3. Strain, Christopher Barry. “Civil Rights and ... - Freedom Archives

action did so through a redefinition of each . To them, self-defense represented a direct
means of combating disrespect-an assertion of self-while nonviolence represented a
tactic of protest and social reform, independent from moral discipline or piety. By being
willing to fight and showing it, they felt they might not have to . Two points bear stress
here : first, the nonviolent ideal was just that-an ideal, something toward which to strive.
In practice, nonviolence presented a number of problems easily solved by pragmatic
remedies such as the practice of self-defense . The question for civil rights activists
centered upon what could be gained by abnegating self-defense. Second, not all Afro-
Americans shared the vision of a nonviolent world in which blacks and whites could
come together to mend their broken past . The rhetoric of Malcolm X, and his adamance
regarding self-defense, brought these two points into sharp focus, particularly during the
period 1963-1964.
During this same period, the use of guns for self-protection by civil rights activists
raised a question singularly important to all social movements-namely, whether or not
the denial of basic civil and human rights legitimates the use of violence . Certainly by
1964, but also well before (indeed, since the initial stirrings of the struggle for black
equality), the question of violence anchored all debate regarding what the course of
resistance should be . It remains, in many respects, an unanswered question .
Self-defense, like nonviolence, had its own moral ascendancy. While not as
superior as nonviolence in its claim to morality, self-defense fit within a Western tradition
of natural law and constitutional acceptability. On the other hand, excusing the violent
acts of the oppressed might have robbed these same individuals of the dignity they sought
195