An Analysis
The theses and argument of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ‘Three Ways of Meeting Oppression’ is straightforward and very clear. He analyses three ways of attacking oppression and trying to change the system that allows oppression – the racial segregation and inequality that existed in the American South before the success of the civil rights movement of the late 1950a and 60s. King’s analysis rejects the way of acquiescence – playing along with an oppressive system because it is easier to have a quiet life and not challenge the status quo; he goes on to reject the second way – that so violent uprising to defeat oppression; and in the third section of his essay he argues that the only way to effectively change the system is through non-violent protest. It is interesting that this text is so short and succinct: other famous texts by King – such as ‘Letter from A Birmingham Jail’ and the ‘I Have a Dream’ speech are much longer and use rhetorical features which here, in ‘Three Ways of Meeting Oppression,’ King leaves unused. Therefore, this text is largely unrhetorical; King puts the emphasis on his argument – trying to convince others that a non-violent strategy is the one that will work to remove the evil of oppression.
King also takes great pains to argue that the first two ways (acquiescence or violence) are both, in different ways, immoral. Therefore, quite apart from the practical benefits of a campaign of non-aggression, King is at pains to stress that non-violence has a moral superiority that acquiescence and violence lack. King’s argument contains references to the Bible which are designed to appeal to the Christianity of black and white alike. It is worth remembering that in the context of the times when this text was written it was not certain that a non-violent strategy would be adopted by the African American community – or that it would be successful in stopping oppression in the South. Indeed, other African American leaders, such as Malcolm X, were advocating violence as the only strategy or tactic that would work. Thus, King’s text works as a rejection of the more violent tactics promulgated by Malcolm X.
The opening three paragraphs reject acquiescence as a way forward. King admits that acquiescence is “the easier way” because it involves no effort and consists of merely accepting the system that oppresses you. He uses Biblical analogies (the story of Moses liberating the Israelites from slavery in Egypt). He comes to the conclusion that acquiescence is immoral: “To accept injustice or segregation passively is to say to the oppressor that his actions are morally right.” Acquiescence, King argues, also convinces the oppressor that the system he has instituted is correct and right:
The Negro cannot win the respect of his oppressor by acquiescing; he merely increases the oppressor’s arrogance and contempt. Acquiescence is interpreted as proof of the Negro’s inferiority. The Negro cannot win the respect of the white people of the South or the peoples of the world if he is willing to sell the future of his children for his personal and immediate comfort and safety.
In this passage he is making clear to other African Americans that something must be done, and to sit back and do nothing is immoral.
The next three paragraphs argue against violence as a means of changing the situation. King takes a broad historical view of the matter and argues that “violence never brings permanent peace,” and “violence ends by defeating itself.” His argument, once again, is founded on morality. If African Americans were to follow the path of violence in order to end oppression, then they will become as morally bankrupt as their oppressors and their revenge will produce long lasting resentments and a permanent desire for revenge on the part of white Americans in the South. Violence, King argues, can only provide a temporary solution, even though its speed might appeal to some African Americans.
King is unequivocal in his rejection of violent methods and in the final four paragraphs of this text he argues that non-violence is the best way forward – for practical reasons, but also for moral ones. He asserts that African Americans must “rise to the noble height of opposing the unjust system while loving the perpetrators of the system”; they must continually strive for equal rights, but “must not use inferior methods to achieve it” and in the struggles to come against segregation and inequality they must reject “falsehood, malice, hate, or destruction.” Apart from his moral stance, King writing is explicitly Christian with references to Moses in the Old Testament and to St. Peter in the New. Even his injunction to love “the perpetrators of the system” echoes Christ’s commandment to love our enemies and to turn the other cheek.
King is able in his final, concluding paragraph to stand back form the particular circumstances of the American South and the burgeoning Civil Rights movement to write that “it is not a struggle between people at all, but a tension between justice and injustice.” This is a succinct and powerful argument for non-violence as a way of changing an unjust situation. Its tone is calm and peaceful, yet full of determination and a confidence that suggest s King is fully convinced of the cause he is struggling for. The text is full also of a high moral tone – which rejects other strategies such as acquiescence and violence.
