6 ms·

Meh. People in power always say the militants were too militant and actually hurt the cause - whether it's true or not. When you think about it, the only thing

Meh. People in power always say the militants were too militant and actually hurt the cause - whether it's true or not. When you think about it, the only thing the establishment wants is an opposition too weak to effectively stop them. Winning movements almost always have a radical edge. You mentioned Malcolm X, but even Martin Luther King was accused of hurting the cause for black equality by being too extreme. And even if all the militant suffragettes did was make the mainstream suffrage movement look more acceptable, that's still a huge impact for a numerically small group.

Kalium 11y ago
There have been some studies showing that militant tactics in the civil rights era provoked conservative backlashes compared to geographic areas where militant tactics were not employed. We're not in the realm of pure hypothesis and supposition anymore. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows-riots-make-america-conservative.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows... It's worth considering that the people in power who say the militants are hurting their cause may be speaking the truth. Rather than dismissing them out of hand because you find their motives suspect.
- unimpressive 11y ago
  That is a really confusingly written article, but the study does seem to say what is claimed.
- gozo 11y ago
  There's a faulty premise that militant action is a strict choice. Once the police start beating and arresting people there's often no going back. Look at all the movements that in the US that no one cares about. That study seemingly doesn't say anything about why the riots happened, it might very well be that "social control" was more politically prevalent at certain times which reflected in both in violence and in public opinion.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    Militant action is a choice. People choose violence. Sentient human beings are always capable of not choosing violence. Therefore, I believe the premise to be correct and valid. Do you have a reason for believing otherwise? The study doesn't just look at years. It looks at county-by-county voting patterns.
    - gozo 11y ago
      Well. HN is probably not the best place for this, so I'm not going to make this too long, but there are a couple of point. Few movements will survive its more prominent members being beaten and arrested, which is what happens when there's no power balance. Even fewer movement will survive going out and doing the same thing all over again. No seasoned movement can ever guarantee that a protest won't turn violent if the police start arresting people. I'm not saying you should go out and do militant things, but you can't make is easy for the authorities to stop you from protesting. If the choice is between your movement being silenced and trying to defend yourself then maybe that's not really a choice as such. Of course the US is so far beyond any reasonable protest culture that you might as well not protest at all.
      - hoopd 11y ago
        > Of course the US is so far beyond any reasonable protest culture that you might as well not protest at all. Really? It seems like it's all some people do anymore. You can even become a professional activist and monetize your own victimhood. In the past year we've had people literally rioting and burning down buildings while the intelligentsia provided apoligies for them. "This is self-expression of a voiceless people, that burning car is a statement...." Are you upset that you're not allowed to stop traffic during rush hour and chant slogans at people? Name one thing you can't do in the US that's part of a "reasonable protest culture"
        gozo 11y ago
        Your not really offering any arguments to this discussion. If you're interested you can compared the student tuition protests in the US and Canada[0]. Violent or non-voilent, no protest can occur if people don't believe in the right of making your voice heard. In the US you are very good at rationalizing away those rights. I would do that to if I faced the US justice system and frankly that's why I don't spend a lot of time in the US. Plenty of incidents have been written about, from unlawful arrests to free speech zones and jail time for simple Internet attacks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Quebec_student_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Quebec_student_protests [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident
- mannykannot 11y ago
  In some cases the conservative backlash helps persuade the majority that the militants' cause has some validity.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    Yet there's also the clearly demonstrated possibility of a counterproductive backlash. This is not something to be dismissed idly or a risk to be taken lightly by rational people in pursuit of serious goals.
- brudgers 11y ago
  provoked Oppression isn't provoked or a backlash. It's cold and calculated for purposeful effect. The banal logic of colonialism is why Reginald Dyer's troops had .303 Enfields [and the used because they were too wide armoured cars] at Jallianwala Bagh. [1] Jim Crow, the Klan, George Wallace and segregated public schools were long established before events such as those which earned Edmund Pettus Bridge [2] it's National Historic Register status. Though I suppose "conservative backlash" one could mean the Cahaba Boys [3], I'm not really seeing anything that I would qualify as provocative in a neutral sense of the word. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre#The_Hunter_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre#The_... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Pettus_Bridge#Civil_rights_flashpoint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Pettus_Bridge#Civil_rig... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_church_bombing#Prosecution_of_Robert_Chambliss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_church_bombing#Pros...
  - Kalium 11y ago
    OK. Then use a different set of words. Violent protest in these historical contexts has been demonstrated as causally linked to political changes antithetical to those preferred by said protesters. Happier? The exact same phenomenon has now been described without using either of the words you object to. What has been gained by this exercise? The phenomenon in question has not changed because a vocabulary some people might consider more neutral has been used. Do you have something to contribute to this conversation?
hoopd 11y ago
And any criticism of militants is always framed and dismissed as coming from "power" or "the establishment".
tedks 11y ago
The reason why Martin Luther King is the person we as people in 2015 know about is because he was selected by the administrations of his time as the black rights leader they would and did endorse. Likewise, the reason why people in the West know Gandhi and not Bhagat Singh is because the British Empire selected Gandhi as the entity they would transfer power to. It seems extraordinarily questionable to claim that the reactions of existing power holders is the benchmark by which we should measure liberatory struggle. It also seems likely that there were strategic and geopolitical reasons why the power holders selected those groups, rather than others, to legitimize and endorse. Certainly Johnson, the man that fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to bring the nation to war, did not select Martin Luther King as the torchbearer for civil rights purely because he believed the man's cause to be just and his morals pure. I wonder, what do people who oppose radical groups say to the continued efficacy of the Afghan people at expelling occupiers from their nation? Certainly, attacking Soviet tanks and American patrols can only increase the resolve of an occupier. If only they knew of the power of nonviolence! Then they could really achieve independence rather than remaining crushed under the boot of oppression for so long.
- selimthegrim 11y ago
  Bhagat Singh/Rajguru/Sukhdev or Ram Prasad Bismil/Ashfaqullah are good examples but Subhash Chandra Bose would probably be a slightly better one for the sake of generalizability

Kalium 11y ago

There have been some studies showing that militant tactics in the civil rights era provoked conservative backlashes compared to geographic areas where militant tactics were not employed. We're not in the realm of pure hypothesis and supposition anymore. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows-riots-make-america-conservative.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows... It's worth considering that the people in power who say the militants are hurting their cause may be speaking the truth. Rather than dismissing them out of hand because you find their motives suspect.

unimpressive 11y ago
That is a really confusingly written article, but the study does seem to say what is claimed.
gozo 11y ago
There's a faulty premise that militant action is a strict choice. Once the police start beating and arresting people there's often no going back. Look at all the movements that in the US that no one cares about. That study seemingly doesn't say anything about why the riots happened, it might very well be that "social control" was more politically prevalent at certain times which reflected in both in violence and in public opinion.
- Kalium 11y ago
  Militant action is a choice. People choose violence. Sentient human beings are always capable of not choosing violence. Therefore, I believe the premise to be correct and valid. Do you have a reason for believing otherwise? The study doesn't just look at years. It looks at county-by-county voting patterns.
  - gozo 11y ago
    Well. HN is probably not the best place for this, so I'm not going to make this too long, but there are a couple of point. Few movements will survive its more prominent members being beaten and arrested, which is what happens when there's no power balance. Even fewer movement will survive going out and doing the same thing all over again. No seasoned movement can ever guarantee that a protest won't turn violent if the police start arresting people. I'm not saying you should go out and do militant things, but you can't make is easy for the authorities to stop you from protesting. If the choice is between your movement being silenced and trying to defend yourself then maybe that's not really a choice as such. Of course the US is so far beyond any reasonable protest culture that you might as well not protest at all.
    - hoopd 11y ago
      > Of course the US is so far beyond any reasonable protest culture that you might as well not protest at all. Really? It seems like it's all some people do anymore. You can even become a professional activist and monetize your own victimhood. In the past year we've had people literally rioting and burning down buildings while the intelligentsia provided apoligies for them. "This is self-expression of a voiceless people, that burning car is a statement...." Are you upset that you're not allowed to stop traffic during rush hour and chant slogans at people? Name one thing you can't do in the US that's part of a "reasonable protest culture"
      - gozo 11y ago
        Your not really offering any arguments to this discussion. If you're interested you can compared the student tuition protests in the US and Canada[0]. Violent or non-voilent, no protest can occur if people don't believe in the right of making your voice heard. In the US you are very good at rationalizing away those rights. I would do that to if I faced the US justice system and frankly that's why I don't spend a lot of time in the US. Plenty of incidents have been written about, from unlawful arrests to free speech zones and jail time for simple Internet attacks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Quebec_student_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Quebec_student_protests [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident
mannykannot 11y ago
In some cases the conservative backlash helps persuade the majority that the militants' cause has some validity.
- Kalium 11y ago
  Yet there's also the clearly demonstrated possibility of a counterproductive backlash. This is not something to be dismissed idly or a risk to be taken lightly by rational people in pursuit of serious goals.
brudgers 11y ago
provoked Oppression isn't provoked or a backlash. It's cold and calculated for purposeful effect. The banal logic of colonialism is why Reginald Dyer's troops had .303 Enfields [and the used because they were too wide armoured cars] at Jallianwala Bagh. [1] Jim Crow, the Klan, George Wallace and segregated public schools were long established before events such as those which earned Edmund Pettus Bridge [2] it's National Historic Register status. Though I suppose "conservative backlash" one could mean the Cahaba Boys [3], I'm not really seeing anything that I would qualify as provocative in a neutral sense of the word. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre#The_Hunter_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre#The_... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Pettus_Bridge#Civil_rights_flashpoint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Pettus_Bridge#Civil_rig... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_church_bombing#Prosecution_of_Robert_Chambliss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_church_bombing#Pros...
- Kalium 11y ago
  OK. Then use a different set of words. Violent protest in these historical contexts has been demonstrated as causally linked to political changes antithetical to those preferred by said protesters. Happier? The exact same phenomenon has now been described without using either of the words you object to. What has been gained by this exercise? The phenomenon in question has not changed because a vocabulary some people might consider more neutral has been used. Do you have something to contribute to this conversation?

hoopd 11y ago

And any criticism of militants is always framed and dismissed as coming from "power" or "the establishment".

tedks 11y ago

The reason why Martin Luther King is the person we as people in 2015 know about is because he was selected by the administrations of his time as the black rights leader they would and did endorse. Likewise, the reason why people in the West know Gandhi and not Bhagat Singh is because the British Empire selected Gandhi as the entity they would transfer power to. It seems extraordinarily questionable to claim that the reactions of existing power holders is the benchmark by which we should measure liberatory struggle. It also seems likely that there were strategic and geopolitical reasons why the power holders selected those groups, rather than others, to legitimize and endorse. Certainly Johnson, the man that fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to bring the nation to war, did not select Martin Luther King as the torchbearer for civil rights purely because he believed the man's cause to be just and his morals pure. I wonder, what do people who oppose radical groups say to the continued efficacy of the Afghan people at expelling occupiers from their nation? Certainly, attacking Soviet tanks and American patrols can only increase the resolve of an occupier. If only they knew of the power of nonviolence! Then they could really achieve independence rather than remaining crushed under the boot of oppression for so long.

selimthegrim 11y ago
Bhagat Singh/Rajguru/Sukhdev or Ram Prasad Bismil/Ashfaqullah are good examples but Subhash Chandra Bose would probably be a slightly better one for the sake of generalizability