Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Is this a serious question? Tell me you're just striking a pose.
Though fact you cite the 70's for "peacenik stuff" suggests it may be ignorance. The major gains of the Civil Rights movement were made in the 50s to the 60s. By the late 60s and early 70s, more violent and revolutionary tactics took over. You can do your own research on which tactics led to genuine progress.
|
Why the refusal to acknowledge that the use of violence is not always based on who throws the first punch or fires the first shot? You may want to dig a little deeper into MLK's philosophy and use of "non-violence" to better understand the use of violence. MLK used the violence inherent in the system to work to his advantage, but as Captain pointed out, the restraint only lasted for so long, and tactically as it were. I think you're also ignoring the riots of the period and how they spilled over into affecting public opinion. I personally think you are either misrepresenting the "non-violence movement" or ignoring the violence that was so prevalent through out the movement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
It's difficult to express how bizarre it is to see the emergence of a political culture where freedom of speech is being championed more strongly by the right than the left. It's like watching rain fall upwards.
|
This kind of explains your interpretation of the non-violence movement. If you think the right is championing free speech, you're out of your mind. They are not championing free speech, they are championing their right to use hate speech without accountability. Massive difference.