Hello, I wanted to get Martin Luther King Jr.'s name in there since his name is synonymous with the civil rights movement. Although I know there were other African-American leaders involved in the movement.
But was this movement a series of peaceful, nonviolent protests like we are lead to believe? Every time protests and riots break out in recent years due to police brutality and murder (usually towards African Americans) people are so rampant to point to King Jr. and tell everyone they need to "protest peacefully" to accomplish anything. Was that really how it was done in the past? (This meme/propaganda picture can illustrate where I'm coming from.
Thank you.
Good question.
King's protests often incited violence against them. Many whites in the south were outraged at the protests and would attack and beat protesters. King and his supporters knew that the protests would likely become violent and they were on the most part very disciplined in not retaliating.
While the protests themselves were non-violent, the very act of marching or attempting to register to vote was seen as a massive provocation by local whites, who often used violent means to suppress them. Civil Rights activists were seen as the instigators of the violence against them. King himself was often blamed for riots that occurred.
Depends on what side of the police barriers you were on. Honestly, not kidding.
That was a time, similar to modern days, in which a police presence provoked violence from anyone, regardless of the sides.
Civil Rights protesters saw police as hampering down on their freedoms, while counter-protesters saw police as allowing the, for lack of a better term, societal threats to be allowed to protest.
Just depended on the protest, who was there, and how passionate the individual members of each side were. It was almost unanimously a tiny minority on BOTH sides that provoked violence.