This week in class, one of the questions that came up and stuck with me was the question, “How do you fight the system?” What leads people to make certain choices and react in certain ways? As we’ve explored the texts, we have seen how MLK’s largest approach was centered in faith and rhetoric. He sought to share his messages in a passionate way, but with keeping the peace so that he could reason and share his message with other people in a calm and conversational manner. He knew what he wanted to say and found ways to peacefully but strongly state the change that he wanted to see in the country. He urged the avoidance of violence because he thought that this would never end in a positively impactful way.
After reading Huey P. Newton’s experiences and thoughts in Revolutionary Suicide, his approach was far different from MLK’s. He saw that his job was to give all of himself and to put himself in any and all positions, including dangerous ones, to fight for his mission. He saw violence and theatrics as a way to combat the racial injustices of his time and to make his message heard. Although these were tactics of his, it is also important to note that violence was not his only avenue for change. Newton also focused on social programs and creating a clear mission statement for the Black Panther Party to show that they had a mission and not just violent intentions. However, when discussing his view on Revolutionary Suicide, he explains how he saw that he must give all of himself and be a martyr for the cause, not stopping at anything, even violence, for the movement he was trying to push forward.
In contrasting these two viewpoints, each man took a different approach to changing and fighting the system. Peace and disruption. Rhetoric and theatrics. Which one was the better strategy? It might be easiest to automatically say that the peaceful option was the better one, but is this really the case? Did the theatrics encourage more people to join the movement, thus making the movement stronger? Did it seem to some that the peaceful rhetoric would get their message nowhere? In thinking of this, I think that both movements had their strengths and their weaknesses. Maybe it was important to dramatize the situation so that more people would buy in. Maybe to really get their points across and express themselves fully, people had to go to the extreme and perform outrageous acts. I’m still trying to figure out which approach I consider better, so right now I do not have an answer to the question, but I think it is interesting to think about. Is it important to keep your friends close and your enemies closer through rhetoric, or do you want to make them so frustrated that you physically or psychologically force them into change?
I like this dichotomy that you have identified. And I agree that it seems easy to conclude that the peaceful option is the “better” of the two. However, I think this stems solely from our humanly aversion towards violence. I think that, in terms of social movements, violence garners more attention than peace. It is likely that this attention will be negative. However, in consulting history, it seems to me that change is brought about regardless of whether the attention is positive or negative. Therefore, it seems likely to me that theatrics might be the better way to go. Considering recent events, we see that the riots that took place over the summer were brought to the forefront of our attention as Americans. The media reported on the movement & riots for months. The result of such attention has certainly not reached the levels that were demanded by BLM protestors. However, it seems many strides were made in the right direction. George Floyd’s killers were charged. Calls for police reform have been heard more loudly than ever before.
This is an interesting question that I’ve thought about too. I think you and I have come to a similar conclusion that the approaches have had their strengths and weaknesses. I think the dramatics helped incentivize people to support the movement and definitely helped to spread the word and catch people’s attention. I think peaceful protest was also good for press though and was somewhat dramatic in its own way. Regardless of the major philosophy behind a movement’s approach, I think the best path involves a balance. You need something that is well meaning and defensible in the eye of the public, but dramatic enough to make headlines and cause sway. Regardless of which you emphasize more though, I think the biggest factors are the devotion of the people within your group, the potential for new members, and the continued pressure against the opposing force in order to hopefully insight change.
This post has me thinking. And I wonder, does it matter? Both men ended up dead. One was assassinated and the other slowly killed himself with drugs and alcohol, finally murdered on a street corner as if he were nothing by someone who boastfully proclaimed, “I killed Huey Newton.” (So in a way he was assassinated as well). Maybe that’s too cynical. And I haven’t yet had coffee this morning. But, I wonder if the desire to fight the system always ends in someones death, no matter which way the fight is approached (at least during the era that we are discussing). Maybe too many people support the system and feel beholden to the system. What if it takes more than one person to change it? Further, while both of these men employed different tactics, each were targeted by the system as if they were the same. The FBI (COINTELPRO) treated both men as enemies to the United States. Either theatrics or rhetoric, you get marked with a target and ultimately you are eliminated. Perhaps that’s why so many of your classmates have been considering martyrdom.