Black Civil Rights

Statement:

Violence was more effective than non-violence in the struggle for Black civil rights in America.

Intro

Black people were segregated all over the U.S., all the public facilities were segregated, including lunch counters, librairies, buses, swimmingpools. Most schools (almost every school) were segregated too. The blacks wanted to have civil rights. Black Americans were increasingly impatient at the lack of progress in obtaining their full civil rights. President Kennedy was accused of being too cautious and unwilling to upset the white southern politicians. The civil rights movement had started in the 1950s, gained strength in the 1960s.

Martin Luther King leaded a lot of non-violent demonstrations of black unity and also white support to achieve their rights. But there where other black leaders too, such as Malcolm X. He said that Martin Luther King was too moderate and that violence was needed to confront white racism. Many young people were attracted to Malcolm X, because he was radical and young people are also.

In some ways pro-violence was effective because with violence you get attention. Malcolm X thought the only way to get freedom was to fight for it.

When blacks were demonstrating without using violence, the whites put them in jail.

People (the whites) did not agree with that. They got respect for the blacks because they didn t want to use any violence, but then the blacks got put in jail, and that s not fair.

But a disadvantage of pro-violence is that people get hurt in fights, violence causes people to die or at least get wounded. And it was not a good idea for blacks to use violence. Because people start to think blacks are bad and then they don t look at themselves. King didn t use any violence, but what if he did. He wouldn t be a respected man anymore, and therefore the blacks wouldn t got their civil rights they wanted to have.

Pro-non-violence was very effective, because people started to get respect for the blacks. People had respect for Martin Luther King because of his charisma. He was a Christian, a good one. And when you re a good Christian you don t want to use any form of violence. He thought that violence wouldn t solve anything. He almost was a saint.

A disadvantage of pro-non-violence is that it takes very long before there is any effect. And another thing is that non-violence will be met by violence. Martin Luther King didn t want to use any violence, but still he was killed. Non-violence by blacks was met by white violence.

You can compare anti-violence with pro-non-violence, because it s almost the same. A lot of people were anti-violence and therefor the blacks got attention. When Bull Connor ordered his men to attack King s supporters, people had pity on the blacks. It was unjust.

The black people didn t do anything, why did the police attack the blacks? People started to think why. Violence causes you to think about the situation.

But before you can see any effect you ll have to wait. Non-violence (talking) takes more time than violence.

Anti-non-violence is the same as pro-violence. Malcolm X thought that Martin Luther King was too moderate. Malcolm X was anti-non-violence and he was pro-violence.

This also applied for the Black Panthers. But they were more extreme, because they carried guns.

Conclusion

Violence was not more effective than non-violence. The violence caused a lot of kills. When you use violence people start to think different about you. People won t get any respect for you. But if you don t use any violence you will.

For example Mandela. Mandela didn t do anything, and he was put in jail. After 20 years he was released and he got a lot of respect because in those 20 years he did not give up. He also didn t want to use any violence just like King.

Violence can be effective, but it also has a lot of disadvantages. Using violence you have immediate effect. When you don t use any violence, it will have effect only you ll have to wait longer. Non-violence has more effect, more advantages than disadvantages.