We were committed to the way of peace
"We are powerless in such a situation." (In a report form THe Free Press)
Before we went on any protest, whether it was sit-ins or the freedom rides or any march, we prepared ourselves, and we were disciplined. We were committed to the way of peace - the way of non-violence - the way of love - the way of life as the way of living. - John Lewis
About nonviolence
In the 1960s, I was a member of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). CORE was then led by James Farmer. We were probably best known for leading the freedom rides and the murders by the KKK in Mississippi of CORE workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner. I was a member of the Philadelphia (PA) chapter. I was the leader of civil rights organizations on the Penn State University campus. We were committed to nonviolent direct action. [1] and civil disobedience. Many in CORE were philosophically dedicated to nonviolence in all circumstances. Others, including me, believed it to be the appropriate strategy in the United States. Many of the local leaders had served in the Second World War or Korea. In 1963 I moved from the drill field at Quantico USMC to marching in the streets of Chester, Pennsylvania for the improvement of the schools in that city. We were often called Foot Soldiers. Our nonviolence was a mix of moral and strategic approaches.
I recall going through several days of training in nonviolence action. I think it was conducted by the Friends Service Committee. In lectures and role plays we prepared ourselves for verbal and physical abuse. We learned about loving our enemies and refusing to hate our opponents. We were fighting injustice, not other people. This is a 1963 CORE Rules for Action.
Here’s what I recall as the ways we would ensure non-violence in our demonstrations
You trained a number of people in how to be non-violent. It provided a kind of critical mass at the center of a demonstration that could set the climate. We didn't have the language of emotional intelligence training back then, but as I look back it’s clear that what we were doing was learning to manage our emotions.
You organized the demonstration so there were leaders who would step in and try to stop violence.
You advertised the action as a nonviolent demonstration. You established the expectation that all participants would be nonviolent.
If one of our own engaged in violence and could not be stopped, you walked away from the action. You did not provide cover for the violence.
Because the cause was just and righteous you showed your face, and you accepted the consequences if you engaged in civil disobedience.
You sang the music.
When we were sitting in, it was love in action. When we went on the freedom ride, it was love in action. The march from Selma to Montgomery was love in action. We do it not simply because it’s the right thing to do, but it’s love in action. That we love our country, we love a democratic society, and so we have to move our feet. - John Lewis
A comparison
I want to draw a comparison between what we are seeing in recent years during protests and what, in an earlier time, we knew to be possible. I'll be focusing that second part around John Lewis.
Mostly peaceful
I'm not sure when I first noticed the phrase, “mostly peaceful” attached to a demonstration that was partly peaceful and partly violent. It became common in 2020, we heard it a great deal in regard to the campus protests over the war in Gaza, and it is appearing again in relation to the events in Los Angeles and other cities.
Mostly peaceful? I think it's a phrase that came to be used by the more liberal media while the more conservative sources would refer to riots and insurrection. Is a form of political spin. It is phrasing in the service of an ideology.
I keep returning to Pope Leo's stance: (The church) “does not claim to possess a monopoly on truth, either in its analysis of problems or its proposal of concrete solutions.” and “Every ideology, no matter how perfect it may seem, ends up turning against the human person.” The Pope’s on the right track. Ideology stops discussion, cuts off curiosity, and makes us blind. There's no need for listening to others who disagree with us because we have the truth. “God is on our side” or we are “on the right side of history.” The arrogance is astounding. And we said it both from the right and the left. In the United States the left and the more traditional conservatives are inclined to ideology. A lot of Trump supporters don’t really have an ideology. They’re just angry about the way things are. We can see a lot of that in some of the movements on the left these days. I find myself wondering how all that is influenced by the number of Trump followers who claimed they are Christians but don’t go to church, they don’t practice. And on the left, well frequently they start out not believing or practicing.
One of the things I like about The Dispatch is they try to write in a manner that avoids ideology. They don't always succeed, but you can see the effort. The phrase they used recently in reference to what is going on in LA is “protests/riots.”
We studied what Gandhi attempted to do in South Africa, what he accomplished in India. We studied Thoreau and civil disobedience. We studied the great religions of the world. And before we even discussed a possibility of a sit-in, we had role-playing. We had what we called social drama. And we would act out. There would be Black and white young people, students, interracial group, playing the roles of African Americans, or be an interracial group playing the roles of white. And we went through the motion of someone harassing you, calling you out of your name, pulling you out of your seat, pulling your chair from under you, someone kicking you or pretending to spit on you. Sometimes we did pour cold water on someone, never hot — but we went through the motion. This was drama because we wanted to feel like they were in the actual situation, that this could happen. And we would tell people, whether young men or young women, that if you’ve been beaten, try to protect the most sensitive part of your body. Roll up, cover your head and look out for each other. So when the time came, we were ready. We were prepared. -John Lewis
Powerless to stop it
There were two reports this morning in The Free Press on the Los Angeles situation: Who Are the LA Protesters? (a video report) and ‘Delete That Photo or We’ll F— You Up’. The second report included this paragraph —
“The reality is that no protest is ever just one thing. I saw people who aimed to injure or even kill police officers, and who would have been happy to instigate massive civil unrest. This faction seemed to be outnumbered, though, by those who looked at what they were doing with disapproval but were powerless to stop it.”
The report offers what I see as a useful analysis of the dynamics taking place. My concern, however, was what I saw as a tilt toward victimhood. Allowing the demonstrators to feel and be powerless. To have a very limited agency in the situation — “looked at what they were doing with disapproval but were powerless to stop it.”
“Mostly peaceful” is intertwined with a sense of powerlessness.
What we see in many demonstrations is a large group of people gathered facing a line of police officers. The front line may be hostile and screaming insults or relatively quiet and disciplined. The first may create a climate friendly to violence, but in itself is not violent. In a number of situations in recent years, what we then say is actors behind the crowd facing the police engaging in destructive and sometimes violent action, e.g., damaging property, starting fires, throwing objects over the crowd at the police. In the LA situation, we have also seen simply chaotic crowds milling in the street, most of them doing nothing violent. Though some directly engage the police by throwing rocks. In both situations, we often hear that phrase, “mostly peaceful.”
Given my background in nonviolent direct action, it all makes me a bit crazy. Through my lens, what I see is a small number of people committed to violent action using the majority of demonstrators to protect them from arrest. And the majority allow themselves to be used in that manner. By doing that they in fact provide cover for the violence. Something like a mob channeling Pontius Pilate. They distance themselves from the violence, they wash their hands of it.
It’s simply not true that we are powerless in such a situation. In the immediate situation, when some segment of the demonstration turns toward violence, you walk away. You go home. Our disapproval of the violence requires us to undermine the chaos and the violence by leaving the scene. And in the broader picture, once we know how those inclined to violence will manipulate a crowd, we can insist on other norms that would encourage nonviolence, e.g., get training in nonviolent, direct action and/or emotional intelligence to better manage our emotions; help organized the demonstration so there will be leaders to step in and try to stop violence.; insist that all communications about the protest say it is a nonviolent demonstration; if a violence begins to break out step away from it do not provide cover for the violence; showed your face, and be prepared to accept the consequences if you engaged in civil disobedience; encourage the crowd to sing.
We were committed to the way of peace
Before we went on any protest, whether it was sit-ins or the freedom rides or any march, we prepared ourselves, and we were disciplined. We were committed to the way of peace - the way of non-violence - the way of love - the way of life as the way of living. John Lewis
That’s the alternative. What we see in so many current protests is what emerged as the influence declined of leaders like John Lewis, Diane Nash, Fannie Lou Hamer and Martin Luther King. If you were young and radical, change often seemed too slow. I do understand the attraction. Some of you may remember that in an earlier article I wrote about once having a poster on my wall that was Jesus looking like Che Guevara with a rifle over his shoulder and a halo over his head.
So in many places, we entered into “by any means necessary,” liberation struggles outweighed liberal democracy, Israel became the enemy and antisemitism on the left was back in fashion, we didn't want to take beatings from the police but revenge (which we called self-defense), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) gave up its commitment to nonviolence, Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated, the Black Panther Party, Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture), and Malcolm X offered a different philosophy. Were there had previously been explicit and influential Christian and Jewish religious influence encouraging nonviolence that began to fade as many of the activist became increasingly non-religious.
John Lewis, his wisdom is still out there.
John Lewis reflects on Selma: 'I thought I saw death'
John Lewis's reflection on crossing the bridge in 1965.” About 600 of us. No one saying a word. We were walking on the sidewalk. … we continue to walk… at the highest point of the bridge, we saw down below a sea of blue, Alabama state troopers.”
Nonviolence Is Christian Love in Action: A Conversation with John Lewis
In 1995 John Dear interviewed John Lewis. “I spent an afternoon speaking with civil rights activist and Georgia Congressman John Lewis (1940–2020), one of the world’s greatest teachers and practitioners of nonviolence.
John Lewis: “Well, I believe in the philosophy and discipline of nonviolence. I accepted it not simply as a technique or as a tactic, but as a way of life, a way of living. We have to arrive at the point, as believers in the Christian faith, that in every human being there is a spark of divinity. Every human personality is something sacred, something special. We don’t have a right, as another person or as a nation, to destroy that spark of divinity, that spark of humanity, that is made and created in the image of God. I saw Sheriff Clark in Selma, or Bull Connor in Birmingham, or George Wallace, the governor of Alabama, as victims of the system. We were not out to destroy these men. We were out to destroy a vicious and evil system. So, our attack had to be directed against customs, traditions, and unjust laws—but not against these individuals. … Nonviolent civil disobedience is a very powerful weapon. It’s probably one of the most powerful weapons that we have in the arsenal of nonviolent action because you’re literally putting your body on the line. You’re saying you’re willing to disobey a custom, a tradition, or what you consider to be an unjust law. You’re willing to pay the price. You’re willing to suffer. You’re willing to go to jail if necessary and serve your time. I think there’s something very redemptive about it. There’s something very cleansing about it, to go through all that. In keeping with the philosophy of nonviolent civil disobedience, you come to that point where you have to educate the larger society, and you keep trying, over and over again. Then, sometimes, it’s only a core group that’s prepared to go the distance with that. I think it’s being true to the heart of the faith, and to the philosophy and discipline of nonviolence.”
Humility, persistence, encourage
In today’s protests with “mostly peaceful” seeming to be the best we can do, and those who disapprove of the violence feeling powerless, and few of them having any idea of how you might actually create and sustain a nonviolent movement — do we risk a world engulfed by rage and despair?
Most people on all sides of these issues say they want a nonviolent approach to our differences. Nonviolent direct action and acts of civil disobedience take place on a regular basis — women's rights, climate change, labor actions. Almost all of them are entirely peaceful with many making use of the same methods developed during the civil rights movement. There are also a number of groups that provide training and support, e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change (The King Center), International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), The War Resisters League (WRL). [2]
So who knows, maybe the wisdom of John Louis will reassert itself. Change has a way of coming suddenly, like a rushing mighty wind, like dry bones coming to life, in the twinkling of an eye. Maybe it’s happening now, and after all the rage and chaos, after the earthquake and fire, a still, small voice. I do trust that the Holy Spirit nudges.
On this the Eve of the Feast of Saint Barnabas I like to think of him as the saint that gives us a second chances. [3]
See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. (Matthew 10:16, from tomorrow's Eucharistic reading)
This abides,
Brother Robert, OA
The Eve of the Feast of Saint Barnabas the Apostle
[1} Nonviolent direct action refers to tactics, methods, and strategies used to achieve social or political change without resorting to physical violence. It involves actions like protests, demonstrations, marches, boycotts, and sit-ins, among others, to force opponents to negotiate or address injustices. (AI generated). A resource on nonviolent direct action. The Global Nonviolent Action Database offers hundreds of case studies on nonviolent action
[2] There are many such groups out there. All of them have critics. The complaints range from internal organizational disputes, being too radical or not radical enough, and questions about competency and effectiveness. It's the stuff that is true of every organization in the world. So you need to do your research before getting involved. But it's also important to remember that there are resources out there to equip people for nonviolent direct action.
[3] “When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and described for them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus.” (Acts 9:26-27)