Barbara Benjamin
EWRT 1B
Essay: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Thesis: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s nonviolent direct action programs for
the purpose of ending racial injustice are sound, logical, and
respectable.
Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr.'s programs of nonviolent direct actions
were aimed at bringing an end to racial injustice that
was practiced, both legally and socially, in the
These practices of
segregation were done under the sanction of the
so-called "separate but equal" law, upheld by the Supreme Court. The "separate-but-equal" law,
in-and-of itself, was blatantly discriminatory, but to make it worse, separate
black facilities were definitely not equal to white facilities. However, more than suffering injustices from
the laws, blacks also suffered physical abuse through bombings of Negro homes
and churches, that went "unsolved" and
unpunished.
Discriminatory
laws were put into effect against the blacks without
black representation. Many unfair voter
registration requirements were specifically designed
to keep black people from voting.
Consequently, few blacks were able to vote or have a voice in their own
destiny. These discriminatory laws,
however, were in direct conflict with the Constitution, as well as the very
spirit and principles upon which this country was founded.
Dr. King sought to
"help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the
majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood" (155). He sought to end the cycle of poverty due to
inferior educational opportunities and job opportunities. He sought to end the unfair voter
registration requirements so blacks could have a legislative voice. He sought to end the dehumanizing practices
of separating black people from white people at public facilities, and at
playgrounds and parks for children. In
other words, what Dr. King sought was freedom for blacks
which he believed was their right under the Constitution and
"thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which
were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the
Constitution" (167). He sought
human rights and human dignity for all people.
To bring about the
changes he sought, Dr. King decided upon a course of action he felt was prudent
and, at the same time, would be effective in forcing the issues of injustice
into public awareness. He organized,
then, a campaign of nonviolent direct action.
He said that there are four basic steps in any nonviolent campaign: 1) Collection of the facts to determine
whether injustices exist; 2) negotiations; 3) self-purification; and 4) direct action.
If the facts showed that an injustice existed, he attempted to negotiate
with leaders to change the injustice. If
that failed, then the people prepared to engage in some sort of direct action
which "seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a
community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the
issue" (154).
Dr. King stressed
that the action must be nonviolent. He
preached to his people that their discontent was healthy and normal, but needed
to be channeled into a creative, nonviolent
outlet. Specifically, he advocated
breaking the offending unjust law.
However, Dr. King said he does not advocate evading or defying the law. Rather, to break an unjust law and to be
prepared to suffer the penalty of breaking that law "openly and
lovingly" (158) in order to arouse public conscience.
Moreover, Dr. King
made a distinction between just and unjust laws, and only the unjust laws he
advocated to break. According to Dr.
King, "Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human
personality is unjust" (157).
An unjust law is one that compels a minority to obey but doesn't make binding on itself.
The people
involved in the direct action must be prepared and must learn how to face great
hostilities. They must have a
willingness to suffer whatever provocation that will
be waged against them during the action and they must show tremendous restraint
and discipline in the face of opposing hostilities. They also must be prepared to suffer the
legal penalty of the law they violate.
The nonviolent
direct actions were sit-ins at segregated lunch counters, integration of public
facilities, schools, parks, and buses.
They also actively sought to register Negroes to vote. All of these nonviolent activities involved
Constitutional rights which the blacks were being
denied.
In paragraph 43,
Dr. King says, "I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that
the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek." By this he means, what they are seeking is
justice, equality, human rights and dignity for all people, which are all just
and honorable pursuits. The means they use,
then, cannot be less than the honorable and just ends they seek. Thus, if they are
seeking human rights and dignity, it would be a contradiction and violation of
human rights if they used violent and inhumane methods to gain them. That is why when breaking a law, it is paramount that the violator is willing to suffer
the penalties of his actions and to respectfully submit to that penalty
peacefully.
I
believe that Dr. King's nonviolent direct action programs are sound, logical,
and respectable. On
the basis of logic alone, I ask, what is the alternative? There are basically
only three alternatives: Passive
acceptance; violent disobedience; or nonviolent civil disobedience (or, more
correctly, Thoreau's term was "resistance to civil government"). If one is trying to change an injustice, nothing is
accomplished by passive acceptance. As
Henry Thoreau says, "A minority is powerless while it conforms to the
majority" (Norton 1974). Violent
disobedience, on the other hand, could result in an even more disastrous
situation, but more importantly, violence is an unpure
means to gain a pure end. Thus, the only
thing left is nonviolent civil disobedience.
Dr. King's program
was sound because he carefully chose the people who would be involved with the
actions. He prepared them mentally for
the abuse they would suffer for their actions to ensure, thus to insure as much
as possible, that the people were capable of handling the pressure. He was committed to nonviolence and
demonstrated this by carefully training the people involved.
Dr. King's reasons
for the civil disobedient actions are supported by
many historical examples. The most
pertinent example is
More recently,
Henry David Thoreau vehemently preached that it was a man's obligation to not support an unjust law. "If the injustice . . . is of such a
nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I
say, break the law. Let your life be a
counter friction to stop the machine" (Norton 1972). Further, Thoreau says, "Under a
government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also
in prison" (Norton 1974). Thoreau's
comments stem in large part from his abhorrence of slavery and said that he
could not recognize a political organization as his government if that
government supports slavery.
The final point is
that Dr. King's program follows what the courts have stated is right. King says, "the
federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to
cease his efforts to gain his basic Constitutional rights" (160). His plan does nothing more than seek to obtain
basic Constitutional rights for the black people. That he seeks to do this with means "as
pure as the ends," I feel is respectable and
courageous. As Thoreau says, when
discussing civil resistance, the only obligation a person has is to do at any time
what that person believes is right.
King's programs all stem from this belief.