5 ms·

Civility is the bedrock on which justice is built. That's why Gandhi, King, and Mandela effected change. And so many passionate others did not.

by ethbro 8y ago

mikeash 8y ago
It’s also why Washington and Lincoln were able to effect change. Wait a minute.... In any case, you’re missing the point. The point is that if you use someone’s incivility as an excuse to behave badly, you’re not doing it right. It’s fine if you don’t like them, it’s fine if you want them do change their approach, but if they push you away from treating people well, that’s on you, not them.
- ethbro 8y ago
  I'd argue neither Washington nor Lincoln initiated hostilities. So yes, both took a non-violent path until it could not be avoided. Furthermore, both had substantial popular support, larger political apparatus backing them (the Continental Congress and remaining US Congress respectively), and almost lost. I could care less about me. I care about the masses out there who are swayed by civility -- if you show me a pattern of disagreements that have been won by a minority alienating a majority, then I'll concede the point.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    My comment is all about “me”, specifically people who say they are pushed away from good behavior because advocates are jerks. If you don’t do that then I don’t think this is the right comment thread for you.
  - munin 8y ago
    > I'd argue neither Washington nor Lincoln initiated hostilities Why did Lincoln resupply Fort Sumter? If he did not want to initiate hostilities, he could have evacuated it.
gowld 8y ago
That's extremely selective memory. Mandela was a member of a terrorist organization. Apartheid didn't end because Mandela sat in prison politely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing King railed against people who spoke like you to quiet the people fighting for justice: https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.... "I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare."
- ethbro 8y ago
  Mandela didn't control the entire ANC, just as one person doesn't control a movement. We only have his words and decisions. And before I'd dare to selectively quote the finest and most comprehensive American Civil Rights document from that period (written from memory and without reference material, no less), I would spend more time reading and understanding all of Dr. King's remarks in that letter. (And its context: local white Christian leadership had published a newspaper piece blaming "outside agitators"). > "In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
danharaj 8y ago
The history book you read was so whitewashed it may as well been bleached.
mcherm 8y ago
You listed a few examples of individuals who effected great change and were civil. (Mostly civil. Gandhi, King, and Mandela were each accused by their detractors of being insufficiently civil.) I could easily list examples of individuals who effected great change and were NOT civil. Neither list would prove anything. An actual analysis of leaders who were then classified according to their civility and rated on their effectiveness would tell us a lot, but I haven't seen such an analysis. I'm not saying civility is a bad idea -- it is the approach I usually use. But you haven't convinced me of anything by listing 3 famous names.
- ethbro 8y ago
  My broader rationale goes like this: - The objective of any movement is to effect a change - The number of people pro- or anti- change is always dwarfed by the number of ambivalent or mostly-ambivalent bystanders (aka those who don't really care) - The shortest path to the object is therefore converting the bystanding mass to your side - You convert people more easily if you don't scare them - Overthrowing the system and militancy always scare people I don't have my books on designing effective protest movements in front of me, but I'll post the names when I'm home later. The above ideas are all cribbed from reading. PS: Not that militancy doesn't have a place. But unless you're willing to start a civil war and have substantial economic and popular backing before initiating hostilities, the state is always going to have more power (see point about silent bystanders).
pjc50 8y ago
All of whom were described as extremely uncivil by their enemies at the time. During the 80s it was routine for British conservatives to denounce Mandela as a terrorist (which was actually the crime he'd been convicted of, and he was actually involved in plotting acts of sabotage against the SA government).
bluntfang 8y ago
I'm curious about your thoughts of Malcom X and his effect on the civil rights movement.
- ethbro 8y ago
  If you're talking about pre-Mecca Malcolm X (and specifically a more confrontational stance), then I personally believe the Nation of Islam and the Black Panther Party were helpful in the eventual furthering of the civil rights agenda. By demonstrating a forceful and armed alternative to peaceful protest, they (to use the parlance of our day) pushed the Overton window in such a way that the SCLC and NAACP Legal Defense Fund seemed more mainstream. But their effectiveness in the broader effort and end result was absolutely predicated on the existence of a more moderate and palatable (to those on the sidelines) alternative. If we're talking about post-Mecca Malcolm X, then I think it's an excellent example of someone who has found that love triumphs over hate, both in the world and in ones own character, even when fighting terrible injustice.

Civility is the bedrock on which justice is built. That's why Gandhi, King, and Mandela effected change. And so many passionate others did not.

by ethbro 8y ago

Civility is the bedrock on which justice is built. That's why Gandhi, King, and Mandela effected change. And so many passionate others did not.

mikeash 8y ago

It’s also why Washington and Lincoln were able to effect change. Wait a minute.... In any case, you’re missing the point. The point is that if you use someone’s incivility as an excuse to behave badly, you’re not doing it right. It’s fine if you don’t like them, it’s fine if you want them do change their approach, but if they push you away from treating people well, that’s on you, not them.

ethbro 8y ago
I'd argue neither Washington nor Lincoln initiated hostilities. So yes, both took a non-violent path until it could not be avoided. Furthermore, both had substantial popular support, larger political apparatus backing them (the Continental Congress and remaining US Congress respectively), and almost lost. I could care less about me. I care about the masses out there who are swayed by civility -- if you show me a pattern of disagreements that have been won by a minority alienating a majority, then I'll concede the point.
- mikeash 8y ago
  My comment is all about “me”, specifically people who say they are pushed away from good behavior because advocates are jerks. If you don’t do that then I don’t think this is the right comment thread for you.
- munin 8y ago
  > I'd argue neither Washington nor Lincoln initiated hostilities Why did Lincoln resupply Fort Sumter? If he did not want to initiate hostilities, he could have evacuated it.

gowld 8y ago

That's extremely selective memory. Mandela was a member of a terrorist organization. Apartheid didn't end because Mandela sat in prison politely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing King railed against people who spoke like you to quiet the people fighting for justice: https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.... "I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare."

ethbro 8y ago
Mandela didn't control the entire ANC, just as one person doesn't control a movement. We only have his words and decisions. And before I'd dare to selectively quote the finest and most comprehensive American Civil Rights document from that period (written from memory and without reference material, no less), I would spend more time reading and understanding all of Dr. King's remarks in that letter. (And its context: local white Christian leadership had published a newspaper piece blaming "outside agitators"). > "In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action."

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

danharaj 8y ago

The history book you read was so whitewashed it may as well been bleached.

mcherm 8y ago

You listed a few examples of individuals who effected great change and were civil. (Mostly civil. Gandhi, King, and Mandela were each accused by their detractors of being insufficiently civil.) I could easily list examples of individuals who effected great change and were NOT civil. Neither list would prove anything. An actual analysis of leaders who were then classified according to their civility and rated on their effectiveness would tell us a lot, but I haven't seen such an analysis. I'm not saying civility is a bad idea -- it is the approach I usually use. But you haven't convinced me of anything by listing 3 famous names.

ethbro 8y ago
My broader rationale goes like this: - The objective of any movement is to effect a change - The number of people pro- or anti- change is always dwarfed by the number of ambivalent or mostly-ambivalent bystanders (aka those who don't really care) - The shortest path to the object is therefore converting the bystanding mass to your side - You convert people more easily if you don't scare them - Overthrowing the system and militancy always scare people I don't have my books on designing effective protest movements in front of me, but I'll post the names when I'm home later. The above ideas are all cribbed from reading. PS: Not that militancy doesn't have a place. But unless you're willing to start a civil war and have substantial economic and popular backing before initiating hostilities, the state is always going to have more power (see point about silent bystanders).

pjc50 8y ago

All of whom were described as extremely uncivil by their enemies at the time. During the 80s it was routine for British conservatives to denounce Mandela as a terrorist (which was actually the crime he'd been convicted of, and he was actually involved in plotting acts of sabotage against the SA government).

bluntfang 8y ago

I'm curious about your thoughts of Malcom X and his effect on the civil rights movement.

ethbro 8y ago
If you're talking about pre-Mecca Malcolm X (and specifically a more confrontational stance), then I personally believe the Nation of Islam and the Black Panther Party were helpful in the eventual furthering of the civil rights agenda. By demonstrating a forceful and armed alternative to peaceful protest, they (to use the parlance of our day) pushed the Overton window in such a way that the SCLC and NAACP Legal Defense Fund seemed more mainstream. But their effectiveness in the broader effort and end result was absolutely predicated on the existence of a more moderate and palatable (to those on the sidelines) alternative. If we're talking about post-Mecca Malcolm X, then I think it's an excellent example of someone who has found that love triumphs over hate, both in the world and in ones own character, even when fighting terrible injustice.