Racial Injustice and Peaceful Protest: Using Nonviolence to Enact Social Change

Like many of you, I’ve been deeply unsettled this week about the circumstances regarding the death of George Floyd. And, like many of you, I’ve felt overwhelmed about the subsequent societal backlash and deafening outcries of racial inequality.

Thankfully, I’ve been able to take desperate hold of solid footing on the common ground that 1.) Most everyone agrees the death of George Floyd was tragic, and 2.) Most everyone agrees the subsequent rioting and looting in Minneapolis, and then across the country (including our own Salt Lake City), is not as appropriate a response as we could have hoped.

But that doesn’t mean that protesting can’t enact social change, or that “peaceful protests” are always without violent conflict. It just means that rioting isn’t an effective way to make a positive difference on social issues.

It’s been interesting for me to watch my peers struggle against the seeming dichotomy that those who desperately want to resist racism in the United States are wrong to vandalize public spaces in protest, but also that they are right to send the message that racial injustice is intolerable.

This isn’t necessarily a dichotomy, however – contrary to its name, “nonviolent” movements often involve violence. Many a protest during Martin Luther King Jr.’s Civil Rights Movement turned to violent conflict as well.

But not all unrest is created equal, and the rioting we’ve seen across the country the last few days will not bring about the social change protestors seek.  

To Enact Social Change, Protests Must Be Structured

These inefficient protests often occur because protesters don’t understand Peaceful Protest (“nonviolence”) as a construct, or how to use it to enact social change. While kneeling during a national anthem or marching with a group down a city square can be a powerful show of solidarity, it won’t lead to social change unless two important criteria are met.

First, the protestors must set a very specific goal, and communicate it. During the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr. carefully orchestrated one protest at a time to achieve one goal at a time. The lunch counter sit-ins were to desegregate restaurants. The march at Selma was to give Blacks the right to vote.

When a goal is set and communicated before a protest, protestors have the leverage they need to enact change. That is, they can say, “We will continue to sit at these lunch counters until you desegregate them.” This gives the opposing group the opportunity to make the protestors’ desired social change.

Second, the protestors must not, under any circumstance, initiate (or engage in) violence. During the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr. and other leaders of his movement spent a significant amount of time training their protestors not to retaliate when confronted with hate speech or violence from non-protestors.

Refraining from violence gives protestors leverage as well. Law enforcement officers in the United States are not generally supposed to attack unarmed individuals who are not wielding a weapon or behaving recklessly. If the protestors engage in violent conflict, however, they put themselves at risk for justified violent retaliation.

By remaining nonviolent while engaging in an illegal act, like sitting at a segregated lunch counter, protestors are saying, “You can arrest and imprison as many of us as you’d like (for breaking this law), but our seat will be replaced by another for as long as it takes for these counters to become desegregated (i.e., until the change is made).”

Nonviolence Cannot Be Fought with Violence

Unfortunately, many nonviolent movements in history have been met with unnecessary violence, the Civil Rights Movement included. Selma is a specifically heartbreaking example of peaceful protestors being met with physical force.

Records like this always make me think of the account in the Book of Mormon where the Lamanites, after becoming converted to God, bury their weapons and refuse to take up arms against their enemies – even as they lay on the ground, defenseless, to be slain:

And thus we see that, when these Lamanites were brought to believe and to know the truth, they were firm, and would suffer even unto death rather than commit sin; and thus we see that...they buried their weapons of war, for peace. 

 

And it came to pass that their brethren, the Lamanites, made preparations for war, and came up to the land of Nephi for the purpose of...destroying the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi out of the land. 

Now when the people saw that they were coming against them they went out to meet them, and prostrated themselves before them to the earth, and began to call on the name of the Lord; and thus they were in this attitude when the Lamanites began to fall upon them, and began to slay them with the sword. [The word “prostrate” means: to lay oneself flat on the ground face downward, especially in reverence or submission.] 

And thus without meeting any resistance, they did slay a thousand and five of them... 

Now when the Lamanites saw that their brethren would not flee from the sword, neither would they turn aside to the right hand or to the left, but that they would lie down and perish, and praise God even in the very act of perishing under the sword— 

Now when the Lamanites saw this they did forbear from slaying them; and there were many whose hearts had swollen in them for those of their brethren who had fallen under the sword. 

(Alma 24:19-24)

This account illustrates an important aspect of why nonviolent movements are effective strategies against more powerful opponents: you can’t fight nonviolence with violence.

Truly nonviolent protestors cannot be persuaded to abandon their protest by resisting them with violence. Because of this, the opposing group – the group the protestors seek to change – must either 1.) slay all their unarmed opponents, 2.) lay siege and hope the protestors abandon their resolve, or 3.) give in to the protestors' demands (or work together to find a compromise).

Power Is As Power Does

Therefore, grassroots efforts do, in fact, have the power to fight a leader or government on a specific issue by simply refusing to uphold the laws that sustain that issue.

“The more is given [tyrants], the more they are obeyed, so much the more do they fortify themselves, become stronger and more able to annihilate and destroy. If nothing be given them, if they be not obeyed, without fighting, without striking a blow, they remain naked, disarmed and are nothing – like as the root of a tree, receiving no moisture or nourishment, becomes dry and dead.”

(Etienne de la Boetie, 1577)

Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begging the very thing it seeks to destroy.”

I do not mean to suggest that as citizens we should all disregard our laws – both civilians and law enforcement officers have a duty to keep and uphold (generally) their country’s laws, for this structure provides peace and stability to the greater community. I mean only to suggest that on specific matters of social change, where the laws or government have failed its constituents, the people have the power to resist that government on that issue by orchestrating a meticulously planned and carefully executed nonviolent movement.

But, to reiterate, that does not mean rioting. In 1966, Martin Luther King Jr. referred to rioting as the "language of the unheard." Riots under the guise of “protesting injustice” is destructive, divisive, and too vague to enact lasting social change. For example, regarding this week’s rioting and looting, it’s not clear exactly what outcome the rioters are after – what does “less racial injustice” look like? How will they know if we have achieved this as a community?

Instead, perhaps, these protestors could have organized sit-ins or marches in cities around the world to demand the imprisonment of ex-Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin for the death of George Floyd, and determined to continue those sit-ins or marches until that came to pass. Or gathered in city streets every day during rush hour until police force labor unions were disintegrated in their state.

Peace and Conflict

In matters of social injustice and nonviolent retaliation, it’s important to remember that "peace" is not the absence of conflict. We achieve peace by learning how to resolve conflict.

In other words: peace is a(n ongoing) process; it's not a destination. Oftentimes, this means engaging in and embracing non/violent conflict as we (as a society) move more toward a more peaceful social environment.

Ever since I was a kid, Martin Luther King Jr. has been one of my heroes. I’ve always been deeply moved by his tenacity and leadership, and awed by the (nonviolent) Civil Rights Movement he led in the United States. The more I learn about nonviolence, the more I believe it can be a useful strategy for enacting social change when properly executed.

One of my favorite classes in my graduate program was Nonviolence Theory and Practice. In the required reading for the course, I came across this passage that immediately impacted me, and has stayed with me since:

“It is often assumed that the choice of nonviolent resistance is made for moral reasons, but the historical record suggests otherwise. Most who used nonviolent action in the twentieth century did so because military or physical force was not a viable option. Some simply lacked sufficient arms to mount a violent revolt; others had recently seen a violent insurrection fail, with devastating results for life and property. But since people’s most vital interests were at stake, and because they were determined to take down the rulers or laws that withheld their rights, they were impelled to take up other, nonviolent weapons. Those who used nonviolent action…did not come to make peace. They came to fight.”

(A Force More Powerful, Peter Ackerman and Jake Duvall)

It is possible to wage war via nonviolence, but it must be done carefully – not with “protests” turned to riots, but with careful planning, execution, and tenacity. The fight against racial injustice and inequality in the United States is a worthy fight, but vandalizing cities and antagonizing law enforcement officers will not result in any meaningful change to our socioeconomic environment.

To resolve violence in our communities, we must be the change we seek. We should exemplify the core principles of nonviolence: standing steadfastly against injustice, but without raising arms and contributing to the very problem we’re seeking to resolve with our protest.

This is how we can use the power we have to change our society in positive ways, for generations to come.