The Black Lives Matter, By Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Over half a century ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech in which he calls for an end to racism. Through his civility and nonviolent resistance, Dr. King became an emblem for the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. This movement inspired others, not just within the African-American community, to take a stand against racial discrimination and social injustice and to fight for equality, the underrepresented, the disenfranchised. There have been many individuals since then that have contributed greatly in the fight for social justice and civil rights, some of which have taken Dr. King’s direction of civil disobedience, while others have taken a more active, forceful approach. For decades, the fight for equality
had been identified within these two primary camps until fairly recent, with the rapid rise and authority of the Black Lives Matter movement. Dating back to almost five years ago, the infamous George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case sparked a national outrage and planted to seed in what would be become the new face of the fight for justice, equality, and civil rights. Regardless of its recent formation and infancy, historians and academics are already comparing the Black Lives Matter movement to the Civil Rights movement of the 60s. Though the goals for social justice and the battle against racism are still the same, the Black Lives Matter movement has grown out of the Civil Rights movement, for the former has become more authoritative, nationalistic, tech savvy, and intelligible.
The Black Lives Matter has taken a more direct, active, and decentralized approach in trying to achieve their goals for social justice and equality.
During the time of the 1960s, Dr. King was at the forefront of a movement that aimed to replicate the non-violent approach and pacifism of Mahatma Gandhi. Though there were others that differed from this style of protest, such as Malcolm X and the Black Panthers movement, very few individuals actually had a direct and active way of going about their fight for social justice. Rioting on the streets and protesting at college campuses is not anything new, but what is new about the Black Lives Matter movement, and what separates them from the Civil Rights movements of the 60s, that this contemporary has no Dr. King or Malcolm X. It is completely, unapologetically, decentralized. Virtually anyone can be a leader to this group. In his article, “An Existential–Humanistic Perspective on Black Lives Matter and Contemporary Protest Movements,” Louis Hoffman believes that contemporary protests movements, “which are distinguished from historic movements by relying on decentralized leadership and utilizing social media and technology,” have a central role in addressing social justice issues. What this means is the Black Lives Matter movement of today is a studious learner of history, and have seen that when in order to bring actual change and progress, the role of a leader needs to be downplayed, if not eradicated. This is a very interesting
and even refreshing concept, given that the 20th century saw the rise of a plethora of movements and causes that were led by violent, vicious leaders.
Because of the lack of a central leader, the Black Lives Matter movement is seen as a misguided movement.
For better or for worse, this is another thing that differs from the Civil Rights movement of the 60s. Without the role of an ambassador, leader or primary member, this creates great speculation about the purpose that drives the whole of a particular movement. According to Hoffman, this is when the mainstream media likes to intervene. He says that, “Much of the controversy is connected to misunderstanding, distorted portrayals, and attempts to discredit the movement.” This is on full display from both right-wing and left-wing news. And this actually brings up another interesting, though less substantial, point: there was no political divide in mainstream media during the time of the Civil Rights. With the exception of a few public intellectuals, such as Noam Chomsky and William F. Buckley, there was not a great difference in general opinion. It wasn’t until, arguably, the late 1980s and 1990s that saw a change in how local and national news was broadcast with programs that appealed conservative Americans. But Hoffman argues that this misunderstanding and distortion comes from both sides of the political spectrum, and is mostly carried out by those timid and reluctant to understand the contemporary movement’s actual cause. And without a central figure that can guide them and highlight the main purposes and causes of the movement, the general public is left in greater
deprivation of information.