If the two authors were in a room together, i feel the
conversation would be quite intense. While they are both fighting for justice,
Martin has more of a non-violence approach while Coates feels that violence is
necessary. King might say something like: Although violence is inevitable, it
isn’t necessary. We should obey the just laws and disobey the laws which
oppress blacks, before we fight in the streets we should hold non-violent
protest in order to express "the highest respect for law". And after
these protest, if the segregationist still don’t grant civil rights to Negros
then violence will inevitably occur, due to the pent up resentment and hatred
of whites. “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever”, the strive for
freedom will become greater and greater with time, the government might as well
grant blacks their civil liberties now BEFORE it is necessary.
Although King might not agree too much with Coates, I feel
Coates would find King’s approach just as good. Coates might reply something
like: But how can we stand with our hands behind our backs while our
oppressors’ disrespect and abuse Negro neighborhoods. By going by this
“non-violent” approach, it is doing nothing but keeping the oppressors happy,
they could care less about your protest. Once people start too radically stand
up for what they believe is right – black or white- there will be no change.
What I might say in this conversation is that they are both
right! But I would probably agree with King in the attempt to try to follow the
law and promote non-violence at first. But if no change or gain was ever implemented
from these protest, I do feel radical violence would be necessary to get the
point across. Like king said, “freedom is never voluntarily given by the
oppressor . . . It must be demanded by the oppressed”. But I also feel that the
violence could just lead to a lot of black being killed. Because police have
such authority, they will be protected by the law for killing black men, which
is just wrong. Overall I would agree more with King’s approach.
Bailey, I agree with you that the two authors would disagree when violence was brought up. Martin Luther King Jr. was always peaching and practicing non-violence while the other author, Coates, states that nonviolence is compliance. I do believe that the two would agree that anger and extremism are both very important to social movements. However, I think Martin Luther King Jr. would say something about how anger and extremism should be used the correct way, in non-violent ways, to get the point across. While it is important to be extreme when trying to make a point for social change, you do not have to be violent. You can be extreme in boycotting, sit ins, and peaceful protest as Martin Luther King has proven before. If I were lucky enough to join their conversation I would try to Coates to listen to Martin Luther King Jr. by telling them that Dr.King has fought this battle before and he has won without any violence on his part. I would tell Coates that Martin Luther King Jr. is literally the best person to take advice from on this issue and hopefully Coates would listen and agree. You can comply with the law and still get your point across and make a change.
ReplyDeleteCoates the writer of “Nonviolence as Compliance”, and King the writer of “Letter from Birmingham Jail” both agree that there’s a problem with the justice system. However, they both argue about the same problem, they both have very different approaches for it. King believes that justice could be solved with some violence, while Coates thinks that the violence needs to be subtracted. King is portrayed as a very peaceful man in history, but he understands that certain boundaries have to be crossed in order to get what you want. King and Coates both agree that in order for the people to do things correctly, then the government has to as well. I agree with both of them, but I agree with King more. If you try to do something in silence over and over again, then it’s time to step up to the plate and do whatever it takes. As long as there’s something to fight for….then fight for it.
ReplyDeleteIf Coates and King were to sit down for a debate regarding anger, extremism and violence in social justice movements, they would agree on some points and agree to disagree on others. Coates and King would agree that anger has been brewing within the African American community due to the social injustices they have faced for centuries. Even after the civil rights movement by King, African Americans continue to face police brutality, and policies that oppress them. Though King would argue that the anger, felt by the community, should be redirected to nonviolent direct action and not violent direct action. King could share stories of his movement where violent direct action could have been used, but the people chose not to do so in order to make a lasting effect on those who opposed them. Here, I would argue that violent and nonviolent direct action both have their own times and places in which to be used. The biggest question is how would it affect the goal of ending social injustices? Would the anger from the community be solely used in violent retaliation or nonviolent peaceful protests? The extremism aspect would be a mutual understanding between the two men. In King’s time, he was considered an extremist. In recent times, those who stand up to police brutality are seen as extremists as well. In regards to violence against social injustices, King and Coates would, again, disagree. King would advise today’s people to redirect their anger so it “can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action.” Coates would be more likely to state that some violence is overdue, because political figures so publicly defend those who act upon social injustices rather than helping the community as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI think Coates point is more to the fact that he believes that the urging of nonviolence by the very authorities that are he is to combat negates the effectiveness of nonviolence. Coates believes that nonviolence has been ineffective and the fact that the very entity that it is supposed to be deployed against is asking for it sounds it's death. Coates believes that Dr King's non violence has gone as far as it can. It is no longer the solution. Dr King, and I for that matter, would argue that the nonviolence movement is, at present, poorly organized and therefore largely ineffective. The kind of nuanced change that Coates and others seek is more difficult to tease out, on that point I agree, as would Dr. King. Does this excuse violence? Does lack lf results call for such a radical change in methodology? King's answer would undoubtedly be no, he operated concurrently with the likes of Malcolm X and has had a great deal to say on this subject. Coates sounds frustrated, and his frustration is leading him to a desire for a change I tactics. A change that Dr King would probably disagree with.
ReplyDelete