L Lunch counter sit-ins, public pool wade-ins and white-only church pray-ins were the direct tactics used by nonviolent strategists to combat the American Apartheid known as “Jim Crow.” The 1950’s launched some of the first successful attempts at dismantling legislated white supremacy, and a central player in this movement was the African American church (Janken, Kenneth R. The Civil Rights Movement, 2015). The goals were clear: The Civil Rights Movement sought to redefine American society and redistribute social and economic power. However, these goals were executed by organizing a stratagem that would most certainly be met with brutal violence on the part of the establishment; violence that was seemingly required to recognize the injustices faced by the oppressed.
This violence has followed us into modern times; today we are collectively inundated with racial violence and oppression on the local and federal level in black communities throughout North America. In response to this several interest groups have emerged including the controversial “Black Lives Matter Movement (BLM).” Their methods have been called “ignorant, violent and divisive” by members of the white community as well as those of the black community. Interestingly, the role of the African-American church in the post-1960’s Civil Rights Movement has drastically changed, and the BLM has received scathing criticism from some civil rights activists from the 1960’s who feel that “BLM seems intent on rejecting [their] proven methods…[and] ignoring what our history has taught.” The BLM is known for having a lot of "leaders and goals" and outright rejecting "leadership ideals and disruption that has been historically proven to be effective" for their own tactics of disruption (like holding up traffic on the 405 freeway) that they feel to be what makes them sustainable (Smiley, Travis Interview with Melina Abdullah). There is something unsuccessful about their methods because some of the main goals they have been fighting for since approximately 2013 have not even been entertained, such as the removal of LA police chief Charlie Beck and the "pressing" of President Obama to address specific BLM issues. Neither of those has happened.
Has the BLM adopted an attitude of today’s situation not being like “our grandparents’ civil rights movement?” Are these struggles that different and does the BLM know what it needs to succeed?
To some extent, the inspiration for BLM is not that different from the earlier civil rights movements--they are interested in ending state-sanctioned violence against black people in all forms, but they do see this as a separate time for black people with contemporary needs. Things are different from the 1960’s, but it is also true that we collectively and textually reduce the efforts of the Civil Rights Movement to a heroic figure and four words: Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and "I have a dream.” Dr. King’s historical narrative is remembered as nonviolent and even passive; as someone whose cause was informed by his religious philosophy. However, magnifying racial injustice and violence were Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s strategy. He was heavily influenced by Mohandas Gandhi who also used passive resistance as the only moral means of fighting oppression. Gandhi’s momentum-driven mass mobilizations promoted change in ways that were confusing when viewed with the assumptions and biases of mainstream politics. From beginning to end — in both the way in which he structured various demands and the way in which he brought his campaign to a close — Gandhi utterly confused the more prevalent political operatives of his time. The movements under his direction rocked the stronghold of British expansionism.
Similarly, MLK Jr. received detracting responses and admonishments, if not worse, for assembling black children in what is historically known as “The Children’s Crusade (Janken, Kenneth R., 2015).” Using innocent children to march against the police with their batons drawn and German shepherds on leashes lunging towards them was what changed the way that the crushing effects of segregation, lynchings, and beatings were viewed by the United States and the world. It is as if only the most distressing forms of violence moved the hearts of onlookers and jolted legislators and politicians. For those of us who look to understand the social movements of today and those who wish to redefine society, questions about how to navigate a campaign’s success and when it is time to declare victory remains as crucial as ever. To us all in the struggle for freedom, Gandhi may still have something useful and unexpected to say.
In returning to the racial tensions of today, will this same passive-resistance to state-sanctioned violence work? What role does the African-American church play in influencing BLM social actions? Could the methods used by BLM today to win justice and freedom stand to be informed by Hindu-Christian dialogue?
The recurring themes of restorative justice, religion, and nonviolence, human rights, injustice and activism in our collective experience deserve as well as demand exploration.
To explore these themes, we must be able to try something new. Can we collectively dedicate space to understanding and critically analyzing the sociopolitical aspects of the BLM in relationship to Hindu-Christian dialogue on social action? We can make great strides by seeking to theorize about the need for values rooted in compassionate interreligious philosophy. The necessary critical inquiry begins by investigating who acknowledges the socio-political messages of the BLM; the “blind spots” in our perceptions of nonviolence as an observer and society at large; the impact of such opinions on society at large; and the plight of the violently oppressed.
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.--Dr. MLK Jr.
(Please contact me for a complete list of references.)
