Nonviolent Resistance Vs. Black Power

Throughout studies of the 1960s, a major discussion topic has always been the seemingly contrasting styles of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Stokely Carmichael. Their ideologies have often been pitted against each other, with various scholars claiming this and that about peaceful resistance versus an empowered black people. Many of these scholars, and most laymen like myself assume that these two men are on opposite sides of the spectrum in regards to race relations. However, through the readings "My Pilgrimage to Nonviolence" and "What We Want," I have come to the conclusion that these two works, and consequently these two men and their ideologies are not in fact adversarial, but different sides of the same coin.

In Stokely Carmichael's treatise on black power called, "What We Want," his argument is perfectly clear. He wishes for the black people to no longer be an oppressed, second-class, citizenry. He wants black power-not in the "get Whitey" sense, but he merely observes the fundamental issue of needing power in order to force social change. He understands that the most important source of power is the community. "Community," to Mr. Carmichael, is described as such:

"We want to see black ghetto residents demand that an exploiting storekeeper sell them, at minimal cost, a building or a shop that they will own and improve cooperatively; they can back their demand with a rent strike, or a boycott, and a community so unified behind them that no one else will move into the building or buy at the store." ("Document: Stokely Carmichael: Black Power (1966) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia:").

It is apparent that what Mr. Carmichael wants is almost the exact mirror of what any American wants, the power to control their own destiny. To this end, he demands action firstly from the black people. He claims that, "We cannot have the oppressors telling the oppressed how to rid themselves of the oppressor." ("Document..."). Carmichael does not explicitly say, "We don't want white people's help," but he does believe that change must come from within in order for black people to live the lives that they deserve as American citizens.

Dr. King's argument takes a different view of "action." He believes in the inherent goodness of the human spirit, although not to a fault. He realizes that men have the capability towards evil, but have a predilection towards charity and good will towards other men. Through objective examinations of such varied philosophers as Nietzsche, Marx and Ghandi, he comes to his own personal understanding of the, "morally and practically sound method open to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.," he would later become so associated with ("FOR- nonviolence"). However, King lays out no clear strategies except nonviolent resistance to oppression. There are no overarching treatises or doctrines proposed, it is more of a man-centered instead of a group-centered piece. He seems to simply want every God-fearing man and woman to do his moral duty by peacefully but ferociously fighting evil in his or her time.

In order to fully appreciate both mens' works, we must examine their audiences. Carmichael is explicit when he defines his audience; he states, "it is black people I must speak to first." ("Document..."). He perceives the Civil Rights issue as a purely race issue, and therefore feels the need to work from within in order to achieve his goals. He does not eschew White America in his discourse, he merely focuses his attention on the black people. However, he does have some strong words for the "oppressors:"

"As for white America, perhaps it can stop crying out against "black supremacy," "black nationalism," "racism in reverse," and begin facing reality. The reality is that this nation, from top to bottom, is racist; that racism is not primarily a problem of "human relations" but of an exploitation maintained--either actively or through silence--by the society as a whole." ("Document...")

He is not compelling White America to do anything except look at itself in the mirror and realize it is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Only after that can real interracial co-operation begin. Obviously, this idea would be upsetting to many white Americans, which undoubtedly led to the many fear-mongering epithets used in the first part of the quote.

King's audience seems to be limitless. He speaks not to black America, white America, or even America at all. He speaks, instead, to the entire human race. He makes the fight against evil a moral issue that anyone can participate in. This message of "We can all work together," compared to Carmichael's, "We're going alone," seems to be more comforting and idealistic, and no doubt added to King's reputation as a "pacifist" when placed next to Carmichael's "firebrand" rhetoric.

It must not be overlooked, however, that historical context is an important part of these two writings. King's writing comes at a time of great optimism in the Civil Rights movement, where the sky seemed to be the limit. There was no lunch counter that couldn't be integrated, there was no seat on the bus that was off limits, and there was no school desk marked "Whites Only." However, after the feverish efforts of every day men and women to get de jure segregation off the books, de facto segregation was just as entrenched as ever before, if not more so. It is in the climate of attack dogs, high pressure water hoses, and National Guard intervention that Carmichael writes. The youthful, "anything is possible" days are over, and now the serious work begins. Both sides have adapted from lessons learned in years past, and the battle between the status quo and change is more intense and pitched every day. Carmichael has the benefit of hindsight to work with, and his writing reflects a more cynical, brass tacks attitude towards progress.

The writings of both Stokely Carmichael and Martin Luther King, Jr. reflect their time and mission. Just by reading these two works, one can sense the shift from boundless optimism to bitter pragmatism in roughly a decade. Both men's well reasoned and thought out arguments force readers to take away different aspects of the struggle, and appreciate the gargantuan task of Civil Rights activism that to many Americans today seems like nothing more than a few protests and the passage of a law. The movement was much more dynamic than simple sit-ins or community initiatives. The insights into the minds of these two different Civil Rights leaders allows modern America to get a glimpse of how hard the struggle for freedom really was.

Works Cited

"Document: Stokely Carmichael: Black Power (1966) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia:. 01 Feb 2008. Encyclopedia Britannica. 12 Feb 2008 .

"FOR- nonviolence." Fellowship of Reconciliation - For a World of Peace, Justice and Nonviolence. Fellowship of Reconciliation. 12 Feb 2008 .