( – promoted by buhdydharma )
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Fifty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King recognized the importance and validity of direct action as a tactic in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail:
You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action 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. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
In honor of Dr. King and in light of the past 7 years and the horrendous list of illegal, unconstitutional acts by the Government, a list that I will not bother to recount here, I think it’s time for us to reconsider the role that direct action can now play in restoring America to its most Democratic, humane, and decent principles.
Creating of constructive, nonviolent tension even in the face of threats of extremist violence is Dr. King’s true legacy. My hope is that in honor of his birth we will find the courage to do as he would have.
27 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
so much said in so few words, i am in awe.
Non violence was a great tool until “the man” figured out how to work around it. Strikes are a form of non violent protest, and its power has diminished as large corporations have figured out –with help from St Ronnie–how to break unions and how to outsource.
MLK succeeded partly because Watts, Newark, and Detroit burned. I was working in Bed/Stuy at the time, from that perspective, MLK was a tool used by the media/government to keep the “darkies” quiet. He wasn’t in their employ, he was a great leader, he was unbelievably moral, but he was helpful to nervous White abusers. Better a quarter million marching in DC that a thousand breaking windows on Fifth Avenue.
The blogs are today’s tool. A place to vent, a place to dream, a safe place to be shunted to by the establishment. 2004 was Dean’s year, 2008, Edwards, our choices are either ridiculed or marginalized. Vietnam ended when the streets overflowed with tension–draft cards notices were ignored, “we took to the streets.” Now Bushie cordons off protesters, or jails them, “they” took back the streets.
MLK was needed in his day, riots are needed today? Hopefully not, but I see no alternative.
marches and sit-ins is that they are predicated on the idea that if we can get enough people to join the cause, the powers that be in DC will listen. But even with 60-70% of the people against the war in Iraq, our political leaders still aren’t changing the situation. They seem to be saying a giant FU to the people.
I don’t know where the pressure points are anymore in the political system. But I think if we ever found them, the heavy hand of the military-industrial-media complex would react quite quickly…letting us know that we hit the sweet spot.
is proof there are no pressure points.
Documel, can’t say I agree 100% with you, but you make points worth pondering, IMO.
nonviolent direct action. Civil disobedience.
There have been several excellent points and comments here.
I think that the effectiveness of the actions in the 60’s largely depended on a media to cover them, and a government and population to respond emotionally to the injustice. We have a very different situation now – a media that doesn’t do its job, and politicians and citizens who have become desensitized to an extent. I have to ask myself, if there were a nonviolent direct action mass movement now – with a violent response from law enforcement, as there almost always is – how would the media, politicians, and the public respond? Would they respond the way they did in the 60’s? Would direct action in our current climate bring about change the way it did then?
One place I think direct action would need to start would be confronting big media – that may be the only way to get any coverage, or to at least start bringing attention to the fact that media isn’t covering direct actions and real news now. Shove ourselves (nonviolently) in front of the cameras wherever they happen to be – in front of Brittany, or Bush spouting his lies, or wherever the media chooses to misdirect the public’s attention for the day. I’m not sure how to organize such a thing, but I think that’s one place to start.