Tangent on: How Nonviolence Protects the State Chapter: Nonviolence is Racist [Regarding MLK] Author: Peter Gelderloos Published: 2007 / South End Press personal tags: #HNvPtS
To avoid a lengthy tangent in my upcoming discussion of the stated chapter (above) due to random research regarding yet another choice of footnote, I'm just going... to put it here because it's something I don't really need to address with regards to Peter's writing but is mostly focused on the footnote chosen that I think could've been better by picking a more popular source.
So another footnote refers to this interview with Alex Haley, which I find interesting because we know that Alex Haley often embellished and had a number of scandals (primarily with regards to Roots). Similar questions have been put forward as of at least 2023 regarding the manufacturing of the intensely hostile relationship between MLK and Malcolm X, which is courtesy of research done by Jonathan Eig. Additionally, there are questions surrounding The Autobiography of Malcolm X, too. The part that Peter takes is as follows, which isn't part of the conversation around whether or not Alex Haley changed them (but I'm not sure if Eig ever outlined how much was changed beyond the entry around Malcolm X):
Apart from bigots and backlashers, it seems to be a malady even among those whites who like to regard themselves as “enlightened.” I would especially refer to those who counsel, “Wait!” and to those who say that they sympathize with our goals but cannot condone our methods of direct-action in pursuit of those goals. I wonder at men who dare to feel that they have some paternalistic right to set the timetable for another man’s liberation.
Over the past several years, I must say, I have been gravely disappointed with such white “moderates.” I am often inclined to think that they are more of a stumbling block to the Negro’s progress than the White Citizen’s Counciler [sic] or the Ku Klux Klanner.
There's also this interview with Manning Marable on Democracy Now... which is weird? This whole thing surrounding Alex Haley is weird, and it's hard to dig into it.
I would've just been “lazy” and used MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail because it makes the same point, though it does it with a less punchy structure (ironically). Such as:
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”
And:
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Considering at least part of this is almost identically phrased, it does make me wonder about Alex Haley's interview.
Not to mention, part of it amusingly contradicts Peter's points on nonviolence (whether he cares or not):
In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.
And:
You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.
In these paragraphs, MLK positively discusses nonviolent direct action and how the nonviolent actions create tension. We know this through any movement, through any nonviolent actions. Mumia even wrote a whole lot about this in We Want Freedom because he talked about the nonviolent programs the Black Panthers ran: free breakfasts, clinics, etc.
The fact that Peter doesn't see these as “nonviolent” makes me question his understanding of terminology. The education we receive in a school is inherently violent, especially for the many marginalised people having it coerced on them... but creating a community center with many learning options is not inherently violent. However, it will be treated with hostility by the state.
Does he, then, take the state's word on what is and isn't violent if he doesn't realise that many marginalised communities constantly engage in nonviolent action all the time?