Half
a century ago, the Civil Rights movement made great strides through non-violent
protest. Led by Martin Luther King, non-violent marchers validated their plight
and protest through dignified acceptance of police brutality. Blacks were the
victims; whites the perpetrators. Obvious victims of injustice in the streets,
black marchers gained white support for removing injustice in law. When white
Americans saw peaceful blacks being beaten and trampled by the likes of Bull
Connor in Birmingham and Jim Clark in Selma, whites were forced to reexamine
their prejudices and laws. An entire generation, led by Lyndon Johnson and
Hubert Humphrey did just that.
However,
when black Americans turned to violence to accelerate change, they ended the
movement. In the midst of riots in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Cleveland, Chicago and Washington DC, white America stared at their
black & white TV sets and saw blacks as the perpetrators of violence. Although
King argued that “riots are self-defeating and socially destructive,” he was
ignored by the militants. Sympathy for civil rights evaporated.
Fast-forward
to Ferguson, Missouri. Regardless of the social ills revealed by the Michael
Brown case, the violence that followed will slow-down change. When the majority
of Americans see indiscriminate violence and destruction in high-definition on
their LED screens, the apologists of violence become invisible. American voters
are not social scientists. They believe what they see and what people with
credibility tell them. Had only peaceful protests followed, the leaders of those
protests would have credibility; they would have been heard. Now, with burning
buildings as backdrops, advocates for change can shout with rage and spew reams
of data -- the average American will not hear.
People
who think violence accelerates change need to think again. When the goal is
dialogue, violence is an inhibitor. Ferguson may be a metaphor for multiple
problems, but its turn to street violence is self-defeating.
