From 1909 – 2009 many different groups and people fought for the same cause, although these groups had different ideas and methods both these groups' aim was the end the crisis of civil rights and achieve equality between blacks and whites. Nobody did this better than the non – violent campaign, with leaders such as Booker T. Washington, the NAACP, and martin Luther King which inspired the whole nation to take action for the many protests that took place to guide the path for civil rights today. However the strong, demanding actions of the militant counterparts would be remembered for years to come due to the payments of repudiations from the government to black Americans as compensation for slavery, this is still happening to this day. starting with Ida b wells, to ending with the black panther party they, made a radical change to civil rights which a non–violent way could never have done. However, both factors lost their loss with non–violent when martin Luther King was assassinated and militant with the repression of the black panther party. Overall non – violence was more effective in securing meaningful political social and economic change due to the bad light militancy put on black people as being violent, therefore making nonviolent the most successful way
Going back to the start of the civil rights movement we begin with Booker T Washington in 1909 whose ‘Strategy of accommodation provided self–respect and psychological comfort, Washington was offered the post of founder and head of an institute of higher education for blacks in Tuskegee, Alabama. This Helped to give several generations of blacks vocational education which increased their self-confidence and economic opportunities. ‘The Tuskegee sought advancement for African Americans....that did not threaten white supremacy’. , as well as providing education for the black children of America it did so in a peaceful way, however this institution taught them to ignore white people instead of dealing head-first with the issues of discrimination and desegregation. But not only did he provide new opportunities for children he also created opportunities for business owners too as he created the national negro business league which was formed in 1900 and promoted the commercial and financial development of negros. “he advocated a tactical retreat to prepare the way for a strategic advance “ Booker T Washington used a pragmatic approach to the advancement of civil rights. In which he Intended to focus on self-improvement rather than to challenge issues that would cause a white-black lash. This helped to improve the image of African Americans within society.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
However, a strong force known as the NAACP could demonstrate more towards the non–violent aspect of civil rights it was founded In 1909 and had gained 600,000 members by 1946. This shows the power of the movement and that more people were fighting for equality and wanted their rights. There are many achievements that the NAACP achieved for black civil rights, one of the first ones was the banning of the grandfather clause, the grandfather clause gave rights to only people who had descendants that were able to vote which allowed them to. Banning this law showed that people were starting to stand up to racist behavior. The NAACP's next victory was one of the biggest of all time as it made a change for American Africans like no other and that is, brown v Board of Education, this was where the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional. This demonstrated to everyone that the split between black and white was no longer going to be accepted and that through non-violent protests big changes were being made to the African community. Furthermore, the NAACP later went on to help pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ultimately ended discrimination in all environments. To this day the NAACP is still in action to campaign for civil rights, showing an ever-lasting legacy that has fought its way through everything to still be here today. However, The NAACP struggled to recruit an effective leader until 1996 when Congressman Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic Congressman from Maryland and former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, was named the organization's president which began to downfall of the organization Three years later the strained finances forced the organization to drastically cut its staff, from 250 in 1992 to 50. In the second half of the 1990s, the organization restored its finances, permitting the NAACP National Voter Fund to launch a major get-out-the-vote offensive in the 2000 U.S. presidential elections. 10.5 million African Americans cast their ballots in the election; this was one million more than four years before. The NAACP's effort was credited by observers as playing a significant role in Democrat Al Gore's winning several states where the election was close, such as Pennsylvania and Michigan
Finally, the final element to non–-violent protests, is the leader we can't forget, Martin Luther King “In any non–violent campaign there are four basic steps; a collection of the facts to determine whether injustice exists, negotiations, self-purification, and direct action”. He determined the high point of civil rights, the era that produced much change in the fight for equality. King is most famous for the Montgomery bus boycott which saw buses be desegregated, the movement lasted 381 days and led to the Supreme Court decision that segregation on public buses was unconstitutional. The letter released after the Supreme Court ruling talking about the Montgomery bus boycott written by Martin Luther king, suggested to the black community that he wanted peace that peace was the answer, not violence, and that he expected none of his followers to undertake any sort of violence. However, he begins to move onto more specific suggestions like “do not sit next to a white person” which shows there is still tension between the two races and that although this protest had been a big achievement it showed that whites still had the power and the upper hand. This source is valuable as it shows the effects of non-violent activism and that it was effective and a method that could be used to solve segregation issues in American at the time. Although it takes a long time for change to happen this way, it led to change with had a massive impact on the future of American civil rights with the Supreme Court ruling which would have changed the lives of many black people all over. Their resilience to change would have inspired others to keep going for change and equality. Racism and white supremacy however haven’t changed, the whites still held power and fear over blacks as they were told not to sit with whites and just let the whites do what they want and to not respond to it. This proved to be the pivotal movement for Martin Luther King to become the well-known leader he is, it proved he could bring the black community together through peaceful protests that influenced change. However, some people's views of him could differ “protest movements arose in which king had little or no direct involvement “ suggesting that even though he brought a lot of the protest movements around such as Birmingham, the freedom rides, and the Greensborough sit-ins he had no actual involvement in the protests himself. Although that could be counter-argued when talking about the march on Washington, he was the main center of the protest and made the speech “ I Have a Dream “ which had and will be remembered in terms of the civil rights movement for decades to come. Overall King didn’t make the civil rights movement, but he did push for equality even if he was involved or not he wanted equal rights for African Americans, and the campaigns he produced proved him to be a successful leader, and the non-violent campaign was successful in pushing for equality.
Overall non-violent protests helped progress the civil rights movement for people who agreed with a more Suttle action, however, some African Americans wanted immediate change and this was seen from the militant approach to fight for civil rights which proved quick and effective change.
Ida B. Wells begins the idea of a militant approach as she was known for being “militant before militancy”, she showed her militant approach through her passion to stop lynching through the publications and lectures she wrote, which ultimately led to a reduction in lynching internationally. Although she took a militant approach this was not seen as much as her counter partners such as the black panther party which patrolled the streets armed to protest what they wanted to get across. However, her fearless campaigning led to the “starting point of the modern civil rights movement” which influenced other leaders to take action and allow for much more widespread change than she was ever personally able to make.
As time progressed bigger figures emerged with militant action such as the nation of Islam which promoted racial unity, self-help, and a strict code of discipline among its members which showed unity and organization as well as joint goals for civil rights“ coverts to the nation took a pride in themselves and their community”. When the leader Malcolm X came to power it influenced the party to become much more radical, which made it appeal to a much larger audience, as Malcolm drew early attention to the dreadful conditions in ghettos and brought American blacks more closely in contact with oppressed black people throughout the world. He made many speeches about militancy promoting it as “the ballot or the bullet” that lives a well-known speech today through his strong words of black nationalism helping the fight for civil rights. Although the nation of Islam soon came to a downfall once Malcolm X left, they didn’t have the same impact as what he produced into the membership. However, a bigger and better party emerged an was known as the black panther party.
Formed by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton, the black panthers emerged. The Panthers published their “10-point plan” in 1966. The source has shown that the black panther party wanted more than just police brutality they wanted black rights to be changed and they wanted equality. Even though they took a different approach than people like Booker T. Washington, the outcome was still the same equality for black people and the same rights as white people.
It shows that African Americans felt like they couldn’t be free while white institutes were in charge of them and That they targeted the federal government for the issues due to the fact they were the ones who could make the change and therefore directed a lot of the plans towards them. The source is valuable in showing that there were still many things that black people weren’t entitled to during 1966 and that the civil rights movement was still a big progress for change shown through groups like the black panther party it also Shows the more radical approach towards getting what they want, as before they didn’t demand chance they tried to get people to accept but in this source show that they were telling anyone reading this letter what they wanted and how that was going to happen. The Marxist ideology might have affected the value of the source as they believed that the police victimized the working class and in this case, the blacks therefore are very biased about the ideas of police brutality and the facts that occurred what happened. Therefore the source's values decreased due to the biased nature of the party and outlook on wrong and right and because they were black they were going to get discriminated against therefore wanted more to make them feel in control.
Overall militancy was a world of two halves as it helped progress change but it also portrayed black people in a bad light due to their violent nature, militancy helped to increase black pride help establish a powerful voice for black people in terms of making powerful change.
When examining the significance of federal action in the progress of African-American civil rights, it is important to acknowledge that this is not a narrative that climbed inexorably upward. As well as great instances of advancement, there were times when the lot of African-Americans deteriorated, or when progress was lessened, by the actions of the federal government. Similarly, it is also vital to remember that said government consists of three branches: Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, and that this means talking of the federal government as a unitary authority presents a lack of both understanding and nuance.
The end of Reconstruction is greatly significant in determining the effect of federal authority on the struggle for civil rights; this view is afforded more credibility when considering the verdict of Manning Marable, who suggested in his How Capitalism Underdeveloped Black America: Problems in Race, Political Economy, and Society that Reconstruction ‘did not usher in a new period of Black economic expansion’.[1] This, when taken with the assessment of Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom – who wrote that ‘Basic civil rights were enforced in that brief period known as Reconstruction, but the effort to remake the South failed’[2] – suggests that the advances of the Reconstruction era were fragile. In one sense, this information would greatly increase the extent to which the federal government could be to blame for the decline in black civil rights in the immediate aftermath of the end of Reconstruction; after all, the gains achieved in that transient period of civil rights advancement were small does not diminish the culpability of those who prevent further advancement from occurring. (That many American politicians, both local and national, felt the continuation of Reconstruction to be unmanageable does diminish the strength of this criticism somewhat; but it must not be forgotten that the end of that era must be seen largely as a betrayal of African Americans – especially in the South – who were sometimes abandoned wholesale by their supposed allies in the federal government.)
It could be argued that the knowledge of Reconstruction’s failures or shortcomings may make the actions of the federal government appear less severe as regards the apparent betrayal mentioned above. If Reconstruction was doomed to fail – or so the argument goes – abandoning it does not seem to have been the proximate cause of its failure; rather, this was merely prudent – if abhorrent – policy. And there is some sense that historical figures must not be viewed solely through the prism of latter-day morality. (For one thing, such analysis often denigrates or traduces those who were radical in their times – and made great strides in the direction of progress – but whose opinions or actions would seem entirely unpleasant to a more modern audience. Lincoln exhibited racist attitudes in private; Jefferson owned slaves. But it could not be argued that the impact they had is in some way tarnished in every respect. These things are not black and white.)
That being said, however, it is clear that the negative effects of this stance were very great. They are evidenced by the fact that Reconstruction proved to be a mere temporary respite for many Southern African Americans, representing a brief interjection into a long history of disadvantage and oppression. Adam Fairclough (in his thoroughly impressive book Better Day Coming) writes that ‘[the Democrats] looked forward to the day when they could suppress the black vote entirely’.[3] He also notes, however, that they initially moved slowly, ‘fearing federal intervention’.[4] The implication of this is that, at least for a time, the federal government was seen as a bulwark against the erosion of black liberty. The end of Reconstruction, though, was dramatically to limit those fears, allowing the Southern Democrats and others more freedom over the running of their states. The freedom granted to Southern states allowed Southerners once again to pass laws that were detrimental to black civil rights. (And the heritage of the repressive actions and attitudes of these states can be seen in the fact that for many black Americans, there remains the constant threat in some Southern states of voting rights being rescinded or in some way attacked by otherwise anodyne legislation.)
There are further implications of the end of Reconstruction: if the federal government had extended Reconstruction, for one, could the nature of advancements in black civil rights have been sustained? Fairclough agrees with this sentiment; he states that ‘Johnson restored self-government to the South with indecent haste’.[5] This suggests that the role of the federal authorities – in this case, the Presidency specifically – was great both in the failure and the eventual end of Reconstruction.
Stuck on your essay?
