Consider the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s in the United States. While many believed that direct action and protest were necessary for African
Americans to be able to enjoy the same rights as other Americans, some believed that African Americans should remain in segregated environments. Others
wanted desegregation, but believed that direct action and protest would be counter productive. Those in this last group argued that America was not ready
for desegregation, that it would happen more peacefully at a later time, and that engaging in direct action and protest would anger a lot of Americans,
inflaming the tension between the races.
In your initial post, respond to the following: What do you think about this third perspective on direct action and protest? Consider what happened during the
Civil Rights Movement, and find evidence from course material (textbook readings and lectures) to help you make an argument that direct action and protest
were either necessary or inadvisable in this case. To be clear, I want you to think of and explain a specific example from the Civil Rights Movement that you
believe backs up your position. Be sure to indicate why you believe your perspective is correct and why the opposing perspective is incorrect. Additionally,
consider a current issue in America involving direct action and protest and assess the situation along the same guidelines. What are the potential outcomes
in both of these situations? In general, when do you think direct action and protest is necessary, and when is it counter-productive?
