Black Lives Matter's Approach

Black Lives Matter’s Approach is Contradictory to the Civil Disobedience of the Civil Rights Era Movement The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has risen in response to what is perceived to be unfair treatment of African Americans by police. The movement stemmed from a social media hashtage #BlackLivesMatter that generated a following and resulted in the formation of a social activist group—BLM.

The group’s objective is to “build local power and to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes” (Black Lives Matter). However, the interventionist method or approach of the BLM organization is more aggressive and hostile in terms of how it expresses itself, with many people viewing the BLM organization as similar to the Black Panthers, which advocated violence in order to achieve the desired change (Rankin).

While the perception may be wrong and BLM may not in fact advocate violence, the behavior and expressions of the group, whether on social media or in public demonstrations, is a far cry from the resistance movements of the Civil Rights Era where leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. called for non-violent protest and civil disobedience rather than raucous noise-making, interruptive demonstrations, and loud and aggressive opposition.

One of the main differences between the BLM movement and the Civil Rights Movement is that the latter was actively engaged in a unified effort in specific parts of the nation in a proactive effort to achieve a defined objective. The BLM movement, on the other hand, is largely reactive, with local groups and chapter assembling in response to an incident, usually when an unarmed black person is shot or killed by white police officers.

The BLM also originated as a social media phenomenon that then became a movement in real social terms with the group being founded and people pledging their support for the group, though the message of the group has altered in substance over time. Another difference is that the BLM movement emphasizes sloganeering whereas the Civil Rights movement emphasized civil disobedience through organized and even extended peaceful protests—such as the bus boycott and the March on Washington.

The BLM movement’s use of slogans has largely drawn criticism from those who feel it is mostly just a lot of noise coming from disaffected youths who do not know how to effectively channel their outrage in a meaningful or peaceful way so as to achieve real change in society (Rankin).

The problem with the BLM movement from this angle is that it does not have a leader like MLK, Jr., at its helm and thus it is more inclined to engage in protests and anthems that fail to reflect a serious or organized approach to an issue that needs to be addressed. For Barbara Reynolds, the issue with the BLM movement is that while the cause is justified and valid, the approach adopted by its members does not actually facilitate the aims and objectives of the BLM cause.

Instead, the group that defiantly asserts, “This ain’t your grandparents’ civil rights movement,” undermines its own credibility by being so brash (Reynolds). The Civil Rights Movement is still respected by people today for its meaningful and long-lasting impact, for its dedication to the cause of equal rights, and for the banding together of African Americans and Caucasians to peacefully organize and protest against an unjust system of forced segregation. The Civil Rights leaders were passionate but not rude or offensive.

They in turn were respected by leaders within the system and their role in society was thus influential.

The BLM leaders and members on the other hand seem to revel in their outbursts, in their defiant attitudes, in their vulgar and provocative expressions that are made from time to time, whether on social media or at protest sites, in the sometimes expressed anti-white verbalizations that cause others who might be sympathetic to the cause to step back and reassess whether the BLM movement is really of the same spirit as the Civil Rights Movement of the 20th century, when respect was earned and won by way of decent rhetoric, speeches that were moving because they inspired rather than threatened, and by way of the demeanor of those who sought the change.

As Reynolds argues, the BLM is different because “at protests today, it is difficult to distinguish legitimate activists from the mob actors who burn and loot. The demonstrations are peppered with hate speech, profanity, and guys with sagging pants that show their underwear. Even if the BLM activists aren’t the ones participating in the boorish language and dress, neither are they condemning it.” This failure to condemn the types of behavior that would have been abhorrent to Martin Luther King, Jr.

and other Civil Rights leaders puts the BLM in a negative light. It is viewed by many as being part of the problem instead of part of the solution for this reason. In conclusion, the BLM may have the right cause at heart, but its approach to bringing about change is mired in self-congratulatory sloganeering.