4 ms·

For MLK I see it as a more complex situation, where his movement's peaceful promise shines that bright _because_ the other active movements don't shy away from

For MLK I see it as a more complex situation, where his movement's peaceful promise shines that bright _because_ the other active movements don't shy away from embracing violence and are a credible threat in case MLK's supporters moved away in mass from his ideology. People kept supporting him because hope was still there, and his death gave way to riots that just couldn't be ignored, giving the smallest glimpse of what would keep going if rapid change wasn't enacted. I'm not versed enough in India's history to comment.

jimkleiber 2y ago
Fair, at least from what I learned in the movie Gandhi, which may or may not be accurate, it seemed that both MLK and Gandhi led the force for nonviolence and once they were no longer alive, the nonviolent coalitions seemed to dissipate somewhat or significantly. I hypothesize because they were talking about nonviolence and people assumed by that they wanted peace and I think these leaders wanted love. I recently have been thinking a lot that there's almost a war between love and peace, where people who want love want to work together to resolve conflict and people who want peace want to get rid of conflict, often by working against each other.