During a recent Baltimore Racial Justice Action (BRJA) panel discussion commemorating Dr. King, we honored Dr. King for many things: his compassionate action and prophetic leadership in the 1960s Civil Rights Movement; his fortitude; his command of the spoken and written word; his generous love; and his belief that non-violent action could move America toward a collective truth of its humaneness.
During the discussion, it soon became apparent that we did not have a shared understanding of what non-violence is. Is it just a tactic? How deep does it reach into our everyday existence? Does it mean not defending oneself when under attack? Does it mean being passive? Indifferent? And is it an act of violence to take up arms in order to defend oneself? In that case, what do we make of the fact that Dr. King himself used armed guards? Most importantly, how was this tactic of non-violent resistance also a path toward revealing truth about our humanity?
In August 1959, after several years of employing non-violent tactics, Dr. King traveled to India to learn more about Mahatma Ghandi’s teachings on non-violence, which had greatly influenced him. India was newly independent from British colonial rule, thanks to the non-violent tactics employed by Ghandi and millions of his countrypeople for 30 year, tactics which included non-cooperation with the state and its racial, economic, social, political, and spiritual exploitation of India. Dr. King wanted to know if he could learn more from Ghandi’s success to benefit the civil rights struggle.
“I was delighted that the Gandhians accepted us with open arms,” he wrote. “They praised our expe
riment with the non-violent resistance technique at Montgomery. They seem to look upon it as an outstanding example of the possibilities of its use in western civilization. To them as to me it also suggests that non-violent resistance when planned and positive in action can work effectively even under totalitarian regimes. We argued this point at some length with the groups of African students who are today studying in India. They felt that non-violent resistance could only work in a situation where the resisters had a potential ally in the conscience of the opponent. We soon discovered that they, like many others, tended to confuse passive resistance with non-resistance. This is completely wrong. True non-violent resistance is not unrealistic submission to evil power. It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love, in the faith that it is better to be the recipient of violence than the inflictor of it, since the latter only multiplies the existence of violence and bitterness in the universe, while the former may develop a sense of shame in the opponent, and thereby bring about a transformation and change of heart. Non-violent resistance does call for love, but it is not a sentimental love. It is a very stern love that would organize itself into collective action to right a wrong by taking on itself suffering”.a
Like Dr. King, Ghandi had experienced many encounters with violence, and both believed in the power of love to transform the beliefs and behaviors of those who might cause harm. In attempting to take a carriage after arriving in South Africa in 1893, Ghandi was forced to sit outside, though there was room inside. He refused and was beaten and pulled while he clung on. He did not yield but he did not defend himself. Seeing this violence, the white passengers were moved to beg for him to ride inside with them. For Ghandi, the response of the white passengers represented the power of non-violent protest to awaken humans to a deep truth—their shared humanity. He called non-violent resistance—fighting without violence or retaliation—a “matchless weapon,” describing it in Sanskrit as “Satyagraha” or “holding onto truth.” –the truth of our shared humanity.
Such acts of love were based on the premise that those watching would take pity on the resistors while raising the energy of love in those perpetuating such violence. This was considered in the 1963 Birmingham Campaign which sent children to the frontlines to protest. The image of black children being hosed by white police officers and attacked by dogs was a turning point in the campaign for desegregation and freedom for black people in the south and beyond. The hearts of those watching from afar were moved, just like the hearts of the white riders in the carriage.
Black Civil Rights demonstrators attacked by police water hoses. Birmingham, Alabama. May 1963 Photo Credit: Bill Hudson/ The Birmingham News
The consistent use of non-violence was a vehicle for many to become involved in this civil rights struggle, to confront the entrenched system of racism with their body, spirit, heart, and mind.
Ref. Alycee J Lane, ‘Non-violence now: Living the 1963 Birmingham Campaign’s promise of peace’
But the embodiment of non-violent resistance as a tactic and as a way of being was a training. Even when fear was present in demonstrators, after praying and singing together, the powerful spirit of collective resistance would again and again guide them into battle for freedom. This required training, this ‘non-violent army’, conducted by Dr. King and others. They taught about non-retaliation, enacted the brutality that would occur during non-armed protest, and invited those ready to commit to this teaching into this ‘non-violent army’. Alycee J Lane’s book, ‘Non-violence now: Living the 1963 Birmingham Campaign’s promise of peace’ offers details of the rigorous training that each participant in the ‘non-violent army’ would participate in before signing the ‘commitment card’ to engage in demonstrations.
Acting into truth required training, again and again, especially in the midst of state and personal violence day in and day out. In the midst of this violence, these committed demonstrators were able to touch the heart of humanity that issued a power so courageous they could enter the fray armored only with this truth.
Protesting against evil action instead of hating people acting in evil ways was the teaching and practice of both Dr. King and Ghandi. This non-hatred acknowledged the right to resist harm without violence as often as possible. But the act of armed self-defense was also very present during the 1960s Civil Rights movement. This alternative way of defending oneself with arms was not only present but necessary to assure that people survived to have the opportunity to live into love in action as they struggled collectively for their freedom during public protest: a middle way was forged. For example Dr. King’s home was sometimes referred to as ‘the arsenal’ because of the presence of guns to defend himself and his family against the many attacks they survived. Before demonstrations a basket would be passed around, to collect guns demonstrators carried for self-defense. These acts of armed-resistance must be appreciated in light of the times of the 1960s Civil Rights movement when black people were continuously targeted for violence and submission through brutality not limited to lynching, shooting, and beating. Charles Cobb’s book ‘This nonviolent stuff′ll get you killed: How guns made the Civil Rights Movement possible’ describes the history of the need for armed-resistance to white supremacy as a necessary means to assure survival of black people, since enslavement through the 21st century. Cobb writes: “Even King, his commitment to nonviolence as a way of life notwithstanding, acknowledged the legitimacy of self-defense and sometimes blurred the line between non-violence and self-defense.” Perhaps this line was not so blurred for Dr. King because he maintained his clarity of the human connection even when violence was targeted toward himself or his family.
Some may argue that the white southerners who hunted out black people to kill and brutalize felt they were acting in self-defense also; defending their reign of supremacy. Similarly they could argue that brutality against non-violent protesters was in defense of a legal system which condoned and maintained their supremacy in place. This sort of thinking might ‘justify’ any perceived act of violating this culture of white supremacy as illegal, requiring to be put down. Because white supremacy is built on a foundation of oppression, internalized white superiority, and fear of the black body, -a fear that the black body is violent and necessarily revengeful of the history of brutal oppression since enslavement and therefore ready to harm its historic and current oppressors- seeking out and destroying blackness would also be socially acceptable whether through physical, economic, social, spiritual, or educational systems.
But equating armed-resistance by black southerners during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement with the armed offense by white supremacist is like comparing apples and oranges.
This logic rests on the truth that a white supremacist system is an unwise, unjust, and inhumane system. It is a system whose ethic requires separation by skin color and white-skin superiority. It affirms that eurocentricity is superior over all other racial/ethnic identities and cultures. This is a violent, untruthful, and disconnected way to think and be in the world. It was this wrong view that Dr. King’s non-violent action resisted. It resisted this inhumanity and believed that to act into love would bring a different norm, a different truth to bear where the ethic of white supremacy reigned in terror and violence. This ethic of love, attempted to normalize love and the truth of human connection in the midst of hatred, to be the seed of change in a field sowed with separation, discrimination and superiority. When we celebrate Dr. King we must remember to include not only his visionary leadership in moving us closer to ending racial segregation. We must celebrate his aspiration and action for love and interconnectedness through non-violence, to live into a more truthful existence of our shared humanity. At the same time we must act into this collective power to end the war against our humanity: the war of poverty, racism, and militarism.
This is the first part of a two-part series. The next part will look at our current day struggles for justice and whether we practice non-violence; if we do, is tactic and truth? Your comments are invited.