|
Adoption of Non-Violent
Direct Action in the Civil Rights Movement
by
Stephen Marsh
Since its
beginning, non-violent direct action has been the primary
political strategy employed to bring about social progress in
the Civil Rights Movement. In an atmosphere of intense
hatred, rabid oppression, and life threatening resistance, the
Civil Rights Movement adopted, from its conception, peaceful
means to advance its agenda (Wilkinson, 21, 1969). I
will discuss some of the events, people, and circumstances
that led to the adoption of this political strategy in the
early Civil Rights Movement and what the significance of this
time period was.
Prior to the
Civil Rights Movement, the U.S. had a minor history of
pacifist organization (Laue, 60, 1989). Henry David
Thoreau, the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Brethren, and
the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom all
preached anti-violence platforms (Levine, 25, 2000).
After WWI, pacifist and anti-war values found increasing
support. In the early 1940’s national pacifist groups
lobbied strongly to prevent the U.S. entry into WWII (Levine,
26, 2000). Once the U.S. entered the War these groups
turned their focus toward gaining racial equality domestically
(Wilkinson, 21, 1969). However, they did not follow the
practices of traditional pacifism in the U.S. They
instead got their inspiration from India and the techniques
Mohandas Gandhi was employing there (Levine, 26, 2000).
The ideology
that had been practiced in the U.S. up to this point was that
of non-cooperation. This meant that those opposed the
certain social practices would not participate in these
deprecated systems (Levine, 26, 2000). The non-violent
direct action of the Civil Rights Movement had a much
different approach. It did not use the strategies of
historical pacifism. Instead, Gandhi and the methods he
was developing for the Indian Freedom Movement inspired the
Civil Rights Movement. This philosophy sought direct and
active opposition to social injustices, but without violent or
physical force of any kind (Levine, 28, 2000). It sought
to abolish the practice but not destroy those who practiced
it. Perhaps most importantly, it acknowledged that
violent opposition would sometimes challenge those who
practiced non-violent means, and expressed the power of
jui-jitsu. Jui-Jitsu was a name for the effect
non-violent protest could have when it encountered violent
opposition. The idea was that the sight of a person
willingly accepting beatings without resistance, for their
beliefs would cause both those exerting the violence as well
as those who witnessed it, to question their actions (Levine,
27, 2000). It is this concept that became the most
effective technique for gaining support for the Civil Rights
Movement. Martin Luther King Jr. held this idea as the
most important tool of non-violent direct action. He
believed its function was to dramatize the injustice to a
level that could not be ignored by the public (Barash, 145,
2000). This strategy did not attempt to defeat the
opponent physically or psychologically. Instead a
relationship or understanding was sought. It was the sin
that was being attacked, not the sinner (Levine, 27,
2000). This whole philosophy was based on the idea that
the goal will ultimately be reached if you are on the morally
right side, and implies a sort of universal objectivity
(Oppenheimer, 31).
This philosophy
was developed and applied in India during the early 1940’s and
was first brought to the United States through two books:
The Power of Non-Violence by Richard Gregg, and War
Without Violence by Krishnalal Shridharani. The book
by Richard Gregg made a moral and ideological argument while
Krishnalal Shridharani’s book was a how-to manual outlining
steps and rules that non-violent activists should follow
(Levine, 27, 2000). The first step illustrated was to
try and find some agreement that would end the evil. The
second step was to make the issue publicly known. Third
was to prepare the participants, make sure their motives where
pure, and that they knew what to expect and were willing to
readily accept the consequences of their actions (Levine, 27,
2001).
By 1942
organizations were testing out direct non-violent action
throughout the country. One man who was particularly
influential in promoting the non-violent movement was Bayard
Rustin, a member of the pacifist Fellowship of Reconciliation
(Wilkinson, 21, 1969). He believed that non-violent
action was particularly well suited to the African American
people because they had history of suffering without
bitterness, and a strong religious heritage. He started
out experimenting with one-man protests at lunch counters,
taxicabs, busses, anywhere he was faced with
segregation. When he was asked to leave, Rustin would
express an understanding of the position the employer was in
but explain that it was against his beliefs to cooperate with
the segregation practices (Wilkinson, 22, 1969). He
would employ strategies of non-violent disobedience and found
them to be very successful. Rustin spoke to many
audiences and about the techniques he had been practicing and
the results he was getting. This eventually helped to
turn his one-man efforts into large-scale organized movements
(Wilkinson, 22, 1969).
One body that he
spoke to was the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR) on which
he served as an officer. In 1942 the FOR proposed that
an organization be established that would focus on non-violent
direct action to end racial inequality. James Farmer was
appointed as chairman of the new organization. It was
named the Congress for Racial Equality (CORE), and was to
become a major organization of the non-violent Civil Rights
Movement (Wilkinson, 23, 1969). When this organization
was formed, most of the founders and executives where
pacifists. However this was not the case with the
general body. CORE had an indirect relationship with FOR
and pacifist philosophies where kindled by some members, but
it did not officially support pacifism (Wilkinson, 22,
1969). There were some arguments early on as to what the
policy should be, and the identity of the organization was in
question. Some believed that the purpose of Core was to
end segregation, and discrimination using non-violent
means. Others thought that simply changing the policies
of establishments was not a justifiable goal. Instead
the end should be to change the attitudes of those who where
responsible for perpetuating the social ills (Wilkinson, 22,
1969).
CORE faced many
other internal disputes as well. There were complaints
that CORE had poor and unstructured leadership. The
organization did not have enough paid full time staff and
often those who where involved with the direct action
movements did not have the time to see the project through to
the end. Activist believed that there was not enough
time spent on direct action techniques and negotiation was to
heavily valued. Many members complained that the efforts
where isolated too much to the north not the south where the
most work needed to be done. Many of these factors
diminished the effectiveness of the efforts (Wilkinson, 22,
1969).
CORE was forced
to go through a continual process of evaluating its methods
and developing new strategies that would be effective.
They borrowed largely from Ghandian philosophies and used the
independence movement in India for inspiration (Levine, 27,
2000). However, the two situations where different and
the strategies of non-violent direct action that had already
been developed in India had to go through many changes and
experimentation to be applied to the American Civil Rights
Movement (Laue, 67, 1989).
The Civil Rights
Movement spent most of the 1940’s learning by trial and error
how to successfully use non-violent direct action to stamp out
social injustice. During this time there where very few
large-scale national organizations. Local chapters would
started up, then fizzled out, and started up again. The
movement consisted of many small local efforts scattered
around the country and had trouble making any permanent
organized progress (Wilkinson, 30, 1969). It was these
grassroots efforts, however, that built the foundation for the
movements that would come in the 50’s and 60’s. Much
more successful events like Martin Luther king’s bus boycott
in Montgomery, used the strategies devised in the
1940’s. They eventually became the primary agents
for change in the Civil Rights Movement (Wilkinson, 30,
1969).
The significance
of the 1940’s does not lie in the actual steps made toward the
goal, but in what it laid the groundwork for in the decades to
come. The political strategies employed where new to
America.Although they borrowed many of the philosophies from
India, and American pacifists, the strategy had to be
reengineered and reapplied.Early leaders found that these
techniques could have a very powerful effect, but there were
many flaws that slowed down the effort (Wilkinson, 22,
1969).
The Civil Rights
Movement did not enter its height until 20 or 30 years after
the founding of these non-violent organizations.Most of the
real progress in racial equality is thought to have occurred
in the 1960’s, but it is important to consider everything that
needed to happen before these steps could be made.The
non-violent techniques used by groups like SNCC, the NAACP,
the SCLC, went through a long period of experimentation
(Wilkinson, 22, 1969).Because of the foundation built in the
early Civil rights period, organizations where able to
successfully mobilize large national efforts and eventually
overcome racial injustices later.
Bibliography
Laue, James,
Direct Action and Desegregation. Brooklyn, New York:
Carlson Publishing Inc., 1989.
Wilkinson,
Doris (ed.), Black Revolt: Strategies of Protest.
Berkeley, California: MrCutchan Publishing Corporation,
1969.
Oppenheimer,
Martin, The Sit-In Movement of 1960. Brooklyn, New
York: Carlson Publishing, 1989.
Barash, David,
Approaches to Peace. Oxford, New York: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
Levine,
Daniel, Bayard Rustin and the Civil Rights Movement.
New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press,
2000
|
Back to
Papers
Download MS Word file
NonViolence.doc
|
