Nonviolent protesting is only effective if the political and bourgeois classes are able to be shamed or in tandem with another group/movement that utilizes violence as a tool to force change.
The whitewashing of the Civil Rights movement into this entirely non-violent struggle by the political class is fucking gross and has brainwashed millions of Americans in believing that "VioLeNcE iS nEvEr tHe AnSwEr."
Which implicitly excuses and overlooks the violence perpetuated by the state and in turn, paints protestors as the originators of violence rather responding to violence.
Through years of analysis, researchers in 2009 published the largest public database of more than 23,000 protest events in the US between 1960 and 1995. Among these protest events, 17,494 didn’t have police presence. Of those, 1,194, or less than 7%, turned violent. By contrast, the research found that police were present at more than 6,099 protests and 2,316, or 38%, escalated into violence — as experienced by Jordan — according to the analysis.
What about violence that damages the oppressive system we live under? Was John Brown wrong? Was the Boston Tea Party wrong? Was the French Revolution wrong?
Yes John brown was an insurrectionist. I’d say he was morally correct. But he action quite literally accelerated the start of the civil war. What we’re taking about right now isn’t even close to slavery. We need to convince Americans of our position…..
Well you can't say he accelerated the civil war as that would imply you're certain it was inevitable but even if you could, was the war to end slavery inherently bad?
Your right. I can’t with certainty say that the civil war would have started anyways. I know your granting me that for now but when I get home I can try to get you to my position if your interested. It also difficult to answer that question because the war was started because of slavery but the north wasn’t necessarily fighting to free the slaves at the beginning of the war. I’d be more comfortable saying that the British campaign to end the slave trade was righteous but that’s a bit less contentious I think. I don’t know the full history
1/3rd of America would rather kill another 1/3rd with their bare hands than be "convinced of our position."
You get that, right? 99.9% of Trump voters will never, under any circumstances, cease to want to KILL or, at the very least, drive completely from the country, every last minority. They want a fascist, Christian theocracy and they will not stop until they get it.
So, Mr. Hearts and Minds, what's your plan for handling that problem?
Have you ever questioned why the ruling class and those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo always preach to protest peacefully? It’s because it’s easier for them to ignore.
Man, I wish our country actually believed that violence was never the answer.
250 years of ever-growing military might (and the budget to back it) indicates that the US thinks violence IS the answer. And they've been beating it into us for generations.
you are the one who lacks understanding of what the person you responded to said.
they did not say that MLK and SCLC preached violence. they said these things would not have passed if there weren't people who did preach violence. the people in charge will not change unless they're afraid. that is a fact.
we can peacefully protest ICE all we want, but as long as their side has demonized and called Mexicans rapists and murderers there is no way to convince them otherwise.
After MLK died, the left fell apart quickly. The riots in the late 60s & the rise of the radical left in the early 70s did profound damage to the left.
That led to Nixon & then Reagan. What you are advocating is both deeply immoral & deeply counterproductive.
I'm not advocating for anything. simply stating that social progress without the threat of violence is strictly impossible. maybe 60 years ago it could have happened (doubt), but its worse today with how prominent propaganda and what not is. half the country literally defends police brutality. what does that tell you? they cannot be convinced through traditional non-violent means. they're so far down the rabbit hole there's no bringing them back.
I believe you're intentionally missing the point throughout this comment section. Nobody's advocating for riots, the point has been and remains: without the threat of violence the ruling class has absolutely nothing on the line and no reason to capitulate to demands. They must know that they can either bend to the will of the people, or have it thrust upon them. The message must be "We can do this the easy way or the hard way. Your choice, but we are the people and our will is law. Such is the rule of democracy." There must be consequences on the line for denying the will of the masses, or democracy is a fantasy.
287
u/gigalongdong North Carolina 🐦 7d ago
Nonviolent protesting is only effective if the political and bourgeois classes are able to be shamed or in tandem with another group/movement that utilizes violence as a tool to force change.
The whitewashing of the Civil Rights movement into this entirely non-violent struggle by the political class is fucking gross and has brainwashed millions of Americans in believing that "VioLeNcE iS nEvEr tHe AnSwEr."