Nonviolence

Two years after working as a civil rights worker in Mississippi, I marched for open housing with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr in Chicago. The march into a Southwest neighborhood that was all white was nonviolent, but the reaction of the crowd was not.

We marched about eight abreast, with men on the outside closer to the angry neighbors protesting our presence in their community. I recall a large young man who was shaking all over, in his rage, as he jabbed his finger at me and shouted, "I'll kill you! I'll kill you!"

Our cars parked at a nearby public park were smashed and burned that day, so after the march the Chicago police brought in school buses to move us out of the neighborhood. Women were bused out first, and I recall leaving the area in the last bus. With stones shattering the windows, scattering broken glass over our backs as we huddled on the floor, the bus ran the gauntlet until, ironically, we were safe within the Black ghetto of Chicago's Southside.

Dr. King and the rest of us on this march were condemned by many citizens of Chicago for provoking the violence that occurred in response to the march for non-discrimination in housing.

Clearly, nonviolent protest in defense of an ethical principle may trigger violence as an unintended consequence. Yet, backing away from asserting an ethical principle because of the possibility of violence empowers those who embrace violence as a tactic to resist justice. There are times when patience is prudent, but prudence as a virtue should not be valued more than asserting and protecting fundamental rights.

Today in the United States violence and allusions to violence are being used to undermine respect for the rule of law. Were Dr. King with us, he would be marching not merely for civility, although this is crucial for the rule of law, but also for the rights that protect our human dignity and promise its realization within our society.

With hope . . . Bob