans to understand the reasons that these protesters have turned to violence. As A. B. Wilkinson writes in the Huffington Post:
The majority of people in the U.S. probably agree that peaceful protest is the correct response to police brutality, yet is this the only response we should expect from young African American and Latino men who are daily stopped, frisked, harassed, beaten, tazed, and shot at by law enforcement officials? Even those who are nonviolent still sometimes end up the victims of police brutality. . . While criticizing them for using violence, many of us showed that we lack King's great ability to seek a deeper understanding of their motivations.As Wilkinson asks, "Is it really fair to ask these men to always seek nonviolence?" Even while opposing the violent actions taken by some protesters in Ferguson, it is important for us to, at the very least, attempt to understand where they are coming from; it is possible to do so while not condoning their actions.
Sources and further reading:
Grant, I like that you used A. B. Wilkinson’s opinion as I think it is accurate concerning the ongoing situation.
ReplyDeleteKing encouraged understanding but I think if we want our society to evolve, understanding has to come both ways. As A. B. Wilkinson said, I am not sure the average white American citizen tries to understand African Americans’ daily struggles. For instance, professor McKinney said during the Campus Climate that African American professors were still being carded at the Rhodes’ gates even if they had been working there for more than ten years. I had no idea that this was still happening in the United States.
I do not know if violence is the right answer but I can completely understand why they are resorting to it. As you said, it is not our place to judge but rather try to understand.
While I do agree that understanding minority attitudes and perceived problems is an important step in successfully lessening racial tension, I wholeheartedly condone the protests in Ferguson both directly following Michael Brown's death and after the grand jury delivered their decision to not indict Darren Wilson. It is our place to judge these violent actions. Plain and simple. Without this judgment, we are declaring that violent means of protest are morally acceptable or that they are a way to facilitate social change. Let me be clear however, these violent protests do not lead to lasting social change.
ReplyDeleteLooking at these protests from an economic perspective, the riots have succeeded and will continue to drive business out of town. This means that Ferguson residents will be forced to pay more at local stores or travel significantly farther for competitive prices on basic goods and services. Employment has also been negatively impacted. Many Ferguson residents cannot go to work today because local businesses have been burned down. How then, are these violent protests a mean of instituting positive social change? These protests, if anything, have further polarized race relations in the United States.
It is not impossible for all whites to comprehend why these protestors have turned to violence. Wilkinson asserts, "condoning these protests shows that we lack Martin Luther King's great ability to seek deeper understanding of of these protestors motivations." In fact, those in opposition to violence understand the problems of race that are alive and well in the United States and also have the forethought to acknowledge that violence will negatively affect racial relations in America. Those opposed to violence understand these motivations so well that we want to respond to injustice in a way that everyone will respect and pay attention to. The way to do this is through the use of nonviolence.
Lastly, Wilkinson asks, "Is it really fair to ask these men to always seek nonviolence?" My answer is a simple yes. We are all required to act in a lawful way. There are no exceptions. If you want to institute positive social change, violence will never be the answer. It will simply polarize the nation. To not judge the people who have committed these violent acts in Ferguson is lethal. As Elie Wiesel said, "To remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all." By not condoning this behavior, we are suggesting that is acceptable to act with complete disregard for humanity.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/jason-riley-the-other-ferguson-tragedy-1416961287
Megan, I appreciate your thoughts. Likewise, I do not condone the actions of the violent protesters in Ferguson.
DeleteI do, however, encourage you to read the second article that I posted by Ta-Nehisi Coates (if you haven't done so yet), and in particular the following parts:
"What clearly cannot be said is that violence and nonviolence are tools, and that violence—like nonviolence—sometimes works. 'Property damage and looting impede social progress,' Jonathan Chait wrote Tuesday. He delivered this sentence with unearned authority. Taken together, property damage and looting have been the most effective tools of social progress for white people in America. They describe everything from enslavement to Jim Crow laws to lynching to red-lining. . . 'Property damage and looting' is a fairly accurate description of the emancipation of black people in 1865, who only five years earlier constituted some $4 billion in property. The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 is inseparable from the threat of riots. The housing bill of 1968—the most proactive civil-rights legislation on the books—is a direct response to the riots that swept American cities after King was killed. Violence, lingering on the outside, often backed nonviolence during the civil-rights movement. 'We could go into meetings and say, 'Well, either deal with us or you will have Malcolm X coming into here,' said SNCC organizer Gloria Richardson. 'They would get just hysterical. The police chief would say, 'Oh no!'"
Rather than immediately condoning the actions of the violent protesters, we must understand why they are doing these things. In other words, instead of automatically assuming that their actions are irresponsible and harmful (though they may be both), we should stop and think about what led them to feel this way. Assuming you have done so, I respect your opinion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete