perhaps a silly question

[David]

Cyberdoo 78 quote
As most people may or may not know it, I'm not a big fan of non-violent protests because they have had very little to no effect in making change, as opposed to using the violent method of protesting.

I'd like to see the million gun march.....ooooo that could get messy. I digress.....

While I am 'pro-violence' or 'pro-self-defense'(depends on if your glass is half empty or full. Full, in case you were wondering.) I think that non-violence once practiced by the majority would have an effect like none seen before.

I see the footage of the 60's and say, ya know, that made changes. How fast did we get out of 'nam? I am at a loss of words(not really, its a phrase) when I see that footage(the words are, impressed, enthused, and excited).

I would be willing to lay down my arms in support of non-violent actions if the majority of others are willing to give up their comfort and their jobs and their life to make a change. Just as I would give up my life freely and willingly to know it made a difference.


I have to take issue with a couple of things.  The nonviolent do a tremendous amount of good.  Consider the civil rights movement.  We still have not had racial war, largely due to not escalating tension.  Dr. King was adamant about this, because he was scared of the implications.  By keeping things peacefull the opposition does not fear you the the point of being able to justify much of a reaction. 
Please keep in mind, that jim crow laws have been abolished, and do not believe for a moment it was because of the kindness of their dear hearts on the part of the gov't. 

Violence only has an ugly legacy.  Briton in 1820 reattacked the states.  Gov't is largely an idea that is backed up with force.  You can kill a person, but not the idea.  You can never kill an idea.  Violence against gov't only scares the people who believe in it.  This allows gov't to take essentially any power it wants to deal with the 'crazies'.  This happened with Randy Weaver, Waco, and 9-11 was an unusually large example of it happening.  The legacy of 9-11 is an enormously powerfull gov't.  Since then they nationalized the airport security, tap your phones, have already set the precedent for imprisoning its citizens without charges, Jose Padilla. 
You have the right to defend yourself against an aggressor, but to do so when the aggressor is acting on behalf of the largest mafia in the world, with the idealogical support of millions is just plain foolish.  They will murder you like Randy Weavers wife then blame it on you for resisting. 

No movement has ever had a majority of peoples support, certainly not the civil rights movement, or the anti war movement. 
The civil rights marchers marched specifically for a few reasons.  The largest was to provide an outlet for human beings who need to vent, but it was also in part for publicity.  They did not have their own media, so required a method to attract attention.  When people criticize activists for just wanting some attention, like a 12 year old child, in their spite, they are actually right. 

In boycotts, the goal was never to put them out of business, which was probably immpossible anyway.  It was pressure on their profit margin, to conform to a small set of clearly stated goals.  Dr. King stated that it was far easier to influence business' than the gov't.  Greenpeace, and other liberal activist groups are very successful with these tactics. 

The most important overall strategy, one that dictated the direction of the civil rights movement was the tension.  Dr. King was accused of creating tension.  But he replied that he was the oppressed, and that the tension was created by the white racists, and that he was simply challenging the oppression. 
Remember, our liberty and property are being taken by the individuals in gov't, but we cannot respond using the gov'ts weapons.  You cannot kill an idea. 

[cyberdoo78]

Interesting post, David. It provoked some thoughts from me that I hadn't once considered.

I'm not saying that the non-violent movement hasn't done anything good, take 'nam for example as I mentioned. You claim we haven't had a race war. Perhaps in your view, the Watts Riots weren't. The violence we see between gangs, who are ethnically monotone, isn't a war, yet we call it a war against gangs. The trial and riots following the Rodney King trial. What about the anger at the verdict of OJ Simpson? I would like to say that your belief there isn't a racial war going on right now is not the whole truth.

We see alot of 'combat' between Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton against non black individuals. In fact we see 'alot' of discrimination between white and black people. I would like to take a point from my personal knowledge about this race war going on. My own local government fought and won their own 'racial battle' between two white elected Representatives who dismissed a black aide in trying to reduce the cost of government. Immediately this black lady shouted 'racial discrimination' and a black church leader stepped up to her cause. She lost the case and in the last election ran for local office, and lost.

In my look at the Civil Rights movement, which wasn't about rights, they already had them, but in equality. To demand that someone treat you the same as someone else is silly. We are -not- all equal, we are -not- all the same. Under law we are, but as a society, we may believe any damn thing we wish. There is a unequalled duality in this country, that is non-white minorities are more equal under the law then whites. You need only look to the law to prove this.

Recently a man died, and he has some money. He asked that his money be spent to build a hospital where there once was none. He asked that preference be given to white people over others. Now, I don't agree with this concept, however it is his money and he should be able to do with he as he pleases. A court overruled his will and nullified that provision.

Now I live in Alaska, here American Indian Alaskan Natives get preferential treatment. They get hospitals which only treat them, they get benefits that only apply to them, and so on and so on. No one stands up and cries 'foul' to this. No court will overrule these actions? Why, because they aren't white.

Another example, the NAACP, establishes all sorts of endowments and grants and such to black people. If a white person asks for these benefits they are turned away. See we do hold a double standard, one that the 'civil rights' movement never fixed. So to say it was a success is a lie, for now the law favors the other side.

You then point out to people in the environmental movements who don't practice violence, however they do destroy property of corporations, and in a sense, it is a 'war' of sorts. One that is violent, but it too has caused very little change toward the goal of man reducing its impact on the environment.

Over all, more change is effect by the use of violence, and while I will admit this change is bloody and not always for the better, the same can be said of the use of non-violence.

As someone pointed out, our history shows us that non-violence doesn't work better then violence. We have done alot non-violently to change the way people do things, but so far it hasn't fully fixed the problem, it seemed to only create more problems.

I will agree with you that you can't fight an idea. We have this war on terrorism and like the war on drugs, and the war on poverty, and the war on education and so on, it will never be defeated. We've tried fight it and communism only changed its form and not its function. As you can see our government has moved that of a republic to a democracy, the next change will be to socialism, and then to communism. So the war on communism hasn't been won, and it can never be won.

You hold peaceful demonstrations and nothing ever seems to really change. Most peace activists are looked at as screw balls, I used to. I understand a little more after joining this group, but the problem one of education, not of protesting. Protest all you want, it does nothing overall. Only education could change that.

Lastly I want to comment on the use of violence toward the government. In past this has largely be ineffective, because the government has the guns and the man power, however this is no longer true. You cite previous examples which are the basis of government to stop using violence against its own people. The bad things that happened made the government stop using those tactics most of the time. The Brown case is another example and there are many others that can be shown had they made it to the media. The notice of using violence against the government should it use violence against the individual, has now made the government listen, maybe not hard, but stop long enough to listen before resorting to violence or waiting them out as they have in recent cases.

This is something that non-violence has not successfully done, with some exceptions of course. Only time will tell which path leads to the goal more often. I believe that violence will win, because nothing motivates survival like the possibility of death. With non-violence there is no issue of survival and hence no motivation on either side for change.

Note, I object to the use of violence to be initiated on others, regardless if they are an individual, group, or government. I believe violence should be a method of last resort when all other options have failed, and only in a manner that is defensive in nature. That notices of violence, should never be seen as threats because they are not such. A threat is used to compel action. A notice is a statement of what will occur if an action is taken.