The Civil Rights Movement is one of the most studied periods in American history. Historians often look to determine what sparked to make the biggest impact on the movement. Major players often studied in today's time include Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King, Jr. King is often the figure that most Americans associate with the Civil Rights Movement. King is often remembered by many for leading the non-violent protests in the movement, and for being against the use of violence. Kings speech the "The World House" and "Letter to Martin Luther King" on April 12, 1963 show that King was a supporter of non-violence and coming together as equals. However, An article published in The Washington Post recently, "Don't criticize Black Lives Matter for provoking violence. The civil rights movement did, too," argues that King embraced violence and needed it in order to get things to change.   Therefore, while King will always be known as a leader of a great nonviolent movement, he did make use of the violence and disrupted complete peace in order to achieve his goals contrary to popular view.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s, "The World House" was one of his most influential pieces. In this piece, King argues that people need to all come together, and not only black and whites, but rather everyone. King argues that the world needs to become a better place than it is today, and in order to do so we need to get rid of all divisions that exist. He argues that people should not divide themselves based on race, gender, religion, or any other aspect that might make us different from someone else. In order to achieve this goal he makes it clear that it should happen peacefully and not happen through violence or any type of force. In "The World House", King also discusses a war on poverty that needs to happen throughout the world. King knows that people will not continue to be pushed down and that revolution and change is bound to happen at some point. Just like we need to come together in race, King argues that people need to come together in wealth. According to King, the countries that are affluent need to help those who are not as prosperous. The main goal of "The World House" is to assert that divisions should not exist but rather be broken in all aspects and across the globe. In this piece King is pleading for people to not fight or cause problems, but rather all be citizens of America who are equal and come together as one.

In April of 1963, a group of clergymen wrote King a letter about their feelings about the civil rights movement and what was happening. These men strongly agree with King's stance on peacefulness and coming together as Americans, and this can be seen in their writing. The group wants to develop and take a new approach to the civil rights movement that did not include the violence that was happening in Alabama. The clergymen see the acts of violence as unintelligent and unnecessary, and believe the people need to wait and not be so persistent. They say that the violence is not solving anything and that they need to wait for discussions to happen, so that the leaders are able to get things done. They see peaceful negotiations working better than physical altercations. They want to get the laws changed in meetings and not fight the police about it. They want the black population to stop being violent, according to them it is useless and they try to make this point in their letter.  They plea by saying " We further strongly urge our own Negro population to withdraw support from these demonstrations" (Letter to MLK 7).  It is not surprising that the clergymen feel this way about violence and are more attracted to the peaceful method. However, this violence and disruption of peace is the only thing causing officials to even negotiate civil rights with African American leaders and the do not recognize it. So while they must be against it publically, they should acknowledge that it is helping them to get things changed.  Overall, These clergymen just want to stop violence so that they can get negotiations done easily, but they don't fully understand their need for some violence.

The last piece that I looked at was an article recently published in The Washington Post about the Black Lives Matter organization. The Black Lives Matter protest occurred during the civil rights era and involved large amounts of violence. This article states that while Kings movement is now seen as nonviolent, that this was not the case during the time.  Simone Sebastian, the author of this article, argues that there were African Americans who did not agree with King and argued that he started riots. People often think that all African Americans supported King and what he was trying to do, however this article shows that this is not the case. Sebastian says that Kings use of little kids to march and his march on Washington can both be seen as ways of violent protest, which is against most things ever taught. Sebastian argues that King needed violence in order to achieve what he wanted to. Sebastian ends her argument by saying that the civil rights era was filled with violence and protest, and she says that none of it was peaceful. Overall, Sebastian's point is that without violence nothing gets done and King did use violence to his advantage. 

In light of The Washington Post's article, which argues that violence was present and involved with King, "The World House" and " The Letter to Martin Luther King" both argue against this unpopular view. While Martin Luther King Jr. was advocating for nonviolence he needed this violence in order to get things done, and this is Sebastian's main point. If King just tried to negotiate every time then he would have never gotten anything done, because with the violence present people feared what was going to happen if the issue was not resolved. King was a major supporter of nonviolence and this is very evident in his speeches and the letter written to him. However, whether he liked it or not the violence did help him to achieve his goal of getting rights for African Americans. King is often portrayed as using no violence and arguing against it, however I agree with Sebastian in her points that King needed the violence. King may have truly not liked the violence, but nobody would have ever listened to him if the violence was not present. In my opinion, no leader during that time would have cared about what King was saying, if they did not have to worry about a riot or destruction of property. Also, in my opinion King's peaceful marches caused some issues in society, because they were large and caused disorder. They were nonviolent, however they did bring fear about their safety and caused disruption to cities, which is justifiable either. I agree that King was a great man and did not advocate for any harm or want to start violent protest, but he did make use of it in order to get attention for his speeches and marches and caused a little himself.

Martin Luther King Jr. is a revolutionary figure when it comes to the civil rights movement and will forever be an American Legend. His argument for the stop of violence in the civil rights era will always be highly thought of and respected, as he was able to get many things done for his supporters. However, Sebastian's argument that the violence was present and used by King is valid and true in my opinion. Kings nonviolent marches can be interpreted as a use of protest and King used the protest and violence occurring to his advantage in his fight for equal rights. King can even being seen as causing a little disruption and using it to his advantage to make change, yet he will forever be a vital player in the civil rights movement who is well respected. Martin Luther King Jr. had his belief that violence was unnecessary; and even if he was unaware he needed it, his use can be seen in Simone Sebastian's article.

