(08-27-2020, 09:43 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote:

(08-27-2020, 08:42 PM)JackCity Wrote: You might want to revisit the civil rights movement and the role physical disobedience against the forces that be played in it. At the time white politicians and clergyman called MLK "too aggressive" and "too dangerous" as he openly courted confrontation. There's also a clear change in philosophy from early MLK to later years MLK. 

effective protests are not "peaceful"

Did MLK and the Southern Leadership Conference riot, loot, steal and attack the police and others when protesting? No. Did they resist when being arrested? No. Did they attack when attacked by dogs, fire hoses, and terror from the KKK? No. They were attacked by all the 'powers that be' , and they prevailed. I dont need to 'revisit' the civil rights movement, I lived thru it.  Thru busing, race riots and marches at my schools.  I didnt read it from a book or from Wikipedia, i was in the middle of it.  While i appreciate your opinion, i respectfully disagree. 'Fiery protests' solve nothing and just further divide.

MLK kept himself and the people in his marches peaceful and unarmed, even though they did violate police orders, like "you can't be here" and "don't cross that bridge." But MLK's demonstrations created enough tensions that there were often riots after he left or a few blocks over from where he was.  The media at the time didn't miss that fact.  If you read letter from a Birmingham jail, you will see him responding to the accusation that he creates "fiery protests" even though his own protests were not fiery.

---