Thinking about nonviolence

[valarltd]

* Nonviolence: The success of our movement depends on the idea that we must present our concerns in the same ways as Gandhi and MLK. We should never appear ill-composed, we should never aim to strike fear into the hearts of those we feel wronged us. We should always come at these situations with nonviolence of action, thought, and speech. We are on the side of goodness, let's reflect that. Because the ultimate goal is to cause enough stir to be invited back to the negotiation table.

--From Soulforce on how to protest


I was thinking on this today. I won't be going to the protests tomorrow. I'm staying home with my very sick youngest so Mudd and the two big kids can go.

Is nonviolence really the answer?
Would MLK have been so effective without the threat of Malcolm X and Eldridge Cleaver?
When the latter terrified white America, those in power realized they could talk sense to MLK.


I had wanted to carry a sign that said "Morlock for Marriage" but I decided that was too geeky.
But I believe Magneto is right:
"No one ever talks about [extermination]. They just do it. And you go on with your lives, ignoring the signs all around you. And then, one day, when the air is still and the night has fallen, they come for you."

Comments

[snowdropexplodes.myopenid.com (from livejournal.com)]

I think the best example is that of Nelson Mandela: the reason the White South Africans were willing to talk to him was because the ANC had upped its game from non-violent protest to sabotage and guerilla tactics.

The thing that non-violence provides is a face-saving way for the other side to negotiate with you, and when it has large numbers of protesters, then it proves that your pacifist figurehead has the ear of their followers.