I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

-Martin Luther King Jr

Got a lot of the same vibes, really

[–] EfreetSK@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Fair enough, good quote (btw I'm not from US so my knoledge here is limited). Although I'm not sure what portion I agree/disagree with it, I have to think about it much more.

But I mean, even MLK understood that there's a limit, right? Like he didn't take AK47 and started to murder all the racists he saw but have chosen rather strong but non violent approach and he thought about what he was saying and what "works". And that's all I'm saying, I've never said that you cannot take a strong stance. But if you turn it to 11 and just RAGE!!! then be prepared that you might not achieve anything or even make the situation worse

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] EfreetSK@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I fundamentally disagree

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)