Natasha Lennard argues that it’s harmful to acquiesce to the state’s determinations of violence, while David Cortright writes that violent acts prevent mass resistance movements.
When laws are not followed by those in power, and peaceful protests get shut down with force and arrests, why should the people follow the law anymore? It means nothing if those in power also break the law.
Political violence is the only other option left.
If it didn’t work the cops wouldn’t do it literally all the time
The second amendment is literally the people’s legal check on tyranny and corruption.
Well obviously fucking yes. Pick a random successful political movement and there’s a 99% chance it had a violent wing. I know that Americans are only taught the sanitized versions of many of this stuff, but come on.
That’s really the issue. Americans have been brainwashed to think civil disobedience is what won their civil rights. The violence, often initiated by the state against the people, is whitewashed as small skirmishes rather than being prevalent in most protests and the resistance to it needs to be prepared.
Nah, violence works. I know if the Americans try to take over Canada there’s gonna be some good ol’ fashioned fun and we’re gonna burn that white house down again.
Well unless you lads get to it first 🤪
John Brown
If political violence is out of the question, Americans would be British.
The Revolutionary War.
The Battle of Blair Mountain.
Even MLK’s mostly peaceful actions only had teeth because Malcom X was showing people what a non-peaceful protest would look like.
Sadly, violence usually has to be the answer.
As we saw from the peaceful protests in Hong Kong, playing nice gets you absolutely nothing. And as those protests and the Cabin Creek/Paint Creek protests showed, even those who try to be peaceful will find violence inflicted upon them.
Furthermore, left to fester, the racists trying to run the show will start inflicting violence if not put down quickly; see the Tulsa Race Massacre as an example.
Even MLK’s mostly peaceful actions only had teeth because Malcom X was showing people what a non-peaceful protest would look like.
MLK even says something similar in A Letter From A Birmingham Jail. Essentially he responds to criticism of his methods by saying (among a whole lot of other things) “this? This is the nice option. If these protests were violent the South would turn into a sea of blood”.
I mean, open up a history book.
Funny how it only focuses on political violence from the left. I mean, yeah the government is completely owned by the right at the moment, but it seems odd to completely ignore the other side
I think it’s meant to be an internal debate about the left’s tactics. It’s not meant to ignore or minimize very real right-wing violence.
Yes.
Acceptable? No. Necessary? Well that gets a lot more grey.
