Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement — Two Kinds of Nonviolent Resistance

Two Kinds of Nonviolent Resistance

Bruce Hartford, 2004

Judging by what they show on TV and teach in the schools today, us mythical heroes of the Civil Rights Movement were self-sacrificing saints who loved our enemies and eagerly faced martyrdom with love in our hearts and a song on our lips. Nope. Wrong. 'Taint so.

There were two different kinds of Nonviolent Resistance practiced by the Freedom Movement of the 1960s:

Philosophical Nonviolence. Those who were philosophically nonviolent did try to love their enemies and did try to refrain from any form of violence in all aspects of their lives. Politically they were pacifists and deeply studied in Gandhian creed. Dr. King, John Lewis, John Lawson, Bernard LaFayette, and others belonged to this group. The heart of philosophical nonviolence was taking action to oppose injustice and winning over one's enemies through love and redemptive suffering. Yet, despite the media myths, philosophical nonviolents were always a small minority of the Civil Rights Movement.
Tactical Nonviolence. Those who were tactically nonviolent used Nonviolent Resistance as a tool for building political power, — in demonstrations, as an organizing technique & style, and as a political strategy to achieve specific goals. But it was a tactic, not a philosophy of life; and in other situations, — both personal and political, — other strategies and tactics might be used. We who were tactically nonviolent used Nonviolent Resistance because we wanted to win. We saw nonviolence as the most effective way to accomplish our goals through political means. We did not love our enemies, nor did we believe that our redemptive suffering would win over racists and segregationists to a new world of inter-racial brotherly love. By 1963 the great majority of Freedom Movement activists in CORE, SNCC, NAACP, and even SCLC, were tactically nonviolent rather than philosophically nonviolent.

But these two views were not hostile to each other, — they were just different. Both groups worked well together, simply agreeing to respectfully disagree on it. Dr. King made it quite clear that he was not demanding that others adopt his personal philosophy of nonviolence, and we who were tactically nonviolent respected the courage and commitment of the philosophicals.