3 ms·
I'd absolutely consider that to be peaceful. Dr. King didn't get a permit for road closures when he led the march from Selma to Montgomery. Or when the Teamster
by unlinked_dll 7y ago
I'd absolutely consider that to be peaceful. Dr. King didn't get a permit for road closures when he led the march from Selma to Montgomery. Or when the Teamsters joined with the NFLPA to block access to stadiums during the players' strike, or when unions form picket lines.
In a similar vein, possibly the most successful and iconic protests in American history (the Million-Man march, the Freedom Riders, the Memphis sit-ins, etc) during the Civil Rights movement did so precisely because they disrupted everyday life (like sitting at a diner, riding public transit, getting to work).
For a protest to be successful it has to be provocative and disruptive. Peaceful means without violence, it doesn't mean without provocation.
- hirundo 7y agoIf I'm trying to get from point A to point B, but can't because a man is standing in my right-of-way and won't move, and there's no easy way to go around, I would consider that man to be disrupting the peace regardless of whether he was Martin Luther King or the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The righteousness of his message doesn't enter into it. If you disagree with this, do you also think that having the road blocked by a Klan rally should be considered peaceful?
- unlinked_dll 7y agothen how are protests ever to be effective if they don't force average people to pay attention? This is why the civil rights movement was effective without violence - people like you got agitated, and the police responded by siccing dogs and water hoses on the peaceful protests who were just "in your way." It forced people to wake up to the violence they faced every day.
- hirundo 7y agoForcing people to pay attention is not peaceful, whether it's justified or not.