MLK didn’t; Malcom X did. MLK’s underlying message was ‘acknowledge my peaceful protest, or you get stuck with his less peaceful protest’. Peaceful protesting alone tends to get you a whole lot of nothing.
Edit: of course, most history classes seem to forget Malcom X even existed, because the ‘just peacefully protest over in that corner and don’t bother us, it will totally make us change our ways’ narrative is much more desirable for certain demographics.
Good for you. History disagrees with your disagreeing.
Look up Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and the Battle of Blair Mountain sometime. Pretty much every victory oppressed groups have won has had to draw blood in order to win the day.
The pairing of the open palm and the raised fist often is very successful. The violent side creates the conditions for victory and the nonviolent side creates the conditions for peace. Without the threat of violence no pressure is applied, but without the peaceful people the oppressors have nobody they’re willing to settle with.
The labor wars ended with afl-cio dominance for a reason.
If I may hijack this discussion, I find that quite interesting what you are saying! I’m currently see myself getting more radicalised by the weak reaction of our (German) Government towards the rising fascists.
Pretty much every victory oppressed groups have won has had to draw blood in order to win the day.
Where and how do you Differentiate between legit violent Protest and Terrorism?
Is ist just the agreement with the one side but not the other?
Because, If I may go there, even Hitler claimed that Germans were being oppressed in Poland and Czechoslovakia.
The line to draw, I feel, is are you attacking institutions (i.e. smashing the windows of Wall Street, chaining yourself to the doors of the police station), or people (like the loons here in Oregon attacking minority families during the fires)? Are you harassing oppressed groups (like kristallnacht did) or the overpowered establishment (like Blair Mountain did)?
(Obviously, punching individual Nazis is still fine.)
But really, at the end of the day, violence is still violence, and while it may be the right action, it is never a good action. That is something I feel all protesters need to keep in mind.
To paraphrase Dan Shive, there are times when you best (or only) choices lie between the least-bad and most-bad options. And when that happens, humans tend to try and rationalize the least-bad choice as being the good one. This is a trap. If you start to think of the least-bad choice as a good choice, pretty soon you start to believe it—and then you stop looking for the actual good options.
Even if an actual good option—like a nonviolent protest—isn’t feasible for one situation, you should always try to find a truly good option, if you can. That’s why the combo of violent protests on one side, peaceful group on the other, tends to get the best results.
MLK didn’t; Malcom X did. MLK’s underlying message was ‘acknowledge my peaceful protest, or you get stuck with his less peaceful protest’. Peaceful protesting alone tends to get you a whole lot of nothing.
Edit: of course, most history classes seem to forget Malcom X even existed, because the ‘just peacefully protest over in that corner and don’t bother us, it will totally make us change our ways’ narrative is much more desirable for certain demographics.
I fundamentally disagree
Good for you. History disagrees with your disagreeing.
Look up Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and the Battle of Blair Mountain sometime. Pretty much every victory oppressed groups have won has had to draw blood in order to win the day.
The pairing of the open palm and the raised fist often is very successful. The violent side creates the conditions for victory and the nonviolent side creates the conditions for peace. Without the threat of violence no pressure is applied, but without the peaceful people the oppressors have nobody they’re willing to settle with.
The labor wars ended with afl-cio dominance for a reason.
If I may hijack this discussion, I find that quite interesting what you are saying! I’m currently see myself getting more radicalised by the weak reaction of our (German) Government towards the rising fascists.
Where and how do you Differentiate between legit violent Protest and Terrorism? Is ist just the agreement with the one side but not the other?
Because, If I may go there, even Hitler claimed that Germans were being oppressed in Poland and Czechoslovakia.
The line to draw, I feel, is are you attacking institutions (i.e. smashing the windows of Wall Street, chaining yourself to the doors of the police station), or people (like the loons here in Oregon attacking minority families during the fires)? Are you harassing oppressed groups (like kristallnacht did) or the overpowered establishment (like Blair Mountain did)?
(Obviously, punching individual Nazis is still fine.)
But really, at the end of the day, violence is still violence, and while it may be the right action, it is never a good action. That is something I feel all protesters need to keep in mind.
To paraphrase Dan Shive, there are times when you best (or only) choices lie between the least-bad and most-bad options. And when that happens, humans tend to try and rationalize the least-bad choice as being the good one. This is a trap. If you start to think of the least-bad choice as a good choice, pretty soon you start to believe it—and then you stop looking for the actual good options.
Even if an actual good option—like a nonviolent protest—isn’t feasible for one situation, you should always try to find a truly good option, if you can. That’s why the combo of violent protests on one side, peaceful group on the other, tends to get the best results.