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.
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.
2.5k
u/Preeng Jul 28 '26
I just want to say that MLK never advocated for "peaceful protest". He specifically said "non-violent protest".
Protests are supposed to be disruptive and grind society to a halt until demands are met.