OPINION
MLK to BLM
An essay analysis of King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" and how the fight for equal rights has evolved since his time.
By Phillip | 8/8/20
For my college's English placement, I was asked to write an essay on what Martin Luther King's celebrated "Letter from Birmingham Jail" essay means today. I encourage everyone to read King's actual essay, but in the meantime, here is my essay:
Since the first slaves were forcibly brought to America in 1619, racism has existed in ever more subtle, yet pernicious ways and the fight for equality has continued. Once the oppressed Black Americans gained some semblance of a voice, their movement revolved around convincing those in power, white Americans, that the conditions of their life were unacceptable. In the 1960’s, Martin Luther King developed an effective method of opposition: a systematic, non-violent violation of unjust laws primarily focused on segregation (“Letter from Birmingham Jail”). Although very different, both King’s non-violence and Black Lives Matter’s approach, which organizes massive peaceful protests around police murders of non-threatening black people, have seen success in convincing white Americans of racism.
Non-violence in different forms continues to be used to overcome white moderates attempts to delay social change (“Letter from Birmingham Jail”). King described the process of using non-violence as methodical: with four escalating steps of planning, negotiating with the opposition, mentally preparing, and finally action (“Letter from Birmingham Jail”). In contrast, George Floyd’s murder, which was not intended to be an act of non-violence in the same systematic way, created one of the more impactful moments in Civil Rights history. As Floyd went shopping on that fateful day, he did not set out to make a noble statement, rather non-violence was forced upon him as his only response to a rigid and unrelenting police force which kills Black men at slight or no provocation. The monopoly of violence by the state is intended to protect its citizens, but in practice this often does not happen and the murder of a peaceful man unambiguously exposed this to the wider public. The purpose of non-violence was to “create such a crisis and foster such a tension that it can no longer be ignored”(King, 1963, p. 2). After many white moderates watched George Floyd murdered by torture through asphyxiation, they realized an undeniable tension between our ideals of the state and the reality of the law’s unequal application. This led to a huge swelling of support for Black Lives Matter and massive protests across the nation. In turn, these peaceful protesters were often brutalized by the police, further proving their argument.
Until the recent reckoning of many white people toward anti-racism, King’s disappointment at white moderates would have endured. King remarks “that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent, and determined action”(King, 1963, p. 6). Over the past decade, white moderates have largely not empathized with the oppressed and seesawed between anti-racist and racist causes: they swung from Obama (who represented a vision of an equal multi-racial society), to Trump (who capitalized on white fears of losing power), to now mostly supporting Black Lives Matter after George Floyd’s muder. The act of understanding is finally taking place through reading anti-racism books like “How to Be an Antiracist” by Ibram X. Kendi and much more dialogue between Black and white people, while action is shown through protests and efforts to defund the police. The tension generated from non-violence has spread from conversations about racist policing to nearly everywhere in life; white people are discovering racism in supposedly post-racial elite universities and conservative sports such as NASCAR are banning the Confederate flag. Although we don’t yet know whether white moderates’ strides toward a more just and equal society are permanent or temporary and if the discussion will progress to the economic inequality incurred by the ties between racism and unregulated capitalism, non-violence has proven effective in generating support for policing reform.
Black Lives Matter lacks the organization and leadership provided by King, which results in a less controlled and slower to act movement; however, when it acts, the scale is enormous. Black people were and are not monolithic in their views, and a central part of King’s movement was to direct the subgroups of uninterested, resigned and bitter people toward one strategy that he thought was best (“Letter from Birmingham Jail”). The first group felt disinterested toward the movement, as they had carved out comfortable lives for themselves despite or with the help of segregation. The other two groups had reacted to the many years of oppression in very different ways: one saw no hope in gaining equality and the other felt violence was the only option (“Letter from Birmingham Jail”). King attempted to control the latter two saying, “we need to emulate neither the ‘do nothingism’ of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist”(King, 1963, p. 6). Today, some people seeking to destroy or loot businesses have joined the peaceful protesters, and many national Black leaders have mostly futilely called upon them to stop. It's clear that the lack of a King-like figure in the Black Lives Matter movement can lead to uncontrollable segments. In addition, without a central leader, the threshold of action is much higher and more inconsistent, as they are not constantly urged toward action but rather are more self motivated. So when people take action today, their anger is explosive and much more ubiquitous, caused by simmering frustration and an unambiguous atrocity. Millions of people take to the streets instead of merely thousands, in part because of the virality and organizing tools of social media, which makes the protests much more powerful as a signal that a huge mass of Americans are willing to brave police brutality or a pandemic to stand up. These protests happen nearly everywhere in America, whereas King travels specifically to Birmingham, a city which is “probably the most thoroughly segregated” and therefore one of the most unequal (King, 1963, p. 1). He states to the clergy that he is “in Birmingham because injustice is here” and “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”(King, 1963, p. 1). However, injustice exists everywhere in America, not simply in the most unjust city, and the decentralized and grassroots nature of the Black Lives Matter movement allows them to protest effectively in towns and cities across the country. Both the Black Lives Matter and King’s Civil Rights movement have proven effective in their respective time frames, so perhaps we now need a two pronged approach to both mobilize the entire nation and target specific populations and policies to affect real change in the decades to come.
Since the first slaves were forcibly brought to America in 1619, racism has existed in ever more subtle, yet pernicious ways and the fight for equality has continued. Once the oppressed Black Americans gained some semblance of a voice, their movement revolved around convincing those in power, white Americans, that the conditions of their life were unacceptable. In the 1960’s, Martin Luther King developed an effective method of opposition: a systematic, non-violent violation of unjust laws primarily focused on segregation (“Letter from Birmingham Jail”). Although very different, both King’s non-violence and Black Lives Matter’s approach, which organizes massive peaceful protests around police murders of non-threatening black people, have seen success in convincing white Americans of racism.
Non-violence in different forms continues to be used to overcome white moderates attempts to delay social change (“Letter from Birmingham Jail”). King described the process of using non-violence as methodical: with four escalating steps of planning, negotiating with the opposition, mentally preparing, and finally action (“Letter from Birmingham Jail”). In contrast, George Floyd’s murder, which was not intended to be an act of non-violence in the same systematic way, created one of the more impactful moments in Civil Rights history. As Floyd went shopping on that fateful day, he did not set out to make a noble statement, rather non-violence was forced upon him as his only response to a rigid and unrelenting police force which kills Black men at slight or no provocation. The monopoly of violence by the state is intended to protect its citizens, but in practice this often does not happen and the murder of a peaceful man unambiguously exposed this to the wider public. The purpose of non-violence was to “create such a crisis and foster such a tension that it can no longer be ignored”(King, 1963, p. 2). After many white moderates watched George Floyd murdered by torture through asphyxiation, they realized an undeniable tension between our ideals of the state and the reality of the law’s unequal application. This led to a huge swelling of support for Black Lives Matter and massive protests across the nation. In turn, these peaceful protesters were often brutalized by the police, further proving their argument.
Until the recent reckoning of many white people toward anti-racism, King’s disappointment at white moderates would have endured. King remarks “that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent, and determined action”(King, 1963, p. 6). Over the past decade, white moderates have largely not empathized with the oppressed and seesawed between anti-racist and racist causes: they swung from Obama (who represented a vision of an equal multi-racial society), to Trump (who capitalized on white fears of losing power), to now mostly supporting Black Lives Matter after George Floyd’s muder. The act of understanding is finally taking place through reading anti-racism books like “How to Be an Antiracist” by Ibram X. Kendi and much more dialogue between Black and white people, while action is shown through protests and efforts to defund the police. The tension generated from non-violence has spread from conversations about racist policing to nearly everywhere in life; white people are discovering racism in supposedly post-racial elite universities and conservative sports such as NASCAR are banning the Confederate flag. Although we don’t yet know whether white moderates’ strides toward a more just and equal society are permanent or temporary and if the discussion will progress to the economic inequality incurred by the ties between racism and unregulated capitalism, non-violence has proven effective in generating support for policing reform.
Black Lives Matter lacks the organization and leadership provided by King, which results in a less controlled and slower to act movement; however, when it acts, the scale is enormous. Black people were and are not monolithic in their views, and a central part of King’s movement was to direct the subgroups of uninterested, resigned and bitter people toward one strategy that he thought was best (“Letter from Birmingham Jail”). The first group felt disinterested toward the movement, as they had carved out comfortable lives for themselves despite or with the help of segregation. The other two groups had reacted to the many years of oppression in very different ways: one saw no hope in gaining equality and the other felt violence was the only option (“Letter from Birmingham Jail”). King attempted to control the latter two saying, “we need to emulate neither the ‘do nothingism’ of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist”(King, 1963, p. 6). Today, some people seeking to destroy or loot businesses have joined the peaceful protesters, and many national Black leaders have mostly futilely called upon them to stop. It's clear that the lack of a King-like figure in the Black Lives Matter movement can lead to uncontrollable segments. In addition, without a central leader, the threshold of action is much higher and more inconsistent, as they are not constantly urged toward action but rather are more self motivated. So when people take action today, their anger is explosive and much more ubiquitous, caused by simmering frustration and an unambiguous atrocity. Millions of people take to the streets instead of merely thousands, in part because of the virality and organizing tools of social media, which makes the protests much more powerful as a signal that a huge mass of Americans are willing to brave police brutality or a pandemic to stand up. These protests happen nearly everywhere in America, whereas King travels specifically to Birmingham, a city which is “probably the most thoroughly segregated” and therefore one of the most unequal (King, 1963, p. 1). He states to the clergy that he is “in Birmingham because injustice is here” and “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”(King, 1963, p. 1). However, injustice exists everywhere in America, not simply in the most unjust city, and the decentralized and grassroots nature of the Black Lives Matter movement allows them to protest effectively in towns and cities across the country. Both the Black Lives Matter and King’s Civil Rights movement have proven effective in their respective time frames, so perhaps we now need a two pronged approach to both mobilize the entire nation and target specific populations and policies to affect real change in the decades to come.