Question about moral high ground and approaches to nonviolence

[David]

Anger is a good motivator.  Without it few people would be activists. 
I am of the belief that focused anger was the fuel for the civil rights actions in the past.  I also think that being controlled by anger is very counterproductive. 
My question, what works better of the two approaches?  Moral authority is vital in my opinion.  It dictates the success or failure of an effort. 
I see two main approaches withing the nonviolent resistance movement,
1. Conversion, the 'love your neighbor' approach practiced by Jesus and Dr. King, here the emphasise is to try to convert an opponent into a nonopponent, and even a friend.  Dr. King in particular wrote that he feared for African Americans if the struggle became violent as he was well aware that they were a minority and would be crushed. 
2. Coersive, the angry approach of direct challenging the opponent.  Emphasise on detering an opponent, with no desire to convert the opponent.  This is kind of a nonviolent f-you approach.  The Seattle Wash. anti-globalization activists seemed to embrace this, and they claim they were nonviolent, that it was the police that started the violence. 

I favor the second approach, as it seems to work better, particularly in maintaining its moral authority.(nonviolent resistance is the only application for the concept of 'love your neighbor' that I have been able to find')  The more vicious the gov't is in dealing with the peaceful confrontation, the more moral authority the activists gain. But this seems to be true for both approaches.  Also it is easier to express anger than the internal peace needed to follow the first approach. 

For those that believe in the potential of nonviolent resistance, I would like to hear your opinions and reasons as to which is better. 

[David]

I'm now convinced the first approach is the best.  Harder to do, but better.  I had forgotten that people are drawn to that which they can identify with.  If you are angry and hateful, you will draw angry and hateful people to you, just as you would if you are a kind and friendly person.  Two things have brought me to this conclusion. 
1. the discussion about defending ones self from the govt using force,
2. Sam I Ams fantastic act of civ dis.  I also see the wisdom in Dave Ridleys' kind approach. 

I think the Christian Church mantra of loving the sinner, but hating the sin is very good. 

While I get very angry when I read about some despicable govt action, like eminent domain, or a swat raid on some elderly couple or family, I don't like to define myself as an angry person. 
I first saw the idea of de-escalating violence as essential when I became attracted briefly to anarchy.  War is the health of the state, so I reasoned that a lack of war, or conflict, was the health of anarchy.  Reducing conflict is essential to anarchy.  That many anarchists do not practice conflict reduction in all areas of their lives i think has a lot to do with the fact that we are no closer to an anarchist society than we were 100 years ago when the philosophy was in its heyday. 

[J’raxis 270145]

I'm now convinced the first approach is the best.  Harder to do, but better.  I had forgotten that people are drawn to that which they can identify with.  If you are angry and hateful, you will draw angry and hateful people to you, just as you would if you are a kind and friendly person.

And anger begets anger—get angry at someone, and they most likely will get angry back at you, responding to the emotion, and ignoring your argument completely.

[John]

Anger is very dangerous!  People who carry anger are easy to manipulate and control.
Think of the person who was abused as a child and caries that anger into adulthood: They very often repeat that very same abuse onto others.  Their anger controls their behavior.

Abusive people are angry people.  Abusive people damage others (simply) because they were damaged by others and they are unwilling to suffer through forgiveness.
Forgiveness is not always easy, nor should it be.  Forgiveness creates good "karma" - and good karma requires effort.

Forgiveness sets one free from past abuses.
Carrying anger binds one to the abuse.

I choose freedom.

[anthonybpugh]

Pish Posh. 

How about I reword your original question. 

It is better to pretend I don't have anger and instead engage in passive aggressive behavior OR should I become a confrontational jerk who gains agreement by simply brow beats people into submission? 

Anger is a normal human emotion.  Anger can be good.  Anger can be bad.  It all depends on the situation.  It depends on whether it is appropriate for the situation and whether it is expressed in a healthy manner.   Some people in certain situations will react more positively with a patient love-thy-neighbor approach and there are other situations where an expression of justified and righteous anger is appropriate.   

Anyone can become angry — that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way, this is not easy — Aristotle

[J’raxis 270145]

It is better to pretend I don't have anger and instead engage in passive aggressive behavior OR should I become a confrontational jerk who gains agreement by simply brow beats people into submission? 

False dichotomy. Plenty of people seem to have learnt how to deal with anger without either expressing it or letting it push them into passive-aggressive behavior.

Anger is a normal human emotion.  Anger can be good.  Anger can be bad.  It all depends on the situation.  It depends on whether it is appropriate for the situation and whether it is expressed in a healthy manner.   Some people in certain situations will react more positively with a patient love-thy-neighbor approach and there are other situations where an expression of justified and righteous anger is appropriate.

Sure. Acting out of anger before one has thought out rationally how to properly deal with a situation, or acting in order to satisfy one's anger (a desire for revenge, or simply to hurt one's opponent back, as opposed to a desire to fix the situation), is where it becomes problematic. And that's a problem that so many people have.

[anthonybpugh]

I thought the original question  was a false dichotomy and I felt that if it were reworded it would be more apparent.  I thought the original question and the replies have been rather simplistic and unrealistic.  It seems like it is an attempt to provide a principle to guide interaction in certain situations by use of one or two maxims. 

There are plenty of people who do not express their anger.  They simply repress it.  They engage in passive aggressive behavior or they operate under a belief that anger is wrong and try to deny their anger and allow the anger to express itself in destructive fashions in other parts of their lives  all the while denying that they are filled with anger. 

It seems from several of the responses that the problem isn't so much with having the emotion of anger but in a belief that expression of anger will lead to a loss of control by the person expressing the anger.  It would seem to suggest that you believe other people to be emotionally immature and lacking in self-discipline.   

People respond to other's emotional states.  Most people do not like to upset other people and do not like to make other people angry.  Part of the reason for expression of anger when it is justified is so the other person becomes aware of this anger.  Emotional reactions are how we communicate with each other.  Many times people will stop doing bad things when they become aware that it pisses other people off. 

Also emotion drives almost all of our behavior.  It is a sense of anger, disgust and frustration that causes many of us to get up off our asses and do something to change the world.  Without emotion you don't have passion and without emotion and passion the world is just too boring.  I like anger because it livens things up.