Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How to Learn Nonviolent Resistance as King Did
How does one learn nonviolent resistance? The same way that Martin Luther King Jr. did—by study, reading and interrogating seasoned tutors. King would eventually become the person most responsible for advancing and popularizing Gandhi’s ideas in the United States, by persuading black Americans to adapt the strategies used against British imperialism in India to their own struggles. Yet he was not the first to bring this knowledge from the subcontinent.
Martin Luther King, Jr. beside a picture of Gandhi. (Photo: Bob Fitch)
By the 1930s and 1940s, via ocean voyages and propeller airplanes, a constant flow of prominent black leaders were traveling to India. College presidents, professors, pastors and journalists journeyed to India to meet Gandhi and study how to forge mass struggle with nonviolent means. Returning to the United States, they wrote articles, preached, lectured and passed key documents from hand to hand for study by other black leaders. Historian Sudarshan Kapur has shown that the ideas of Gandhi were moving vigorously from India to the United States at that time, and the African American news media reported on the Indian independence struggle. Leaders in the black community talked about a “black Gandhi” for the United States. One woman called it “raising up a prophet,” which Kapur used as the title of his book.
While a student at Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, King was intrigued by reading Thoreau and Gandhi, yet had not actually studied Gandhi in depth. A friend, J. Pius Barbour, remembered the young seminarian arguing on behalf of Gandhian methods with a reckoning based on arithmetic—that any minority would be outnumbered if it turned to a policy of violence—rather than on principle.
The more that King read Gandhi, though, the less he doubted the validity of a philosophy based on “Love,” which in turn was central to his preparation for the Christian ministry. “As I delved deeper into the philosophy of Gandhi,” he later wrote, “my skepticism concerning the power of Love gradually diminished, and I came to see for the first time its potency in the area of social reform.” His serious contemplation of Gandhi’s fundamental approaches for organizing a movement began in Montgomery, soon after becoming pastor at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in April of 1954.
When Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to yield her seat on a public bus to a white man on December 1, 1955, JoAnn Robinson, a leader in the Women’s Political Council, worked through the night to organize an action of mass economic noncooperation. King was unanimously elected to lead the Montgomery Improvement Association, which would sustain the boycott of city buses.
With the start of the Montgomery boycott, a number of activists, pacifists, reformers, radical Christians and socialists arrived in town. Elated by King, they believed that he could take the fight for justice to a new order of magnitude unlike anything the United States had seen since the abolition of slavery. Among them was 44-year-old Bayard Rustin, 17 years King’s senior, who went on to help King build the Montgomery boycott into a mature campaign. The War Resisters League let Rustin work for King full-time for this assignment.
The black community in Montgomery, as elsewhere in the South, was armed, and there was concern that it could turn to violence in the struggle. Rustin was worried that King himself might falter without deeper foundations. Plying him with books at night, he helped him to analyze Gandhi, and was the first tutor to teach King the essentials of nonviolent struggle systematically.
The boycott’s success—recognized when the Supreme Court ruled on November 13, 1956, that local laws obliging segregation on buses were unconstitutional—raised hopes for comparable abolition of other discriminatory practices in the South. That the U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960s would be based on Gandhian strategic nonviolent action partly resulted from the success of the Alabama city’s exquisitely unified black community. “While the Montgomery boycott was going on,” King said, “India’s Gandhi was the guiding light of our technique of nonviolent social change.”
In February 1957, at Oberlin College in Ohio, King met a black Methodist minister named James M. Lawson, Jr. Lawson had served 13 months in U.S. federal prison for refusing to cooperate with conscription during the Korean War. While locked up, the Board of Missions of the Methodist Church successfully petitioned the court for Lawson to be handed over to them. They assigned him to teach at Hislop College in Nagpur, India. Arriving there four years after Gandhi’s death, he spent the next three years teaching. He also met numerous individuals who had worked with Gandhi and learned of the Indian campaigns firsthand from participants. King was impressed by Lawson’s background and experience, especially considering they were both just 28 years old. He asked Lawson not to wait to finish his studies to come South: “Come now! You’re badly needed. We don’t have anyone like you!” As I have documented elsewhere, Lawson became a human bridge, connecting knowledge from India to the fledgling U.S. civil rights movement and contemporary struggles.
After Lawson met King in 1957, he contacted A. J. Muste, a foremost Christian pacifist then still at the helm of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Muste offered Lawson the position of southern field secretary of FOR, and by January 1958, Lawson was settled in Nashville. Upon arrival, he discovered that the Reverend Glenn Smiley, another of King’s tutors and national field director of FOR, had arranged for Lawson to conduct a full schedule of workshops—including one arranged for early that year at the first annual meeting of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in Columbia, South Carolina. There, King enthusiastically introduced Lawson. “Be back promptly at 2:00 p.m.,” he declared, “for Brother Lawson’s workshop on nonviolence!” Before the agreed time, King seated himself in the first pew, waiting attentively for the three-hour session to start. Lawson once recalled in an interview with me:
Martin did that at every SCLC meeting as long as he lived. He would ask me to conduct an afternoon workshop, usually two or three hours, and he would arrange for it to be “at-large” so that everyone could attend, with nothing else to compete. He put it on the schedule himself. A few minutes early, he would show up and sit alone, as an example, in the front row.
In Nashville, throughout the autumn of 1959, Lawson led weekly Monday-evening meetings in which he and interested students analyzed the theories and techniques that he had encountered in India. His workshops scrutinized the Bible, and writings of Gandhi, King and Thoreau. They practiced test-cases, including small sit-ins. Lawson’s workshops lasted for several months before news broke on February 1, 1960, of the Greensboro sit-ins. Hearing of the Greensboro actions, seventy-five Nashville students followed suit, creating the largest, most disciplined and influential of the 1960 sit-in campaigns. In working with Lawson—who was always calm and self-effacing—the Nashville students were not only being trained by one of King’s own instructors, but they were benefitting from direct acquaintance with Gandhi’s experiments. The sit-ins would give the overall movement its regional reach, and the Nashville students would become a cornerstone of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, of which I was a part.
In commemorating Dr. King’s birthday, it is worth remembering that everyone can learn nonviolent action as he did. King may not have invented the nonviolent strategies that he advanced, but he was an apt student, and his understanding of them would in the decades to come encourage other movements on the world stage. He became one of history’s most influential agents for propagating knowledge of the potential for constructive social change without resorting to violence. How he himself learned the theory and practice of civil resistance is a reminder to each of us that these methods are neither intuitive nor spontaneous; they’re a system of logic, skills and techniques that must be learned.




18 Comments so far
Show AllI think it is important to honor the practice of non-violence, while as individuals deeply searching our hearts and souls for whether we can fully accept it. If non-violence is to be an embodiment of love-then it must be seen less as a tactic then something that supersedes every cause-the thing in and of itself. These are not just words. They represent fundamental choices with consequences. When most people talk about this subject-it seems more like an intellectual exercise than a deeply held belief. The truth is , that by living in society as it exists today-by paying taxes, by going about our day to day lives, we assent to a system predicated on violence. Our very comfort-is a level of blindness that blots out he suffering caused by our collective actions. Choosing a path of non-violence is no easy thing. Gradual or partial acceptance of non-violence, is a luxury of the oppressor-not the oppressed.
One must make the distinction between violence and self-defense.
Our present 'civilization' and pseudo-cultural indoctrination enculturates the obedience to obeying the uni-directional application of violence from the top down. To submit to top-down violence is seen as obeying the psychopathic Elite, not rocking the boat. Obeying.
To resist that uni-directional application of violence is considered unacceptable, rebellious. Wrong.
When you believe that it is wrong to resist those who are oppressing you, who are committing violence against you on a daily basis, then you have become domesticated and enslaved.
While non-violent resistance may demonstrate strong willed societally accepted moral character, it literally achieves nothing except creating martyrs.
Are you advocating violence? If so, how is it decided who is empowered to practice it? What are acceptable circumstances? What are the consequences if innocent people are hurt or lose their life? What is hoped to be acheived by doing so?
I know and have known of no one who who either individually or collectively has the moral force to answer these questions in a way that comes even close to the truth embodied by King or others. While it is true the state uses violence as a means of control- and one can be question how legitimate that power is-is it morally right to adopt the same standards? The same disregard for life? What will be acheived then? More violence? More hatred?
I am advocating self-defense and protecting yourself and those you cherish from the brutality and violence of the Elite.
Even Mr. 'Be The Change You Want To See' Ghandi stated plainly that those who are not willing to defend themselves deserve to wear a collar and be slaves to those in power.
@LJG100: I guess if you are not willing to defend yourself, you must be willing to fitted with your Government issued, NDAA compliant RFID chip and intrusive Government monitoring of every moment of your no-longer-private life, and are willing to obey every single order issued by the Government and it's Police, no matter how egregious.
No- actually I am actively organizing at various levels- opposition to the NDAA provisions related to unlawaful detention. What are you doing?
I'm learning how to garden and be self-sufficient, and educating others about how the present Corporate-driven pseudo-culture has colonized their minds and stripped them of being human and how they have been turned into a salable commodity.
If you are organizing opposition to NDAA, then you must be aware that you are most probably on the Government's 'black-bag' list.
WIll you be 'non-violent' if/when the Government goons come for you?
You keep talking about defending oneself. How? In the case of Occupy Wall St., are you saying when the police came in harrassing and arresting occupiers, the latter should have fought back. How? With fists? Mace? Handguns? Mobbing individual cops? Do you see where that would lead?
Absolutely
Uh, it achieves nothing? ever heard of someone called Martin Luther King and his civil rights movement? That achieved nothing?
Sit ins, boycotts were seen as rocking the boat for sure. These measures ARE resistance.
There is only a weak distinction between violence and violent self-defense. Both courses harm both the perpetrators and receivers of violence. Both are self fulfilling and lead to an ongoing cycle.
You come here a lot using tortuous logic and false facts to justify violence. How's about you do a little reading on MLK and also Gandhi.
One more thing on non-violence. At its essence, non-violence is rooted in a belief in the need for individual spiritual transformation. However, it does not stop at the notion that the world will be saved when everyone has evolved into their higher self. Rather, it seeks to bring the moral/spiritual force into the physical world by becoming a reminder- a source of discomfort perhaps- but most importantly a source of truth- in the belief that when men are obliged to face themselves and the implication of their own actions- they will endeavour to change. This belief, while some may feel is nothing more than a matter of faith- is rooted in an understanding of the essential nature of humanity and universal law. Perhaps it cannnot be proven- and in a society deadened by materialism- it may seem useless. I cannot convince you of its truth- nor would I try.
No, at it's essence non-violence is complying with the orders of the Elite.
No it isn't. It's called civil DISobedience. Gandhi's followers refused to mine salt, Dr. King's people refused to ride busses or otherwise comply with the Jim Crow laws and restrictions. It means, however, that the nonviolent demonstrators have to be willing to stand their ground and take whatever the authorities dish out -- fire hosings, beatings, jailings, teargassings and these days, predator drones, high tech "nonlethal" rubber bullet pain inducing weaponry including tasers. It also needs charismatic leaders to explain what the people are refusing to do and why. leaders like Gandhi and MLK who were able to get their words out there. The whole tactic works best when the authorities whaling away are shown on TV; recent example, the gendarmes putting pepper spray in the eyes.
It's the Jackie Robinson tactic: hang tough until those in positions of power gradually accept that you aren't to be dissuaded, retaining dignity and humanity in the face of scorn, mockery, and brutal repression. It's way too much to ask especially for the people of today. People are too scared, too mad, too confused for at least some to be unable to hold back the urge to express retaliatory rage. The argument is often made that these tactics wouldn't have worked against Hitler. We don't know. If enough of the population had refused to comply, perhaps even the brown shirts might have not been able to force them back into line.
But non-nonviolence gives the justification, believable to those who don't consider themselves the same as the protesters, for cracking down hard.
An honest question: Have you or LJG ever read Derrick Jensen's two volume 'Endgame'?
Sitting there, 'taking' the uni-directional violence meted out by the Elites Police thugs, 'hanging tough' is SUBMITTING TO ABUSE.
Let me ask you another question: If you saw someone abusing a kitten in the street with a pointed stick, would you step in and end the violence, or would you stand by, observing, hoping to change the person's mind with your silent disapproval and potential as a witness? What if it was a child being beaten? Would you do the same thing?
Yes, MLK was non-violent. And engaged in peaceful civil disobedience. And his closest followers feared for his safety, in some cases begging him to take prudent defensive measures.
MLK dismissed their fears, and was made a martyr by forces of the US Government.
Put this in different perspective: Iraq didn't have any massive retaliatory capability. North Korea does, in the form of a crude nuclear device. Which country was invaded and smashed? Which country has been left alone?
Negotiation only happens between perceived equals.
I am not sure there is any moral principle- which if stretched to its limit holds completely true. In the personal examples you gave, if I held to my principles- I would attempt to use non-violent means to stop the transgressions. If non-violence could not stop what was happening- then ideally I would use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect the innocent. There may be forms of individual self defense that are necessary and justified. There is also a component of educating the transgressor- not always practical in the moment- but still important.
Civil disobedience in my view applies more to mass social movements/change and raising consciousness.
If the goal is to end all forms of war- then any nation that uses military force perpetuates what they at least in most cases claim to want to end. The central question is the abolition of war. You are right- most nations predicate their foreign policy on the use of force and justify its use to serve their own ends.
Rather than asking whether North Korea is better off with nuclear weapons (which is absurd of course), one should ask how to create a world where North Korea no longer feels the need to protect itself with nuclear weapons.
I am somewhat familiar with Derek Jensen’s views on the use of violence. But I must say, that I would not, for example, wish to entrust Derek Jensen or Deep Green Resistance with decisions involving the use of violence. Also, Jensen does not espouse violence in all or most cases. He is understandably frustrated with the plethora of environmental groups that operate more as lobbying organizations than grassroots agents of change.
As far as opposing NDAA- I am far from alone on this. The provisions added to the bill were borne from fear- whether it is fear from international or domestic terrorists. Fear breeds more fear. In fact, the NDAA provisions violate the US Constitution and lay bare the fiction of an endless war against loosely specified forces. By weakening our liberties- these laws weaken our moral force and our democracy- as well as compromising our foreign policy. The sad thing is that my views- shared by more than a few- are hardly controversial- but have only become so in our poisoned political environment- predicated as it is on fear.
Why has the Arab Spring fallen into the hands of the military while the Lybian people got control of their country?.
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
-- John F. Kennedy
Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.'
-- Mao Tse-tung, 1938, inadvertently endorsing the Second Amendment.
Egypt is in the hands of the US backed military.
Libya is in the hands of the Oil Companies, which use the US Military as their proxy mercenaries.
Not a whole lot of difference.
Maybe not. The point being that there was a transfer of power to the Lybian people from their military, as opposed to Egypt. The Lybians were armed (by US and foreign powers), but not the Egyptians.
As I read the discussion in comments on non-violence I wonder how many of the non-violent crowd pay taxes. To be an american tax payer is to be the most violent on our planet today. Can you call yourself anything near non-violent if you are the renter and provider of the gear that takes ears and fingers as trophies, sexually brutalizes and tortures, kills in madness women and children and pisses on their dead bodies?