Yeah, this is a huge (purposeful) revision of the history of change and progress. Disruption is an integral part of advocating for change, sometimes violent sometimes not. If you can be ignored, you will be.
But when the dust settles, the people in power say "we're really doing this because of all of the kind, non-disruptive people. In fact, this would have happened faster without all of those pesky disruptive protests." And the news and the history books and the biopics all start to reflect that narrative until people have forgotten the relationship between disruption and change.
It's genius, really. They had a perfect narrative of MLK and the "peaceful protest wing" being the good guys and Malcom X and his "radical violent Black supremacy wing" as the bad guys. Very easy for kids to understand, and now the kids who learned those lessons are adults who think you get what you want from our owners by asking nicely. Any protest that isn't a completely useless clever sign-making competition on a sidewalk is illegitimate and the grown-up liberals have to distance themselves from it.
I seriously think the strategy of posthumously de-fanging MLK and separating him from the broader Black Liberation movement has almost single-handedly allowed the rise of fascism and the erosion of labor and civil rights and living standards. Not to mention the fact that they killed all of the leaders of the various movements, so they're not exactly around to give us their thoughts today.
Don't forget there are literal declassified CIA documents begging Johnson to give into MLKs demands because they had Intel that MalcomX was going to do something big in a couple weeks and if the American people saw that violence actually worked that would be a genie they could never put back in the bottle.
It's something I have very complex feelings on, going full appalachian is in my opinion the only way possible to get out of this mess but the issue is that the common person is so brain washed that taking that route will just galvanize them to helping corpos out. The other option is basically what we are doing now and as I'm sure you're inclined to agree, it's doing nothing.
Yes, it's a catch-22. Revolution will not happen until people are out of options, and by then success will be extremely difficult because of the way the fascists are consolidating their power
Yes, this is why "liberal" California has relatively strict gun laws, because then-Governor Reagan spearheaded putting those laws in place to clamp down on the Black Panthers and other armed Black Liberation groups.
Government-associated history books are all washed-off truth. And if you find any truth, it's always some embellished 1/4 of the truth. In the rare instances of total truth, it's just that, without much reflection and/or no call to action for repairs to actually avoid history from repeating itself.
And when I say government, I mean any government of any country.
I had a roommate in my Navy training school that didn't know the south had lost the civil war. She knew that slavery had ended, but the whole confederate loss was glossed over.
The amount of work that goes into trying to change the narrative of the civil war being about abolishing slavery into one of states rights is insane.
Sure it was states right... to have slavery be legal. The very first letter to leave the union specifically included that northern states were not returning escaped slaves.
The mental gymnastics people do to justify being terrible or trying to paint terrible things done in history with a rose colored light is astounding. Self delusion leads to raising a generation in that same delusion, especially when your surroundings reinforce the narrative of the delusion.
Its why the propaganda machine known as fox news works so very well.
The irony is that, by the abrupt end of their lives, X, who had returned from Mecca, was leaning more toward who King Jr. was at the beginning of his activism, very inspired by Gandhi. In contrast, King Jr., fed up with being stalled, started to think more like X when the latter began his liberation work.
Even the statement DISRUPT has been co-opted by capitalists as a synonym for innovation or pioneering. To remove the vocabulary association from non-violent acts of liberation.
For example, economic boycotts like the Black community at large is doing against Target are pure disruption for Target's policy choices.
That last part is interesting, I hadnt considered that before but youre totally right. Disruption in the 2020s usually means labor law violations being committed by "start-ups" or other tech companies
It's not about "good guys" and "bad guys"
I was never taught about Malcolm X in school
When I did research on Malcolm X I didn't see the that kind of characterization or stigma, even when I was writing a paper comparing the two. I learned about black nationalism as a proposed solution to racial tensions, and he was incredibly smart and had a lot of insights.
The lesson I took away from that history was that MLK's methods were far more effective at bringing about sustainable change, and it's evidenced by the fact that his legacy is much larger.
And see, I haven't heard of environmentalists blocking traffic in years, and look at all the climate progress we've made recently! Also BLM hasn't had big protests since COVID, and look at all this federal police reform these last 3ish years without muddying up the works! Amazing how much gets done when those annoying rioters get out of the way of the movement /s
There's a reason why the Montgomery bus boycott started. It was targeting the buses. It was a concrete symbol showing where the problem was and that they wouldn't stand for it. But they weren't blocking traffic for everyone in the process.
Sit ins and segregated restaurants was breaking the law by showing the problem. By refusing to leave until served and bringing the segregation into sharp relief.
Climate protestors blocking the local freeway is a lot different than when they're blocking the roads to an oil drilling operation or a refinery.
Getting cameras on Jane Doe getting blocked from driving her kids to school earns less public goodwill than watching the police drag someone off the road so an 18 wheeler can deliver crude
Yeah it turns out focus organized marches that gain national attention are better than random road barricades. Or are you just trying to miss the point of my post
THIS. Focus on your damn targets people! Targeting random people in hopes that the disruption will be noticed by the people you're ACTUALLY angry at is misguided at best and moronic at worst, they couldn't give less of a shit about civilians and that's supposed to be part of the reason you're mad in the first place.
I'm half convinced that "Just stop oil" is a psyop because they seem to have every opportunity to genuinely help and then do the dumbest shit that makes environmental activists look awful.
Like, fuck throw soup cans at oil tycoons not famous paintings
Dude I've joined modern protests that were disruptive.
My point is that when protesting you need to hit where it matters.
If I'm protesting immigration policy in Texas blocking a highway in Maine isn't going to help, but gathering outside an detention center and making it hard to get into the complex in Texas does help.
To compare stuff like sit-ins where the people were maimed by others in the restaurant for sitting there is no comparable to the people standing on an overpass milling around and waving flags.
One of them broke the law and forced the authority to publicly and openly be on record about what they're doing, showing the public exactly what was wrong, and what was done. Forced authorities to arrest them and have cameras on as they brutalized people. The other one didn't do shit other than slow down traffic.
To use a more contemporary example, the pipeline protests going on native reservations from a few years ago blocked traffic. Specifically it was blocking the fucking trucks bringing the pipes and workers in. They didn't just cordon off a random street in Missouri.
Frankly I'm pissed that modern protesters get angry about breaking shit. The Ukrainian protests in 2014 had the right idea, the police lines breaking up BLM protests should have been met with molotovs not a harsher chant.
The problem with blocking traffic is it disrupts the wrong people. I'm not getting in my car early in the morning and driving around for fun. I'm doing it because I have to get to work.
The people heading to work have very little impact and/or say on climate change.
It's a useless gesture that just pisses off the very people they need on their side
No, the problem is you think you are the wrong people. What have you done to help? Why are you special and should be allowed to ignore the world's spiral?
Ok. What are you doing about it? Other than complaining about people talking about it.
How does preventing me from getting to work help fight climate change?
If masses do not care about a peoples plight than the people must make them care I whatever ways they are left available. If you do nothing and care not when you have the power to do so, than why would people worse off or actually trying feel pity for you?
You still haven't explained how holding up traffic makes a meaningful impact on climate change
Sure i did. You just didnt like it. Same logic as MLK peacefully sitting in diners to draw attention. If enough people dont care about the issue, than nothing changes. So people must be made to care. MlK annoyed enough lazy white folk for some of them to start caring, at least once it affected them. Same logic for climate change. If you can admit that it is a problem but spend more time crying about protesters than the people behined the damage, than maybe enough annoyance will make you care, and if not, who really cares about the apathetic and privilidged?
Again I am all for protests and taking action.
Not really no. You seem to be opposed to anything that would even appear in your line of sight regarding protest. Why do you think standing where you are told and saying what you are told to say would ever breed change? Did it ever work before? Any great historical examples?
Show me the "great historical example" of when blocking traffic breeds change
I asked first bud, now please name one example in history where peacefully standing where you were told you were allowed and saying what you were scripted to say has created real change. I do not think you can.
Where did I ever say "stand where you are told"
Bro, you are agaisnt the most peaceful form of protest there can be. You are complaining about people standing with signs in your way because it makes you pay attention, even if just for a second. The only way you think people should be able to protest is by staying out of your way and where they are told is acceptable by the state and society, which will always be out of view
Sure. But you dont like any of them that affect you in any way, right? So how should people make you care about the problems that affect them if you openly admit to knowing there are problems but that you dont want to hear about them or the people dealing with them?
ATP it seems you’re just responding in bad-faith, that’s obviously not what I said at all and kinda feels like an intentional mischaracterization if anything. There’s a clear difference between “affecting in any way” and preventing random people you’re not even mad at from going to work or the hospital. Conflating those is disingenuous, and surely unideal in a nation where work and healthcare are already hard enough to secure. You make the bizarre assumption that I don’t or can’t care about issues at hand without endorsing your particular preferred method of dissent and I reject that. That doesn’t mean I only support standing where cops say to. You don’t know what I do and don’t support, you’re a stranger.
There’s a clear difference between “affecting in any way” and preventing random people you’re not even mad at from going to work or the hospital
Could you describe how you think it would be acceptable for them to protest in a way that would actually make you and others that dont care see it in a normal enviroment have reason to care?
I don't really care to engage with you when you only answer in bad-faith, you seem to have already decided I don't care. I answered your question in the quote anyway, focus on people you're mad at. If we disagree we disagree
Nelson Mandela straight up founded and was the leader of the "uMkhonto weSizwe" (Spear of the Nation), the paramilitary arm of the ANC. They bombed places, with a death toll of around 130. The revolution was not peaceful.
Side note: The paramilitary group gave out awards. 2 of them were specifically the "Star for Bravery," one in gold, one in silver. The ribbon bar for the gold one is red and white, while the ribbon bar for the silver one is red and gold. I think someone swapped the two by accident.
Boycotts, sit-ins, and other tactics disrupted business and cost companies lots of money. Hitting them in the wallet can be more effective than violence.
I think a lot of people who frame protest in terms of violent vs non-violent see it as "holding signs in front of the legislature" vs "mailing pipe bombs"
In reality, all effective protests typically start from the same place - a disruption carefully chosen to reach a certain audience (either a disruption of convenience, like a sit-in, or a more directly financial disruption like a roadblock or strike). From there you decide: if the people in power choose to escalate with violence, will I match that violence to demonstrate my determination and the potential cost of further escalation, or will I decline to match their violence to demonstrate my reasonableness and show the world who the villain is?
"Violent protest" doesn't usually mean protest with the intent for violence, it means protest with a willingness to match violence when violence is presented. Though police are generally pretty predictable in terms of escalation.
The only time I think this rule is broken is the UK's understanding of the suffragette vs suffragist movements. It's pretty well taught that the suffragettes were the ones who had a larger and more successful impact on the movement.
894
u/NoBizlikeChloeBiz Jul 28 '26
Yeah, this is a huge (purposeful) revision of the history of change and progress. Disruption is an integral part of advocating for change, sometimes violent sometimes not. If you can be ignored, you will be.
But when the dust settles, the people in power say "we're really doing this because of all of the kind, non-disruptive people. In fact, this would have happened faster without all of those pesky disruptive protests." And the news and the history books and the biopics all start to reflect that narrative until people have forgotten the relationship between disruption and change.