• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

The White washing of Dr. Martin Luther King

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ms.Galaxy

Member
Jul 6, 2014
2,722
0
320
Boston, MA
'white washing'
'weak liberals'
'we go high'

The opposition to physical violence is so much more important and complex than these terms.

I am sick of people on the Left twisting MLK Jr's compassion for rioters into saying physical violence is ever morally justified or effective. He made it so clear that, along with the establishment for causing suffering, riots also deserve condemnation.

People who suggest MLK would have supported the punching of Richard Spencer, or the streetfighting to protest far-right speakers, are not simply misreading his words. They are deliberately twisting history to justify their naive desire for symptomatic healing: terrorising the opposition.

This is about people displaying peaceful obstructive protesting, like people blocking traffic and so on. This isn't about Nazi punching.

By the way, I am going to repeat what I said awhile ago, never forget that the left's path was paid in blood and destruction against the right. Human rights, civil rights, labor rights, women's rights, freedom of speech, and even democracy itself are leftist ideas that we had to kill and destroy for. That's not me justifying violence, that's me reminding people to not forget their history and to understand that, yes, sometimes it's necessary.

Does the current situation in the western civilization make it necessary now? No, not yet, but we're starting to see the seeds of fascism and oppression being planted and they are starting to sprout a little. Right now, it's best to keep protesting and screaming on the top of your lungs that we will not accept this, and also to be vigilant. These are trying times right now.
 

ant_

not characteristic of ants at all
Jan 11, 2009
5,455
20
1,165
Southern California
This is about people displaying peaceful obstructive protesting, like people blocking traffic and so on. This isn't about Nazi punching.

By the way, I am going to repeat what I said awhile ago, never forget that the left's path was paid in blood and destruction against the right. Human rights, civil rights, labor rights, women's rights, freedom of speech, and even democracy itself are leftist ideas that we had to kill and destroy for. That's not me justifying violence, that's me reminding people to not forget their history and to understand that, yes, sometimes it's necessary.

Does the current situation in the western civilization make it necessary now? No, not yet, but we're starting to see the seeds of fascism and oppression being planted and they are starting to sprout a little. Right now, it's best to keep protesting and screaming on the top of your lungs that we will not accept this, and also to be vigilant. These are trying times right now.

History should be something we learn from, not something we repeat. Violence in leftist movements has only empowered the opponents' narrative and allowed them to retaliate in-kind with violence or by passing even more destructive laws. I agree with your point on peaceful obstructionism. This is, in my view, the most desired form of protest. Disrupting economies on large scales (Montgomery bus boycott, salt march, boston tea party, etc.) or straight up disobedience (Rosa Parks, Oklahoma city sit ins, etc.) are by far the most memorable and useful forms of protest.

Violence does nothing but harm the movement and empower the opponent to take even more drastic measures.
 

Ms.Galaxy

Member
Jul 6, 2014
2,722
0
320
Boston, MA
History should be something we learn from, not something we repeat. Violence in leftist movements has only empowered the opponents' narrative and allowed them to retaliate in-kind with violence or by passing even more destructive laws. I agree with your point on peaceful obstructionism. This is, in my view, the most desired form of protest. Disrupting economies on large scales (Montgomery bus boycott, salt march, boston tea party, etc.) or straight up disobedience (Rosa Parks, Oklahoma city sit ins, etc.) are by far the most memorable and useful forms of protest.

Violence does nothing but harm the movement and empower the opponent to take even more drastic measures.

My point is that violence, when faced with being oppressed and silenced by an authoritarian government, is the last course and option for people to take. As Dr. King said, it is the voice of the unheard, and at that point it is needed if nothing else works.

And yes, I agree, disobedience and heavy obstructionism is the best course of action to take at the current time.
 

MikeBreezy92

Member
Jul 21, 2012
8,299
0
0
Atlanta
History should be something we learn from, not something we repeat. Violence in leftist movements has only empowered the opponents' narrative and allowed them to retaliate in-kind with violence or by passing even more destructive laws. I agree with your point on peaceful obstructionism. This is, in my view, the most desired form of protest. Disrupting economies on large scales (Montgomery bus boycott, salt march, boston tea party, etc.) or straight up disobedience (Rosa Parks, Oklahoma city sit ins, etc.) are by far the most memorable and useful forms of protest.

Violence does nothing but harm the movement and empower the opponent to take even more drastic measures.

That's definitely not always the case.....

Actually this whole post ignores history.....

But its not about MLK though.
 

Malyse

Member
Sep 19, 2010
21,145
5
1,105
Merica
It's real cute how people think that MLK Jr would have succeeded without the militant threat of Malcolm X. Y'all seriously think people wouldn't have dismissed him out of hand if they weren't terrified of the other side? Revisionist history is one hell of a thing.
 

Heroman

Banned
Oct 23, 2013
20,948
0
0
It's real cute how people think that MLK Jr would have succeeded without the militant threat of Malcolm X. Y'all seriously think people wouldn't have dismissed him out of hand if they weren't terrified of the other side? Revisionist history is one hell of a thing.
But dont you remember Malcolm x was one of the "bad" ones.
 

lightskintwin

Banned
Mar 3, 2016
10,152
1
0
It's real cute how people think that MLK Jr would have succeeded without the militant threat of Malcolm X. Y'all seriously think people wouldn't have dismissed him out of hand if they weren't terrified of the other side? Revisionist history is one hell of a thing.

This.

MLK needed Malcolm X because they couldn't paint MLK as a "radical extremist" the way the wanted too due to the contrast of Malcolm X, Nation of Islam, Stokely Carmicheal, and the beginnings of the Black Power movement.
 

ant_

not characteristic of ants at all
Jan 11, 2009
5,455
20
1,165
Southern California
That's definitely not always the case.....

Actually this whole post ignores history.....

But its not about MLK though.

You're right, my post was worded a little strongly. It's definitely not always the case. But it is the case most of the time. Violence begets violence and typically harms any civil rights movements.

A book on the subject: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820

There are many other scholarly works on the subject. If you have any that show the opposite (i.e. violence is more effective) I'd love to read them.

And this remains about Martin Luther King because MLK largely understood this point. He understood the root causes and righteous intention of violent resistance and riots but he did not support the use of violence or employ it himself. His entire life work was rooted in non-violence as he believed that non-violence was the only way to reach true change. His passion for non-violence was highly debated at the time.

I have a problem with people looking at violence in modern day civil rights protest and telling them to be "more like MLK." I also have a problem with people looking at violence in the modern day Civil Rights movement (or any protest, really) and attempting to say that MLK would not disagree with such acts. They're both wrong.
 

Jmanunknown

Member
Sep 27, 2010
1,795
0
0
'white washing'
'weak liberals'
'we go high'

The opposition to physical violence is so much more important and complex than these terms.

I am sick of people on the Left twisting MLK Jr's compassion for rioters into saying physical violence is ever morally justified or effective. He made it so clear that, along with the establishment for causing suffering, riots also deserve condemnation.

People who suggest MLK would have supported the punching of Richard Spencer, or the streetfighting to protest far-right speakers, are not simply misreading his words. They are deliberately twisting history to justify their naive desire for symptomatic healing: terrorising the opposition.


Of course Martin Luther King Jr. would not support violence of any form but what people like yourself do is while condemning the riots you never as vigorously as you condemn the riots condemn the conditions that caused the riots. Like MLK said in this speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ph5g0jb8cE
 

Frozenprince

Banned
Sep 26, 2013
31,941
1
0
You're right, my post was worded a little strongly. It's definitely not always the case. But it is the case most of the time. Violence begets violence and typically harms any civil rights movements.

A book on the subject: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820

There are many other scholarly works on the subject. If you have any that show the opposite (i.e. violence is more effective) I'd love to read them.

And this remains about Martin Luther King because MLK largely understood this point. He understood the root causes and righteous intention of violent resistance and riots but he did not support the use of violence or employ it himself. His entire life work was rooted in non-violence as he believed that non-violence was the only way to reach true change. His passion for non-violence was highly debated at the time.

I have a problem with people looking at violence in modern day civil rights protest and telling them to be "more like MLK." I also have a problem with people looking at violence in the modern day Civil Rights movement (or any protest, really) and attempting to say that MLK would not disagree with such acts. They're both wrong.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/spi...&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP22&k_clickid=3x22

https://www.amazon.com/This-Nonviol...40_QL65&qid=1479956092&ref_=mp_s_a_1_1&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Will-Shoot-B...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=MAQTHBTYDRP324YHYWC0

https://www.amazon.com/Deacons-Defense-Resistance-Rights-Movement/dp/0807857025

Few of my favorites. I've got plenty more if you're interested.
 

lightskintwin

Banned
Mar 3, 2016
10,152
1
0
You're right, my post was worded a little strongly. It's definitely not always the case. But it is the case most of the time. Violence begets violence and typically harms any civil rights movements.

A book on the subject: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820

There are many other scholarly works on the subject. If you have any that show the opposite (i.e. violence is more effective) I'd love to read them.

And this remains about Martin Luther King because MLK largely understood this point. He understood the root causes and righteous intention of violent resistance and riots but he did not support the use of violence or employ it himself. His entire life work was rooted in non-violence as he believed that non-violence was the only way to reach true change. His passion for non-violence was highly debated at the time.

I have a problem with people looking at violence in modern day civil rights protest and telling them to be "more like MLK." I also have a problem with people looking at violence in the modern day Civil Rights movement (or any protest, really) and attempting to say that MLK would not disagree with such acts. They're both wrong.

MLK understood the disease of White Supremacy and that for other White people to have empathy towards Blacks they had to victimize themselves and become a Pinata/Human punching bag in order for White people to see the true ugliness of it and deny their first instincts to place blame on the Blacks.

Which is sad when you think about it. And why a lot of Blacks who have been the victims of White Supremacy for almost 400 years, disliked that approach and philosophy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_QbWDoJBvk
 

ant_

not characteristic of ants at all
Jan 11, 2009
5,455
20
1,165
Southern California

Maybe I should be more clear: when I'm speaking about violence I'm speaking about violent rioting. Most of the books you linked seem to be about armed self-defense, a different concept entirely.

The Deacons for Defense and Justice, for example, also practiced non-violent protest but were armed with weapons in the case of being attacked. They would defend themselves, and rightly so. There's a clear difference between this and violent rioting.
 

dohdough

Member
Oct 13, 2016
232
0
190
You're right, my post was worded a little strongly. It's definitely not always the case. But it is the case most of the time. Violence begets violence and typically harms any civil rights movements.

A book on the subject: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820

There are many other scholarly works on the subject. If you have any that show the opposite (i.e. violence is more effective) I'd love to read them.

And this remains about Martin Luther King because MLK largely understood this point. He understood the root causes and righteous intention of violent resistance and riots but he did not support the use of violence or employ it himself. His entire life work was rooted in non-violence as he believed that non-violence was the only way to reach true change. His passion for non-violence was highly debated at the time.

I have a problem with people looking at violence in modern day civil rights protest and telling them to be "more like MLK." I also have a problem with people looking at violence in the modern day Civil Rights movement (or any protest, really) and attempting to say that MLK would not disagree with such acts. They're both wrong.

This is nice and all, but that doesn't mean that he didn't benefit from violent protests. What you're missing is that white people have 2 choices: either deal with people like him or deal with people with guns. He can condemn violence all he wants, but the implication is always there. And he still got a bullet in the head for it.
 

Sir TapTap

Member
Jun 17, 2014
19,093
0
425
USA
sirtaptap.com
How many times when there is any sort of outrage or outburst by a minority community have you heard "But MLK preached non-violence!" in an attempt to shut them down?

I've seen it a few dozen times on GAF alone, this past week alone, particularly in the "some stupid ass trump nazi got his ass beat" threads.

People need to learn some fucking history. But then if they could learn they wouldn't have voted for trump.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.