Approach to civil right

Question

there have been two approaches to civil rights. One could say a peaceful, gradual one that focuses on passing laws and winning cases in court. The other path could be one that includes direct action and potential engagement in acts of civil disobedience. Which of these paths do you believe civil libertarians should follow? Why do you consider your approach to be a better solution?  

Answer 1

Interestingly, the path of direct action is not the same thing as revolutionary action. It's highly effective, because it's not violent, it just looks that way because it draws violence out of the oppressive class. Direct action is only successful by virtue of the contrast between violent racism and peaceful protest. There's often a contrast drawn between Martin Luther King and Malcolm x because Malcolm x expressed a desire for revolution. Again, though, you could argue that Malcolm x is simply arguing, like the Declaration of Independence, that if if black people are denied rights by the government and law, then black people ought to consider forming their own nation. Malcolm x was still fairly mainstream, though. The slower procedures you talk about- waiting for laws to change, for example -have no hope of success in civil rights movements. However, there was often a synergy between the civil rights direct action campaigns and legal mobilization to achieve racially equality. For more radical notions about how to achieve racially equality, I would recommend a history of the black power movements, black nationalism, and racial separatism For contemporary work, I recommend bell hooks, Patricia Williams, Derek Bell