Interlude: The Paradox of Nonviolence

Abstract

Throughout his public career, King was criticized because the nonviolent protests he led often generated violence. In the wake of the Birmingham campaign, journalist Reese Cleghorn wrote that King knew well that ‘the “peaceful demonstrations” he organized would bring, at the very least, tough repressive measures by the police’.¹ When Time magazine chose King as ‘Man of the Year’ for 1963, its feature article contained the following observation: ‘King preaches endlessly about nonviolence, but his protest movements often lead to violence’.² When King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in December 1964, U.S. News & World Report, in an article entitled ‘Man of Conflict Wins a Peace Prize’, remarked that many Americans believed it ‘extraordinary that this prize should go to a man whose fame is based upon his battle for civil rights for Negroes — and whose activities often lead to violence’.³ A 1965 article in the conservative National Review, entitled ‘The Violence of Nonviolence’, charged that King’s campaigns, depending upon ‘the provocation of violence’, constituted a ‘violent assault upon representative, constitutional government’.⁴ Three years later, shortly after King announced plans for the Poor People’s Campaign, the National Review assailed what it called King’s ‘insurrectionary methods’, and solemnly warned of impending ‘anarchy’.⁵