If you ask people on the street what they know about Martin Luther King, Jr., they'll probably wonder where you've stashed the hidden camera. But if you manage to get an answer, they'll likely say something about "civil rights," "peace," "equality"—maybe even something a little fancier, like "nonviolence." Nonviolence in its various forms—especially peaceful demonstration and boycott—was the center of MLK's philosophy and activist strategy.
In "I've Been to the Mountaintop," King reiterates his belief that violence is inferior to nonviolence as a means of effecting change; that violence makes it easy for oppressors to discredit their victims; and that violence compromises human unity in a way that threatens our very existence.
Questions About Violence
- In paragraphs 17–18, Dr. King emphasizes the potency of nonviolent resistance against violent oppressors. How does that work? Why do you suppose nonviolent action might be useful for creating change?
- Do you agree with MLK that nonviolence is always the best way to solve social and political problems, or do some problems require force? If so, how do we decide when to use force and when not to?
- Can you think of an example of nonviolent activism in the news recently? Did it take one of the forms Dr. King describes in this speech, or was it something else? What issue(s) was it addressing? Was it successful? Why or why not?
Chew on This
George Orwell once wrote that pacifists can't accept the possibility that "Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf." It's true: ultimately, nonviolence is ineffective unless backed with violence.
Whether it's effective or not, nonviolence is the only acceptable method for resolving social and political conflict while hanging onto the moral high ground.