Wednesday Assingment #1

In most social movements of the past and present, there are usually two basic forms of strategy used to gain the desired results. These results are usually in the form of rights such as the case in the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Movement, and the Gay Rights Movement. Rights may include equal housing, voting, or employment. One strategy is the use of nonviolence, while the other method involves violence, or acts that can cause violence. In the Carson article, “The Unfinished Dialogue of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X,” he discusses the differences in opinion between Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X. King desired to gain results through peaceful methods such as non-violent protests and sit-ins. Malcolm X on the other hand believed firmly in militant action, and doing it by “any means necessary.” At first glance, these two views seem to be completely opposite, and many African-Americans and researchers still believe that today. According to Carson, these tactics are not all that different; he even calls them complimentary to each other. Carson also states that instead of choosing which side you will back, either violent or nonviolent, both ways are a “partial answer to the problems of race.” Both leaders offered different solutions because each came from a different background. Even King believed that after a certain point of the white government ignoring the problem of race, violence would erupt on the streets. The question is, is there room in social movements for both nonviolence and violence. Is one method better than the other, and are these methods reconcilable?

We see the struggle between radicalism and assimilation playing out in many social movements of the past. Look at the numerous riots, assassinations, and killings regarding the Civil Rights Movement. Also, look at the many peaceful protests conducted by Martin Luther King, Jr. and the SNCC. Sit-ins, well-orchestrated protests, voter registration drives, etc. were all peaceful tactics that led to the success of the Civil Rights Movement. There is also the Black Panther Party (BPP), who according to their 1966 platform wished that each black man arm himself according to the Second Amendment. The Black Panther Party created a new definition for the words "self-defense," oftentimes aggressively following police with rifles to protect black people who may need help. The group was also involved in several shoot-outs with white police, who the BPP viewed as oppressors. The BPP led several protests while carrying visible shotguns and rifles (Joseph 158-161). There is also the Anti-Vietnam war movement. Most protests were peaceful, taking place at colleges and universities. There was the Weathermen group during the Anti-War movement that thought violence was the only answer to the political problems. The Weathermen staged violent protests, bombings, and robberies. The Chicano Movement, which actually paralleled the Civil Rights Movement, had some violence. In 1967, the Alianza conducted an armed raid on a courthouse. Most aspects of the Chicano movement were peaceful though. People attempted to be elected on school boards and city councils. Chicano studies were implemented into many colleges, where they became recruiting grounds for the movement.

When looking at the social movement of the Right to Bear Arms/Gun Control, it appears Martin Luther King Jr’s ideology of nonviolent direct action would seem more valid. The subjects on the side of the Second Amendment want to show that they are peaceful, that they are not violent people who want guns for violent reasons, or that they are willing to use violence in order to maintain their right to own firearms. Subjects on the side of Gun Control also do not want violence because in their minds they want to stop violence. They believe that controlling, or possibly banning guns, would lower crime, lower homicides/suicides, and keep children safer. Violence would bring them to the level of gun owners in their minds. Neither side would benefit from using violence such as bombings, rioting, or killings. In Martin Luther King Jr’s letter from when he was jailed outlines the four steps to a nonviolent campaign: “collection of facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action.” This method of non-violent direct action has worked wonderfully so far for both sides of the Second Amendment debate. Most action is taken through negotiation, whether it is between politicians and normal citizens, or between the differing sides. One such peaceful protest is shown on foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304806,00.html), students carried empty holsters to school in order to protest gun restrictions on school campuses.

So, can the positions of King and Malcolm X be reconcilable: to some extent, yes they can; but for the most part, they cannot. For the most part, normal people viewing a social movement from afar will not tolerate violence. Whether it is tolerated depends on the specific movement, the conditions regarding the movement, and what caused the violence to occur in the first place. King was right in telling Kennedy, “If something isn’t done to give the Negro a new sense of hope and a sense of protection, there is a danger we will face the worse race riot we have ever seen in this country.” (Carson pg16) If nonviolence can gain the desired results, then violence will oftentimes be unnecessary. If violence is used, then the public and media may view it as too drastic and it could actually hurt the social movement. When looking at the Civil Rights movement where violence was used against peaceful protesters, and nonviolent attempts by African-Americans were oftentimes unsuccessful, then violence can sometimes bring about change much faster. Carson was right in saying that each method has its place, and is the partial answer to an entire problem. If you take a person or group to the point of no return, then violence can and will happen.


Joseph, Peniel. The Black power movement: rethinking the civil rights-Black power era. CRC Press, 2006. Print.