Greatest and limited victoryesfor black people came when they prove they will not remain peacefull forever .I Respect all segments of the struggle including King u cant separate the peacefull from militant acivtists only cause u like the one more that is disrespect for the black stuggle .AND people of colour still have lower avarage incomes,poor access to housing and healthcare and poorer health then whites.DE FACTO segregation still exist -ghettos are internal colonyes
Just 2 days later Birmingham -up until then an inflexible bastion of segragation-agreed to desegragate downtown stores,and president Keneddy backed the agreement with federal guarantees.The next day after local white racists bombed black home and black buisness ,thousands of black people rioted again seizing 9 blocks injuring many police officers including the chief inspector and burning down white businesses. A month and a day later KENNEDY was calling the congres to pass the civil right bill
IN THE spring 1963 MARTHIN LUTHER KING campaign in Birmingham was a repeat of the failed campaign in Albany,Geogia- where in 1961 ,9 months of civil disobidience show the weakness of non-violent resistance against government with botomless jails and where in 1962 a rioting youth took over whole blocks and force the police out , demonstrating that they will not be peacefull forever.Then in 1963 in Birmingham after continued police violence rioting youth began fighting back .JUST 2 days later
hey what was the song you were playing at the start of the video? also just to throw something into the mix...does anyone want to explain the very violent amerikkkan revolution in this history of successful nonviolent struggle.
the 'Meinhof-ites' makes a reasonable argument -- there's something intuitively right-seeming about the old saying 'don't bring a knife to a gunfight' -- but it seems to me that
1-- the 'counterhegemonic violence' road needs to be PLENTY violent to have any hint of a chance at succeeding, which means
2 -- the conversation must arrive at some point at 'who's down with killing innocents?' Winston Smith's willingness to throw acid in the baby's face.
Do you have another eplination for why the bulk of the civil rights legislation was passed before the advent of groups like the BPP?
I would also like to suggest that there there are numerous examples of successful non-violent overtrhows of government. "Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic was thrown out by a nonviolent movement. Same with Philippines dictator Marcos in 1986. Same with the East German, Hungarian, Czech, and Polish dictatorships in 1989."
I'm not well versed on the American civil rights movement and don't have the time at the moment to go digging threw the library so we'll skip ahead 8). As far as Milosevic goes it's like I said before (pacifist / violent) demonstrators, Albanian separatists, NATO involvement in Kosovo, his generals basically defecting and even the Internet (mass media) all had a hand in his downfall. In a perfect world a lone bunch of peaceful protesters might bring down a monster this just isn't so in reality.
After the fall of the Soviet Union (hardly peaceful), communism was on the outs in all of the eastern block it was just a matter of time with them. Welcome to the joys of American free market economics our next chapter! 8)
I'm surprised you didn't bring up Gahndi, I have a lot to say about that tool, perhaps another day. Anyways back to my pint(s)!
I never said pacifists didn't have a place, like Ward said they go hand in hand with the more violent activists. They provide that PC face to a cause that other physically unaffected people can support.. However they can be a hindrance when it comes to accomplishing anything meaningful, as they are much more willing to compromise with their oppressors then their violent brethren are. The concession of Northern Ireland is a great example of that.
Right, but comparing some donation collectors like PETA to the principalled NVDA movement that king lead is pretty disengenious. Like comparing ELF to the SLA.
The problem with rights movements is that they really will only work if you convince people who belong to the dominant paradigm that you deserve rights. Making the people you want to convince fear you is not likely to make them think giving you more power is even a remotely good idea
That's why I think pacifist movements are what work best. Seeing people willing to turn the other cheek in the face of discrimination and violence earns respect. Less satisfying, more effective.
I disagree - Marcus Gharvey was around long before the 60s.
But your overall point seems sound, because your opponent's argument completely underplays the fact that Martin Luther King was able to mobilise more black Americans than any other leader, and that years of demonstrations had begun to convert some white rascists over time anyway.
Pacifism is born of pragmatism and despair.
02Blackbeard 1 month ago
Greatest and limited victoryesfor black people came when they prove they will not remain peacefull forever .I Respect all segments of the struggle including King u cant separate the peacefull from militant acivtists only cause u like the one more that is disrespect for the black stuggle .AND people of colour still have lower avarage incomes,poor access to housing and healthcare and poorer health then whites.DE FACTO segregation still exist -ghettos are internal colonyes
nazibreaker 1 year ago
Just 2 days later Birmingham -up until then an inflexible bastion of segragation-agreed to desegragate downtown stores,and president Keneddy backed the agreement with federal guarantees.The next day after local white racists bombed black home and black buisness ,thousands of black people rioted again seizing 9 blocks injuring many police officers including the chief inspector and burning down white businesses. A month and a day later KENNEDY was calling the congres to pass the civil right bill
nazibreaker 1 year ago
IN THE spring 1963 MARTHIN LUTHER KING campaign in Birmingham was a repeat of the failed campaign in Albany,Geogia- where in 1961 ,9 months of civil disobidience show the weakness of non-violent resistance against government with botomless jails and where in 1962 a rioting youth took over whole blocks and force the police out , demonstrating that they will not be peacefull forever.Then in 1963 in Birmingham after continued police violence rioting youth began fighting back .JUST 2 days later
nazibreaker 1 year ago
especially since recent developments like peace police DEFENDING THE COPS at protests
PinkandBlackBloc 1 year ago
i just really don't understand how anyone can actually be a pacifist.
PinkandBlackBloc 1 year ago
hey what was the song you were playing at the start of the video? also just to throw something into the mix...does anyone want to explain the very violent amerikkkan revolution in this history of successful nonviolent struggle.
DJKreeper1288 1 year ago
the 'Meinhof-ites' makes a reasonable argument -- there's something intuitively right-seeming about the old saying 'don't bring a knife to a gunfight' -- but it seems to me that
1-- the 'counterhegemonic violence' road needs to be PLENTY violent to have any hint of a chance at succeeding, which means
2 -- the conversation must arrive at some point at 'who's down with killing innocents?' Winston Smith's willingness to throw acid in the baby's face.
None for me, thanks.
terpis 2 years ago
Great book! Nice to see someone discussing it.
I strongly disagree with your conclusions however and suggest you do some more research on the subject.
When people without guns stand up to people with guns the outcome is always the same.
What's happening in Tehran at this moment is a perfect example of that.
deaftone311 2 years ago
Thanks for engaging! :)
Do you have another eplination for why the bulk of the civil rights legislation was passed before the advent of groups like the BPP?
I would also like to suggest that there there are numerous examples of successful non-violent overtrhows of government. "Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic was thrown out by a nonviolent movement. Same with Philippines dictator Marcos in 1986. Same with the East German, Hungarian, Czech, and Polish dictatorships in 1989."
rubbleofempires 2 years ago
I'm not well versed on the American civil rights movement and don't have the time at the moment to go digging threw the library so we'll skip ahead 8). As far as Milosevic goes it's like I said before (pacifist / violent) demonstrators, Albanian separatists, NATO involvement in Kosovo, his generals basically defecting and even the Internet (mass media) all had a hand in his downfall. In a perfect world a lone bunch of peaceful protesters might bring down a monster this just isn't so in reality.
deaftone311 2 years ago
After the fall of the Soviet Union (hardly peaceful), communism was on the outs in all of the eastern block it was just a matter of time with them. Welcome to the joys of American free market economics our next chapter! 8)
I'm surprised you didn't bring up Gahndi, I have a lot to say about that tool, perhaps another day. Anyways back to my pint(s)!
deaftone311 2 years ago
I never said pacifists didn't have a place, like Ward said they go hand in hand with the more violent activists. They provide that PC face to a cause that other physically unaffected people can support.. However they can be a hindrance when it comes to accomplishing anything meaningful, as they are much more willing to compromise with their oppressors then their violent brethren are. The concession of Northern Ireland is a great example of that.
deaftone311 2 years ago
I want to here what you have to say about Ghandi.
rubbleofempires 2 years ago
kind of ran out of space and characters there, think my reply got jumbled up 8)
You should do some side by side comparisons of some modern pacifist / violent groups, as far as what goals they set out with were accomplished.
Sierra Club VS ELF, PETA VS ALF, Green Peace VS The Sea Shepherd etc...
deaftone311 2 years ago
Right, but comparing some donation collectors like PETA to the principalled NVDA movement that king lead is pretty disengenious. Like comparing ELF to the SLA.
rubbleofempires 2 years ago
I agree completely
The problem with rights movements is that they really will only work if you convince people who belong to the dominant paradigm that you deserve rights. Making the people you want to convince fear you is not likely to make them think giving you more power is even a remotely good idea
That's why I think pacifist movements are what work best. Seeing people willing to turn the other cheek in the face of discrimination and violence earns respect. Less satisfying, more effective.
Spacemonkey2084 2 years ago
I disagree - Marcus Gharvey was around long before the 60s.
But your overall point seems sound, because your opponent's argument completely underplays the fact that Martin Luther King was able to mobilise more black Americans than any other leader, and that years of demonstrations had begun to convert some white rascists over time anyway.
BoundlessEyes 2 years ago
Fucking good point about Gharvey though, I had no idea. Don't know much about him in general.
rubbleofempires 2 years ago
Also, stupidly, I forgot Malcolm X was around during this time. doh!
rubbleofempires 2 years ago