Gandhi and the Civil Rights Movement

Non-violence is not naturally a part of human nature, since we are animals first and humans second. Being animals, our reactions to any stimulus are governed by two simple laws: fight or flight. But the fact is that we're more than just animals-we're human beings. And as human beings, there is another option- a third way to react. And that is with nonviolent resistance.

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." It was on this principle, as laid out by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, on which the entire Civil Rights Movement was based. Though this line seems to advocate submission to a cruel authority, it in fact encourages the opposite. In the times of Christ, the use of the left hand was considered a taboo - use of the left hand so much as to greet someone of wealth could result in death. Therefore, the person striking the blow would naturally use his right hand. However if he were to use his right hand, any type of punch or jab that would be intended to start a fight would be impossible to land on the victims right cheek, seeing that the victim's nose would come in the way. The only way that a person could hit another on the right cheek with his right hand, would be if the strike was a backhanded slap. In Jesus' time, and even today, any sort of backhanded strike was intended as a sign of disrespect or assertion of authority over someone. Therefore, to turn the person striking the blow your left cheek would leave the striker with 2 options. He could start a fight by hitting your left cheek, but to fight with someone of lower rank was considered shameful. Or he would have to stop and simply realize his first mistake. In either case, the person dealing the blow is forced to recognize the equality of the victim. This one action illustrates and summarizes the basic principle, Christian at root, on which most Civil Rights Groups based their morals.

But how could the whole African-American race be expected to remain moral after experiencing 350 years of cold-hearted brutality? In fact, what relation whatsoever could morality have to their situation? Why should they listen to or follow any Christian values whatsoever when it was the clergy of that very same religion who turned a blind eye to the rape of their great grandmothers and the brutalization of their great grandfathers? The simple, undisputable truth is that they shouldn't. If being moral would take so much as a second longer than being violent would, no one could possibly expect them to act morally. Justice never can, and never should, wait for the oppressors to prepare themselves. It is a thing to be experienced here and now-otherwise, it is useless. Therefore the African-Americans could have taken either of 2 ways to equality: the path of violence, or of nonviolence.

And it was Gandhi who taught the African-Americans of the mid 1900's how to tread the path of nonviolence. Never before had anyone even dreamed of implementing large scale nonviolent resistance, the likes of which Gandhi organized, much less attempted to do so. Therefore, Gandhi's philosophy of Satyagraha was the best nonviolent option for the makers of the Civil Rights Movement- and it was MLK who first realized this. Taking Gandhi's course of action in India, MLK fashioned it to fit in an American environment. Boycotts of British goods became boycotts of segregated bus systems. The Salt March, meant for economic independence, became the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. The Quit India Movement became the Civil Rights Movement. Through Gandhi's operational methods, the African-American's of the U.S. were able to combine their Christian ideals of nonviolence with their right to exist as a free race, rather than having to give up one for the other.

Sources:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0126872/main.php?pic=rtm&left=rtm¢er=gandhi&right=rtm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi