Evelyn Ostler

Mr. Jensen

Ethnic Studies

10 May 2024

Tactics for Change

Culture, diversity, and the acceptance of others have all significantly improved within the

last 100 years. This was made possible because of devoted leaders, passionate activists, and even

regular people that fought for the greater good of humanity. However, this change didn’t happen

overnight–for it was the actions and tactics that these people used for positive change that made

all the difference.

A tactic used heavily during the 1900s was separation. This method suggests that people

remain separated based on their race, and that they should only live and interact with their own

race. It started out with ideas and beliefs, one major one being Garveyism. Created by Marcus

Garvey in the early 1900s, it supported the idea that all African-Americans needed to go back to

Africa and live amongst those of their own race in order to reach peak quality of life. While this

would significantly decrease direct racism towards African-Americans, it would still support the

idea that your race makes you better/worse than somebody of another. This way of thinking

evolved over time and was adopted by different groups, including White Americans. A common

example of this was the creation of the Jim Crow laws. These laws essentially claimed the phrase

“separate but equal,” but did not live up to it. Black people and White people were physically

segregated by law until 1965, and did not have the equality that they were promised. This created

a pathway for systematic oppression to grow, and raised even more harassment and racism onto

the African-American community.

 A more direct and violent tactic is being a Martyr. This method involves killing someone

or oneself for a cause, mostly seen within escalated protests. This eye-opening route is one of the

biggest cries for help, as it is the most extreme and draws the most attention. While spreading

awareness to your cause can be a positive thing, the negatives outweigh them in this scenario. By

being a martyr, one is essentially giving up their life in order to fulfill their message. After the

act has been committed, the results are in the hands of the witnesses. This means that there is no

guarantee that anything will actually happen from doing so, and it could all be for nothing. One

of the most recent instances of this was when Aaron Bushnell, a previous serviceman of the Air

Force, lit himself on fire in protest of the war happening between Israel and Hamas. He did so in

front of the Embassy of Israel in order to carry his message to those he wanted to hear it most.

This became an uproar within the media, but the attention quickly moved on to other things. The

way that Bushnell’s act played out is what usually happens when martyrs commit their act of

prejudice. It is widely recognized for a short amount of time, then dissipates within other mass

media and protests.

Social media is one of the most prevalent tactics used today. It’s something that almost

everyone uses nowadays, giving it the potential to become a really powerful tool for change. As

social media has grown within the last 10 years, so has the presence of activism within it. The

great part about this method is that everyone can participate and contribute in some way; whether

it be as little as a repost or as big as posting a video of your thoughts, anything is a contribution.

However, this can quickly become an easy way out of actually making significant change. There

is only so much you can do from the comfort of your own home, especially when you are not

directly involved or faced with the issue in question. It is also easy to blindly follow a movement

due to its popularity, posing risk for fighting for something that you don’t necessarily value or
believe in. During the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020, the use of social

media activism skyrocketed. Millions of people were protesting for the movement, as well as

against it. A trend that arose amongst supporters was posting a black screen onto your feed to

raise awareness and show that you were with the cause. However, it became more of a trend than

an actual form of protest and a lot of people only posted it for the praise factor. Because of this,

the movement became controversial and something that brought up a lot of prejudice, hate, and

aggression between both the movement’s opposers and themselves.

Violence as a tactic seems to make the most sense on paper. It is an extreme method of

using fear and power to overcome your opponent, and it’s used a lot because there can only be

one winner. Violence comes in many shapes and sizes; whether it be using hate speech against

someone or physically harming them, it is all dangerous to everyone involved no matter the

scale. There have been many groups in the past that have been known for their violent methods,

the Black Panthers being one of the more famous. Their protests did result in awareness, but

didn’t cause as much change as the non-violent protests did. The Black Panthers were around

during a time of constant abstract violence, segregation. While segregation wasn’t physically

violent most of the time, the idea and principle of it was in its own way. It dehumanized an entire

population of people, just as physical violence can do. Ultimately, violence in any form as a

tactic is not an effective way of combating larger issues.

Non-violence as a tactic tends to be overlooked, as many don’t believe that it has the

power to make real change. It involves rising above oneself, swallowing pride, loving enemies,

and sacrificing your safety for your cause. Even though it may not seem effective, it has had a

historical impact on our society today. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. became one of the most well-

known examples of using non-violent methods for growth. Rather than leading destructive
protests, he presented well thought out speeches and organized sit-ins. It took a lot of time and

dedication, but it ultimately changed the hearts and minds of his oppressors in a natural way

rather than threatening them into it. Because of this, Dr. King proved that non-violence is a

possible and effective tactic for change.

Alongside Dr. King, I believe that non-violence is the most effective tactic for change.

My main reasoning for this is because I feel that it is much more important to educate somebody

on the matter at hand rather than allowing blind ignorance. It makes me think of this famous

quote: “Give a man some fish, and he will be full for a week. Teach a man to fish, and he will be

full for a lifetime.” I remember hearing this quote back in elementary school, and it has stuck

with me ever since. I have been able to apply it to so many different scenarios, and I was

satisfied to see that it also applies to non-violence. At first, I–like many others–didn’t really

believe the fact that non-violence was more effective than violence. Violence holds the most

tangible power, therefore it must work the best. I quickly learned that it isn’t necessary, and it’s

often used as a temporary solution. I now see the value in gradual change, and that good things

take time. It’s important to remember that you need to combat the root of the issue rather than

what is carrying it out, and to me that’s what non-violence is all about. As I learned more about

both tactics, I was caught off guard by the fact that silence is also a form of violence. It made me

think a lot deeper and had me rethink a lot of what I thought violence really was. An example of

this that came to mind was when I am faced with a scenario in which I have the opportunity to be

a mediator. 10 times out of 10, I sit back and do nothing in fear of my own safety. However,

doing this does not make the problem for the other person stop, and I am also put at risk by not

posing as a “threat.” After learning that some principles of non-violence include selflessness and

risk, I realize that it is necessary in order to not continue violently. As previously mentioned,
violence comes in all shapes and sizes and it is crucial to be aware of all forms in order to both

prevent it from happening and prevent yourself from being a cause of it. Knowing the difference

between the two has surprisingly given me more optimism for the future, because I now have the

tools to combat violent situations that may come my way.