If we look at the difference between the Civil Rights protests in the '60's and the "protests" about left wing causes that we've seen since around 1992, there is one glaring difference.
Violence.
(I'm considering arson, destruction of property, direct threats of violence, and battery etc as examples of violence.)
9 comments:
It's hard to tell if you're ignorant or just deliberately misrepresenting history, then and now.
The reality is that there WAS some violence, rioting, deaths and harm that happened in the 50s and 60s in response to the violence from the white oppressors. Probably a small percentage - 5%? violent vs 95% non-violent, I have not seen the numbers. But remember Watts Riots with 34 killed? 3,000 arrests? And that was just one incident.
Famously, after/during that riot, King spoke to the crowds, telling them:
"The only way that we can ever get anybody to listen to us is to start a riot. We got sense enough to know that this is not the final answer, but it's a beginning. We know it has got to stop. We know it's going to stop. We don't want any more of our people killed, but how many have been killed for nothing? At least those who died died doing something. No, I'm not for a riot. But who wants to lay down while somebody kicks em to death? As long as we lay down we know that we're gonna get kicked. It's a beginning; it may be the wrong beginning but at least we got em listening. And they know that if they start killing us off, it's not gonna be a riot it's gonna be a war."
The point being, the HUGELY peaceful protests AND civil disobedience was wildly unpopular with the white masses, as was King. And in the midst of that, violent riots also happened. Maybe 5%? I don't know, you almost certainly don't know.
In contrast, the riots and violence that HAVE happened in response to police killing innocent people and ICE violence are a small percentage of the majority of protests which have been amazingly peaceful EVEN WHILE ICE has actively shot people with "less lethal weapons" bombed and gassed our cities and actually killed many people. Likewise, today's protests have been ~95% peaceful, give or take.
AND STILL, you have to recall that the violence that HAS happened has happened because of ICE/Police brutality. I KNOW that many racists and oppressors would prefer "just lay still while I beat and arrest you without a warrant," But MANY people will just say GO TO HELL with your desires for us to be "compliant" with your beatings and killings and false arrests.
That is, in the past and still today, the violence has come as a response to the violence of those in "power..." Not in a vacuum.
Learn about history, sir. You're betraying your ignorance.
Read. Learn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_riots#Civil_Rights_and_Black_Power_Movement.27s_Period
It's rare to see you so desperate so early in a comment thread. That you've so quickly decided to ignore what I actually wrote speaks volumes about your lack of a counter to my actual point.
Your use of King's quote to justify rioting and violence simply makes my point. The Civil Rights protesters successfully used peaceful protest to change the law, and then y'all embraced violence. Which would be consistent, if y'all didn't hide behind the Civil Rights era peaceful protests. I appreciate your owning the leftist commitment to violence post 1992.
If you "don't know" something, don't make it up. It just makes you look desperate.
I'm confused, the local riots and destructive incidents have been relatively small over the last months. Yet between 2014 and 2021 we saw cities literally burning, businesses and non profits being looted, and innocent people being killed and injured. But let's pretend that over 2 billion in damage didn't really happen, or that it was "peaceful".
I don't think that you understand how things work in real life. It is perfectly acceptable to respond violently to direct violence, but to inflict violence on those who had nothing to do with the precipitating event is just making excuses for violence. This ignores the simple reality that both Pretti and Good could have absolutely prevented what happened. Strangely enough, that's what happened back in the day. We saw people NOT reacting violently to police actions. I remember John Perkins sitting at my dinner table telling my family about his torture by the police and stressing how important it was to him that he not fight back. But what does Perkins know about peaceful protest, right? How could he possibly be as knowledgeable as Dan?
You are correct that law enforcement has the legal sanction to use non lethal means to control violent crowds. I'm sure a few dead or a few more injured law enforcement would not bother you at all.
I literally had "history" sitting at my dinner table, on top of the other material I've read and studied. I watched the protesters sit peacefully when the dogs attacked them, and I heard Perkins relate his experiences.
It's clear that you've embraced violence, and given up on your beloved NVDA. It's OK to admit that instead of trying to cling to something you've clearly abandoned.
Because Wiki is such an unbiased, scholarly, peer reviewed source.
Look, if you want to go with this narrative, then go for it. Re frame the '60s Civil Rights movement as violent and not committed to peaceful protest. Embrace the violence. Just be consistent.
But, the other guys did… is not a winning argument.
It has become abundantly clear that, at least in your case and I suspect many/most in magaworld, that you have a debilitating inability to understand nuance. Time and time and time again, I make something clear (or others do) and you snap down on one little phrase and build a whole fake worldview of what you THINK we are saying/believing in spite of reality being exactly the opposite. This also explains your biblical eisegesis. Inability to understand nuance - even when it's been repeatedly clarified for you - causes you to totally misunderstand and then misrepresent what we ARE saying.
I wonder if you do this poorly in understanding the words of others in the context of face to face conversations.
For a final clarification, what I AM saying (and what it's clear that King and others like me are saying):
1. The protests of the last nearly 100 years in defense of Civil Rights and in opposition to ICE/Police/military abuses and attacks have been amazingly non-violent.
2. When you have a people who are being repeatedly, routinely harmed and oppressed and only a small percentage respond in kind, meeting violence with violence (even if it's only violence against a car or the vandalism of a building), that is an amazing testimony in FAVOR of NVDA.
3. Of course, King and I and progressives generally support NVDA. We do so because it works better than your method of meeting violence with violence.
4. Of course, the protests of the 40s-70s Civil Rights era were WAY predominantly marked by non-violence, and that in the face of violent actions of the racists, cops, etc.
5. Of course, the protests of the last 10 years of cop abuses, racism and ICE abuses have been WAY predominantly marked by non-violence, and that, in the face of violent actions by the racists, cops, ICE, etc.
6. Of course, King and I and progressives generally DISCOURAGE responding to the violence of the racists, cops, ICE and other abusers. Folks like me think that they set BACK the pace of overcoming the violence of ICE and fascists.
7. And of course, what we ARE doing is noting that the violent responses of ICE, cops, etc WILL be sometimes met by violent responses from the people they are oppressing (NOT the NVDA organizers, in reality). And THOSE acts of violence are a response to the abusive violence of the actual agitators, the cops, ICE, etc. That is not an excuse or a defense of the vandalism and worse that happens in response to violent cops, ICE. NOT AT ALL. It's just properly placing the primary blame where it belongs.
It's like the woman who is tortured/abused/molested by her husband for years, to where she's living in terror most of her days. At some point, SOME of those abused women WILL respond to the husband's violence with violence pushing back against the abuser. And we don't support the murder of violent husbands by their wives. BUT, we note that the primary blame or fault for that violence lies with the history of abuse at his hands, not the woman striking back to save her life.
Nuance, sir. Try to grasp it. Remove the blinders which are crippling you.
Because Wiki is such an unbiased, scholarly, peer reviewed source.
One other thing, what is this pushback. Are you IGNORANT of the riots that happened at times over the 1940s to 1960s in response to racist violence of the oppressors? This isn't a secret, and it's not like Wikipedia is making this real world history up out of thin air.
Is it the case that you're just finding out about these riots now, and instead of recognizing history and learning past your ignorance, you're blaming wikipedia for reporting actual events?
And again: That some oppressed people do and will respond to violence WITH violence is not the same as NVDA activists are encouraging violence at all.
You DO understand the distinction, don't you?
I’m always surprised by your inability whether intentional or not to impose your narrative on other people’s posts or comments.
The point, since I apparently need to explain it as to a child, is simple.
The commitment to nonviolence that you specifically and y’all generally tout, is much less True than you pretend. What you, individually, have shown of late is how easily you set aside your pacifism and embrace “necessary” violence.
For that, I thank you.
Me noting that Wiki is hardly the objective proof you demand of others is just acknowledging the double standard.
Again, the point is that the narrative is less than True, and that violence is part and parcel of the left wing.
Post a Comment