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

S-6 .
at the heart of his nonviolent message . To explain his philosophy, he divided violence
into three discrete categories : pure nonviolence, self-defense, and "the advocacy of
violence as a tool of advancement, organized as in warfare, deliberately and consciously"
Of these three, only the third did King condemn as damaging to a "real collective
struggle ." He preferred nonviolence as a method of mass social protest, but readily
admitted that it was the most difficult to perpetuate . He felt that the general populace
could not adhere to the strict discipline required of true nonviolence . Even Gandhi, King
noted, sanctioned self-defense for those unable to adopt pure nonviolence ; as Gandhi had
done, King refused to condemn self-defense outright. "When the Negro uses force in
self-defense," King wrote, "he does not forfeit support--he may even win it, by the
courage and self-respect it reflects ." King's tentative regard for self-defense grew out of
his pragmatism, his conception of black manhood, and especially his understanding of the
Christian tradition that, under the mantra "an eye for an eye ;' historically permitted
retaliatory violence . 33
Williams and King had a stormy relationship . In the press, each attacked the
other's approach to protest, but only to a certain extent: both realized that they were
involved in the same struggle and complemented each other's efforts ; both understood
that the threat of violence could be used as leverage . For example, Williams wrote :
"When our people become fighters, our leaders will be able to sit at the conference table
3S King, "The Social Organization of Nonviolence," j.iberatj~ 4 n7 (October 1959):
47