Sunday, June 21, 2009

Blog #4

In this blog, I will be discussing the different tactics that African Americans came up with and used during the civil rights movement. Most people would say that they were not only fighting for their civil rights, but human rights as well. They were treated with such cruelty and brutality it was practically inhumane. The pictures, postcards, videos, and stories that we’ve heard and seen have been sickening that one person could have so much hatred for the other, just because of skin color. The abuse that women went through, sexual and otherwise is horrifying beyond measures. Not only that but the fact that this not only happened, but that no whites ever had to pay for their actions is terrifying. To have to experience rape is one thing I could never even imagine, but to know that your rapist or the killer of someone in your family is in authority running around and you could see him at any time is heart wrenching. No wonder the blacks came up with ways to protect themselves and the ones they loved. There was nothing else they could do, nothing else to turn to or that’s what so many thought.
This is the reason for Malcolm X’s speeches and his way of thinking. He was a Black Nationalist who gave very influential speeches to thousands of people. He spoke of Black Liberation. He wanted freedom for his people now, not later. Him along with many others were sick of waiting for the whites to come around and give them what they have been asking for, their civil rights. Malcolm X spoke of either the ballot or the bullet. The ballot stood for freedom and all of their human rights. The bullet on the other hand stood for action. They wanted one or the other. Malcolm believed that it was time for blacks to defend themselves against all of these horrific acts and I think I would agree. Many of these black men had wives and children they needed to protect while all of society was against them. It was not as if they would take the rifles and go out and look for whites to hunt down and kill. I’m sure this did happen in some cases, but that was not the point that Malcolm was trying to make.
Stokely Carmichael on the other hand was kind of stuck in the middle of both the violent and non-violent sides. At first he went along with many others such as Martin Luther King Jr. and was even recognized for the number of times in which he was arrested for participating in non-violent demonstrations. However the frustration of changes not being made and having to take beating after beating could get to anyone. Stokely strongly believed in Black Power and sought out not only to promote black human rights and integration, but even further than that. He realized that the problem came from something even deeper. Stokely realized that black poverty and lack of education fed into the problem of the blacks inability to rise up and take control. He proposed that the blacks should go as far as forming their own independent party so that they can become strong vote together and finally get some black people into powerful positions. In those positions the blacks can begin to make the changes needed for the entire society to fix these deep problems. Stokley also believed that this was a black only problem and while its great that they have some white support, they did not want it or need it. They needed blacks to make the change and not whites for them. Stokely did influence such things, such as the Black Panther Party, that was a Black Militant organization created by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale.
On the complete other side of the civil rights movement, were those that promoted nonviolence. This is something I believe is completely noble, however I don’t know if I would have the strength that those people did, not to fight back after all of the tragedy they have faced. This movement was led by none other than Martin Luther King Jr. He even had a set plan for every time they wanted to face society’s unfairness and cruelty. They took three necessary steps, which included, collecting facts to determine if there was injustice, try to negotiate, and then self purification, which consisted of workshops designed to teach people how not to fight back when faced with violence. All of these steps were taken before they ever began a public nonviolent demonstration that they knew would cause an uproar. Doctor King was very open to the support of everyone and even welcomed the whites to come fight for their cause. This is probably one of the most noble and courageous things I have ever heard of, not many people would choose to walk into policemen holding bats or any other cruelty with no way to defend themselves. Do you really think you could be strong enough to do this yourself? Which side would you have taken, violent or non-violent?

7 comments:

  1. Very explicative answer! I would honestly say that I could not have been a non-violent supporter. My beliefs would most likely have landed me on the side with Malcolm X and Huey P. Newton supporting a defensive organization. I absolutely agree that they were most honorable and believe that they were pillars of strength and faith. I think that both of these groups supplemented during the Civil Rights Movement and created a powerful force for change.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As I talked about in my blog I would not be able to take the non violent route when faced with the challenges of that time. The first police bat to hit me I am most likely going to hit back. Now there are plenty of non violent demonstrations I would have participated in as well though. For example attending MLK Jr's I have a Dream Speech. These are not very testing on my nobility but would be my prefered way of motivating change.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Michelle 100% on the fact that African American women were sexually abused and that was horrifying but when the men did this horrible thing and did not even get charged with anything which was even worse. I just don't understand how someone can do that and get away with it. This is wrong in every aspect. With her question about which side would you have take,violent or nonviolent? I can't honestly give you one side or another because I agree with Martin Luther King Jr. and his way to end discrimination and segregation was non-violence but in the next breath I agree with Malcolm X to use violence because the whites were violent towards the blacks so why not do it back to them, but would this really end discrimination and segregation and let everyone be free and equal? I really don't know which way I would choose, but good question to end with in the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really enjoyed reading your blog. I would have say that I dont think I could have been strong enough to do what Martin Luther King Jr. did. It deffinitly takes more courage and will power to be non-violent than it does to be violent. Although both ways seem to be and were effective, I think that the non-violent way is a lot harder and I wish I could say that if that was me I would be 100% for non-violent, but in that type of situation I really dont think I could support a non-violent response.

    ReplyDelete
  5. All I have to say is Thank God our society and judicial system is not like it was back then. I couldn’t imagine being a family member of a black family knowing that my loved one was raped by a white man and he received no penalty for his crime. Just Crazy!! On the question whether I would choose violent or non violent, I would have to say that I could have done either. I probably would have tried them both and stayed with the one that was proving to demonstrate the fastest change in society.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love how you opened that up at the end. After you covered the facts its good to get your reader thinking. i did much of the same in my blog. but what i guess i would have liked to see it which choice you would have made. I know i wouldnt have been able to have been strong enough to side by and watch these things happen. what are your thoughts? I know the people who chose the non violent route had to have some of the strongest beliefs of there time, because i know it was take a special person to do what they did.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with your comment about how noble the people were that promoted non-violence. I could only hope that I would also have that sort of courage to stand up for what I believe in, in such a positive manner and not resort to fighting for it, but how are we to know how we would react in that situation? I really hope I would take the non-violent approach to this and try to talk about it in speeches and such, or if I couldn't do that I would write letters to a newspaper or something of that nature!

    ReplyDelete