Was violent or nonviolent protest more effective in the context of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement?

Question

Was violent or nonviolent protest more effective in the context of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement? It seems like a simple question, but on further examination it is a challenge to discern. The nonviolent work of Martin Luther King unarguably made significant strides in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but later legislative change may have been caused by the mass rioting after his death. So which was more effective at achieving the movement's goals, such as laws protecting civil rights and the repeal of segregation ordinances? Similarly, either form of protest might be seen as ineffective if it provokes significant backlash, such that communities lost more than they gained.

Answer 1

Hey there!

the civil rights era in the US was a very turbulent time. At first, leaders like MLK called for non-violent and peaceful protests such as sit-ins and marches. While these did draw the public eye to focus, they did little to get the movement of the ground in terms of Laws and Legislative action. In the later movement, leaders like Malcolm X rebuttled by means of total separation from white society, and organizations such as the Black Panthers became more separatist and at times, violent. It was through acts of violent protest that made the US government as well as state governments to pay attention, so you could say that violent protesting DID help the progress of the movement more than non-violent. It was only after violent protests began that laws and legislation were changed.

Hope this helped!

Annaka