this post was submitted on 18 May 2025
72 points (69.1% liked)
/r/50501 Mirror
1018 readers
907 users here now
Mirrored /r/50501 Popular Posts
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People are so conditioned by the idea that nonviolent change can be achieved that they will actively work against those who use the actual effective methods. Like crabs in a bucket we'll doom ourselves to the boiling pot of water. The constitutional right to a peaceful protest doesn't mean shit when the president has already dismissed the idea that he has to uphold the constitution. At this point it's nothing more than words on parchment that they're supposed to care about but don't. Don't bet your life on their adherence to it.
Nonviolent change only works if those in charge either care about us and want to improve our lives (they don't) or they fear that not giving us what we want will hurt them somehow (it won't if you fucking help them get rid of the ones willing to hurt them). Even if we achieve the fabled halting of the economy from so many people refusing to work that it can't sustain itself, the rich will be the ones who starve last. There will always be people willing to do dirty work for evil men in exchange for gold and expensive baubles.
Such as?
It's incredibly naive to think than an armed rebellion would succeed, considering the large technological gap of weaponry between the general populace and those that uphold the world order.
A peaceful protest that doesn't have the risk of turning not so peaceful will just be ignored. The civil rights movement didn't succeed because the government agreed with the protesters. It succeeded because the cities were under threat of being burned down. Everything you were taught about the civil rights movement was centered around ignoring that part.
Which notable leaders or major figures of the civil rights movement advocated for violence, threatened violence, or encouraged threats to achieve meaningful progress? What are some notable, pivotal events in the civil rights movement that were significant to history and were underscored by the threat of violence?
Personally, I feel that the civil rights movement was a significantly more polarized and divisive time for the American people. The movement we need today has significantly less people standing in the way from my perspective.
Not what I actually said. I was talking about protests. The leaders, even if they know violence might be necessary, will not openly advocate for it. They will speak with a degree of plausible deniability. Or they're John Brown.
What is your perspective worth? Where you there in the 60s? From an academic perspective, it looks the same.
In your eyes, what protests or events in the civil rights movement (that generally threatened violence or resulted in violence) led to a significant shift or significant movement?
I was expecting you to fill the gap in my American public school education. You can also direct me to a book or any resources that help me to understand your perspective better, particularly from a historical standpoint.
My perspective is worth just as much as anybody else's. Everybody who cares about the present and future likely wants solutions and change in some form or another. Some people think violence is necessary, some people don't.
MLK did his best to be the change he wanted to see. Not everybody listened and he isn't responsible for everyone's actions. There is no mistaking that many in power found MLK to be a threat... why was he seen as dangerous though? Why was he targeted so viciously if he only championed nonviolence and civil disobedience?
The rich and powerful do not want people who bridge gaps and advocate joining hands in solidarity, that's why. We are far easier to control and lord over when we are fighting each other, especially over differences and inconsequential things.