3 ms·
"And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem
by ixtli 5y ago
"And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity."
- Dr. Martin Luthor King Jr, in a speech given at Grosse Pointe High School on March 14, 1968
EDIT: There is some legalism in OPs link which i am not qualified to criticize, however its dotted with claims which appear to be more general and that ignore hundreds of years of political science theory.
"Very few people defend rioting as a justified political action."
This just isn't true.
- beepbooptheory 5y agoAre you aware that this quote is an epigraph at the beginning of this very essay?
- ixtli 5y agoyes! i wanted to past the whole paragraph without elision and i didnt feel like specifically going into how it implies that for some reason Dr. King's speeches dont constitute academic development or that, futher, this ignores the last 200 years of marxist-leninist writing and discussion on the topic. But as i said in my edit, i don't think im qualified to discuss matters of legalism. Its just a little nuts, to my eyes, that someone can look at all of these people who developed their worldview at least partially by study and say "why is no one talking about this!"
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- exo-pla-net 5y agoDo you know what normative theorizing means? The article in its first few sentences addresses both the academic and non-academic discussion surrounding riots: "Yet these defenders focus on riots' effectiveness rather than its legitimacy. They do not defend rioting on normative grounds. The lack of normative theorizing in academic scholarship about riots is even more striking."