As I sit here, attempting to write, I find myself asking, “Was this really once the face of the country I love?” Did a justice system that disregarded African-American rights actually exist in the United States? How did people allow such injustice to endure for such a long time? Furthermore, I wonder at the blindness of those in the South during the sixties and even today.
“We recognize the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized, (A Call for Unity)” writes a group of clergymen. Perhaps, these White clergymen just wanted the African-American population of the day to sit idle while the Whites continued to run over African Americans. “My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. (Dr. King)” Therefore, after following the clergymen's instructions, the African-American population would have gotten nowhere. Besides, I don't understand why demonstrations and such caused such “hatred and violence” as the article claims. Perhaps I am just misinformed, but I don't see any harm in bus boycotts, or requesting to eat in “White” establishments, or sit in the front of the bus. The only people who caused “hatred and violence” were the whites who chose to react in that way. Dr. King wrote, “In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?” The Supreme Court even stated that it is unjust for the public to hinder any person who is attempting to gain or regain his or her inherent, human rights.
The clergymen later write, “We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham, (A Call for Unity)” Dr. King never endorsed any “extreme measures” unless you consider people holding signs extreme. Dr. King never asked his group to take up arms and revolt like Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Dr. King never even implied that African Americans were superior to whites. The “community as a whole, and the local news media and law enforcement officials” seem to have been the ones who caused problems. The Birmingham police force even allowed their own dogs to sink their teeth “into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes.” The police
“We recognize the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized, (A Call for Unity)” writes a group of clergymen. Perhaps, these White clergymen just wanted the African-American population of the day to sit idle while the Whites continued to run over African Americans. “My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. (Dr. King)” Therefore, after following the clergymen's instructions, the African-American population would have gotten nowhere. Besides, I don't understand why demonstrations and such caused such “hatred and violence” as the article claims. Perhaps I am just misinformed, but I don't see any harm in bus boycotts, or requesting to eat in “White” establishments, or sit in the front of the bus. The only people who caused “hatred and violence” were the whites who chose to react in that way. Dr. King wrote, “In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?” The Supreme Court even stated that it is unjust for the public to hinder any person who is attempting to gain or regain his or her inherent, human rights.
The clergymen later write, “We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham, (A Call for Unity)” Dr. King never endorsed any “extreme measures” unless you consider people holding signs extreme. Dr. King never asked his group to take up arms and revolt like Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Dr. King never even implied that African Americans were superior to whites. The “community as a whole, and the local news media and law enforcement officials” seem to have been the ones who caused problems. The Birmingham police force even allowed their own dogs to sink their teeth “into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes.” The police
force also abused and starved some African Americans while in jail. Dr. King simply insisted that African Americans are equal to Whites and took peaceful actions to pressure the public to pass laws ensuring racial equality. Before organizing into demonstrations, the leaders actually ensured that each activist was capable of reacting nonviolently to the violence they endured while demonstrating. The idea that the days in which this article was written were “days of new hope” is also unfounded. Whites at the time were not willing to have honest and meaningful negotiations with African Americans. This unwillingness necessitated direct action. “Nonviolent direct action,” writes Dr. King, “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.
Further in the article, it states, “When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets. (A Call for Unity)” If the African-American community raised a case in the White courts and attempted to negotiate with the White local leaders, I doubt the White citizens would take action. Dr. King responded in a similar manner as I, “Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. (Dr. King)” The courts had already ignored the largest number of African-American-targeted bombings in the nation. “Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation. (Dr. King)” According to Dr. King, himself, those who actually did negotiate with the African-American community failed to uphold their promises. “A few [racially degrading] signs, briefly removed [after agreements to have them taken up], returned; the others remained. (Dr. King)”
I agree fully with Dr. King's statements and discredit the ideas of those writing “A Call for Unity.” The African-American population of that time had no better, peaceful method of protest than that which they preformed. I also believe that the protests made a significant impact on the lives of all African-Americans today.
Further in the article, it states, “When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets. (A Call for Unity)” If the African-American community raised a case in the White courts and attempted to negotiate with the White local leaders, I doubt the White citizens would take action. Dr. King responded in a similar manner as I, “Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. (Dr. King)” The courts had already ignored the largest number of African-American-targeted bombings in the nation. “Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation. (Dr. King)” According to Dr. King, himself, those who actually did negotiate with the African-American community failed to uphold their promises. “A few [racially degrading] signs, briefly removed [after agreements to have them taken up], returned; the others remained. (Dr. King)”
I agree fully with Dr. King's statements and discredit the ideas of those writing “A Call for Unity.” The African-American population of that time had no better, peaceful method of protest than that which they preformed. I also believe that the protests made a significant impact on the lives of all African-Americans today.
No comments:
Post a Comment