Martin Luther King Jr.'s Philosophy of Nonviolence to Change the Status Quo Picture taken from I Have a Dream by Jim Haskins; The Milbrook Press-Brookfield, Connecticut, photo credit to Bettmann Newsphotos What Is Nonviolence? “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered these words in 1963 during the famous civil rights march on Washington, DC. This demonstration illustrated King's method for achieving equality for African Americans. In pursuit of his dream, King employed a philosophy of nonviolent passive resistance which although sometimes criticized, according to King, was the most effective way of attaining a better life, both socially and politically, for blacks. King believed that there were three ways one could face injustice. The first was accepting it; the second was resorting to brutality; and the third was practicing nonviolent resistance. He saw the latter as a “higher synthesis,” where Negroes neither accept inferiority or practice violence (Zepp 98-99). This method relies on the power of moral conscience. People will be more willing to stop their oppression if they have to question there own ethics (Zepp117). King’s basis for his campaign of nonviolence originated in the highest type of love - love for people who hate you. King preached that the combination of agape(spiritual love) with nonviolent action would elicit change (Walton 78). His strategy included civil disobedience, the philosophy behind this holds that people have the natural born right to ignore laws that they believe are unjust; to maintain an orderly society, however, they must accept the consequences of their disobedience (Walton 93). In contrast to the violent methods used by many whites, such as releasing attack dogs and using powerful water hoses to control crowds, King organized selective buying campaigns, marches and boycotts (Walton 98). Gandhi's Impact on King The concept of using passive resistance to change the status quo was not introduced by King. Mahatma Gandhi had developed the concept in India where he used this philosophy to help win his country’s independence from Great Britain. Gandhi provided guidance and a framework with which King built his civil rights campaign (Silverstein http://www.gandhiking.com/). King and Gandhi shared many beliefs including the idea that by not protesting, one was acquiescing to wrong. Many times King echoed Gandhi's words, “Non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as cooperation with good.” Above all other methods, they preached that nonviolence was not only the most effective, but also the only religious method (Zepp 98). During their careers, each faced the struggle of how to mesh religion and politics without compromising either. Gandhi’s appeal to King was social. King's goals were to change society, its structure, its evils, and its balance of power where as Gandhi was more interested in self-realization and the personal acceptance of God (Zepp 78). King traveled to India to study the work of Gandhi and gain ideas for his own campaign. When asked what he acquired on the trip, King responded that he was “more convinced than ever before that nonviolent resistance is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom” (Haskins 55). King's 1963 March on Washington is often compared with Gandhis Great Salt March (Zepp 77) in its artistic presentation and amazing organization (Walton 87). But possibly the most important concept that King adopted from Gandhi was his spirit to lead people and make them adamantly believe in common goals, which is crucial to the success of resistance (Zepp 99-100). More information Gandhi and King's Nonviolent Philosophy Major Accomplishments in the Nonviolent Movement The Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955 was King’s first attempt to organize nonviolent resistance in this country. During the boycott King did not use the term nonviolence, but believed such behavior was an act of Christian love. The media termed it nonviolence because they began to compare King to Gandhi. The boycott lasted over a year and during that time King constantly reminded blacks not to react to violence with hostility but with "love" (Haskins 44). The boycott was successful because of the need for blacks' money and business, not because whites respected their "love." However, King continued to preach that “the only weapon we have...is the weapon of protest”(Garrow 321.). The more that blacks responded with nonviolence the more coverage the boycott received. Such coverage increased its potential to succeed (Haskins 45). On November 13, 1956 the Supreme Court ruled in Gayle v. Bowder that segregation on buses was unconstitutional. This landmark decision was not only an immediate gain for African Americans but was also the catalyst for the movement that followed (Haskins 47). After the success of the boycott, the SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference) was formed with goals of passing civil rights legislation. This nonviolent organization concluded that voting was key in the struggle for equality because it exemplified change without the use of violence (Haskins 49-50). In 1963, King along with four other civil rights leaders organized a massive march on Washington. It was one of the greatest displays of passive resistance in history (Garrow 321). This march showed the nation that the struggle for equality was not restricted to the South, but a national campaign (Harris 65). The idea to have a massive civil rights convocation in Washington DC was not new but was finally realized on August 28, 1963. It was a celebration of accomplishments and a commitment to continue the effort towards equality (Haskins 75). Of the 250,000 Americans that marched in the most peaceful demonstration that Washington had ever seen, at least 60,000 of them were white. In the climax of the day King delivered his famous “I have a dream" speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial. This was not in the original text that King had prepared but was sparked by the enthusiasm of the day (Haskins 76). This speech has become a display of the intentions of the entire civil rights movement (Garrow 321.) The purpose behind the march was to pressure Congress and the President to propose civil rights legislation(Haskins 75). President Kennedy did not want it to appear that he was acquiescing to the protesters and before the march occurred he made a statement on national TV urging Congress to pass a powerful civil rights bill (Haskins 76). The idea of the movement produced the strongest declaration on social justice ever made by a president. Immediately following the march there seemed to be a blanket of peace that covered the country. But this peace was temporary. Violent events erupted before the year was out: President Kennedy was assassinated and a Birmingham Baptist Church burned killing four black girls. Criticisms of Passive Resistance This movement was not all glory; it has been criticized by many scholars. Some whites thought passive resistance fit with the stereotype that blacks were “long-suffering, meek, and more apt to resort to prayer than to take decisive action against injustice” (Walton 99). Many criticized the theory for being too vague preaching to “do good and avoid evil” left the logistics of the movement too open (Walton 86-87). Hanes divulges that violence can be emotional as well as physical. King used nonviolence to pressure people to change who were not ready, which, in one sense, was violence. King was very idealistic in his approach that all conflicts could be resolved in the same manner. Many people have questioned whether he would have accomplished more if in some situations he considered different courses of action (Walton 83). In the past, violence has brought about change that many historians believe would not have been possible any other way (Walton 84). Our democratic system of government embraces checks on its practice, both political and social. However some of the repressive governments in history would not have been overturned through passive resistance because expression was forbidden. Despite all the questions raised and criticisms verbalized, King continued to practice and preach nonviolence. A new view of equality began to surface which was the antithesis of King's beliefs. Malcom X and Elijah Muhammed preached Black Power and separatism and told blacks to hate the “blue-eyed devils” (Harris 41). They believed that violence was “as American as apple pie” and that the only way to equality was to rise as a separate strong entity not willing to compromise, but to fight (Hanes 90). Noting history they said that coalitions, which King strove to create, would never work because of betrayal within the black community (Hanes 91). They focused their movement around the word power, not love and virtue. Psychologically they argued that violence was a healthy way to release the pain of oppression and that to love people who hate you is unnatural. They taught that nonviolence was a form of submission which only demonstrated to whites that the black race was feeble (Hanes 90). King retaliated saying black separatists had ignored the most important goal of integration through which all other things would follow and had ignored the message of God (Hanes 93). King stressed that there was a difference “between nonresistance to evil and nonviolent resistance” (Zepp 101). The goals of Malcom X and his followers, King said, put African Americans at the same level as their oppressors. He reiterated that, “nonviolence offers the only road to freedom for my people” (Hanes 90). Conclusion King’s choice of nonviolence can be critized or praised, but it is hard to dispute its overall success (Hanes 81). For many blacks nonviolence was the only option because violence would have cost them their jobs, their homes, and even their lives. This was a way for blacks to maintain their dignity and at the same time fight for what they believed. The sentiments of the time did not foster a mass violent movement - whites were more numerous and had more resources. As a minority, a violent movement would have been immediately crushed because whites would have had a justification for their violence. The crimes against blacks would have become more widely accepted than they already were (Harris 42). Whether this movement would have been more successful if the opposing ideas had joined together will never be known. The fact that African Americans were divided on many issues detracted from their cause because whites looked at them as not being able to agree within their own race, much less with the white majority (Hanes 82). In the mid 1960s, the civil rights campaign led to the passage of two important pieces of legislation: the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Haskins 88). In the midst of these national accomplishments, King received the Nobel Prize for Peace “because of his commitment to nonviolent social change”(Haskins 81). His choice, despite criticism, to respond to adversity with pure love has made Martin Luther King, Jr. one of the leading civil rights leaders of all time. His dream has not been reached, but it has not died. When King was assassinated he left the country more than a list of accomplishments and a philosophy for change. King had a gift to inspire people; he gave his followers of yesterday and today the courage to fight for what they believe and that is and will always remain his legacy.