Down to the Crossroads introduces the
reality of nonviolence versus violence during the civil rights era. This debate
of nonviolence versus violence is everlasting because there are so many
different opinions and approaches to it. Some believe that when it comes to
demanding for change, a nonviolence approach should be taken in hopes of
avoiding violence and more injustice. This is seen with James Meredith’s march,
The March Against Fear, which was his way of demanding racial equality and
sending the message to African Americans that they must vote. However, on the
second day of the march, Meredith was shot, resulting in violence. “For some, the Meredith shooting was a last straw. It broke their faith
in nonviolence, their faith in racial brotherhood, their faith in America” (p.
24). Even when African Americans are doing a peaceful thing, such as walking
down the highway, they are still shot down. To Martin Luther King Jr.,
nonviolence was essential; “King understood their bitterness, but to him,
nonviolence and racial brotherhood were core principles — there was no justice
without them” (p. 34). I do believe that
having a violent approach results in more violence, however having a
nonviolence approach still results in some violence and this is what I find
problematic.
James
Lawson is another nonviolence activist within the Civil Rights Movement. In Many Minds One Heart, Wesley C. Hogan
writes, “The problem with nonviolence was that not only did it appear weak or
unmanly, it also provoked whites” (p. 33). I agree with this statement,
understanding that when white people saw African Americans taking a nonviolent
stance, white people were more inclined to torment African
Americans. When Lawson was taken to prison, his nonviolence stance was
challenged when it came to the idea of prison rape, not knowing if he would use
violence for self-defense. Hogan writes, “Anything that happened would not ride
on personal choice. Rather, it was just ‘one more thing you have to endure in
order to be true to [God]. It is part of the test He set out for you’” (p. 34).
Nonviolence is something that gets complicated when it comes to myself
and those I love. I understand that those who agreed with nonviolence considered violence ineffective and thought of nonviolence as a tactic to move forward. However, I do not know if I would be able to continue with a nonviolent
approach if I was being assaulted or witnessed someone else being assaulted. When Lawson is spit on by a motorcyclist, instead of causing a seen and reacting, Lawson asks the man about the motorcycle. This begins a simple conversation about motorcycles, ignoring the fact that Lawson was just spit on. This approach to the situation is so intriguing because by simply starting a conversation with the man that just disrespected him, Lawson is forcing the man to see him as a human being. I do believe this reaction to a situation like this is very effective, however I do not know if I could mimic this same approach.
I completely agree in that both nonviolence and violence many times have the same result of violence, unfortunately. Placing myself in the position of nonviolence, I do not know if I would be able to not react. Today people react to words far less insulting than those used during the Civil Rights movement. Practicing nonviolence not only takes courage, but also places one's life at risk every time he/she does not respond to a violent act. The assaulter may see how far he/she can go without a return of action or violence. In my opinion, nonviolence is the right tactic that appeals to everyone's humanity and allows assaulters to see the human being that they are hurting. However, I still am doubtful that I would be able to practice nonviolence in a similar situation. Nonviolence vs. violence have been disputed among leaders to this day, and one can only know what he/she would do if given an actual situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement that nonviolence can still result in violence, which can be problematic. We have observed whether violence or nonviolence is the better approach throughout history, and even recently we have a seen a correlation with nonviolence and police brutality. Personally, I think that nonviolence is the better stance because it reinforces your dedication toward your position. It provides a peaceful representation of your beliefs, and I think that it strengthens your viewpoint. Someone who is violently trying to enforce their position would probably have a limited number of supporters. I agree with you when you state that you may not be able to stay nonviolent if you or your loved ones were getting assaulted, because I might also not be able to stay civil. It is hard to resist using violence when you are physically attacked, because no one wants to risk physical injury; self-preservation is a primal urge. When it comes to being disrespected or being called hurtful names, I think that ignoring it is the best position, as Lawson did. I believe the best way to avoid violence if people are attacking you or a loved one is to run away, or escape it as best as possible.
ReplyDelete