Nonviolence and Self-Defense

As we have discussed in class the last few days, there was an undisputable dynamic interplay within the Civil Rights movement between nonviolent tactics and self-defense. Some civil rights activists preached and practiced nonviolence from a moral perspective. They treated others the way they wanted to be treated, believing the maxim that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” But moral goodness was not necessarily the primary motive behind nonviolent protest within the civil rights movement. Instead, nonviolence and peaceful protest were utilized as a strategic and practical tactic to achieve the ultimate goal of racial equality.

As we have learned in our past few lectures, nonviolent protest is what helped garner national attention for the movement. According to Dr. Martin Luther King, “We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. Injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.” The rest of the world watched as the American South continually violated the law and harassed completely innocent African American citizens.  This, in turn, led to the rallied support of African Americans, and forced the government to step in in order to avoid ridicule from other countries. By not responding to racism with violence, African Americans highlighted their roles as victims, which helped lead to progressive change in society.

However, I personally believe that self-defense and nonviolence are not one and the same. These two dynamics worked in conjunction with, rather than in opposition to, one another. Without the utilization of both, the movement would not have made nearly as strong of an impact as it has. It was often armed defense, or at least the threat of force, that saved civil rights activists from attacks by white supremacists. Violence for the sake of violence was what they strived to avoid, but protecting oneself from being beaten and killed does not fit into that category. According to Robert Williams, a civil rights leader and president of the Monroe, North Carolina NAACP chapter, “a man cannot have human dignity if he allows himself to be abused… to allow his wife and children to be attacked, refusing to defend them on the basis that he’s so pious, so self-righteous, that it would demean his personality if he fought back.” He also argued “the stranglehold of oppression cannot not be loosened by a plea to the oppressor’s conscience” and that “social change in something as fundamental as racist oppression involves violence.”

Thus, due to continuous oppression by white supremacists and the actions of corrupt law enforcement officials, self-defense was frequently necessary. And though our Mrs. Applebaums and Mr. Woodruffs specifically valorized those that participated in nonviolent protest, I think those who used necessary armed force against their attackers deserve equal admiration.