(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 and his allies did in fact aim to be confronted by police and cause a ruckus. They were often met with fierce opposition and violence which they wholeheartedly faced up to and caused mass commotion. This was planned and talked about. 

I'm not sure where you were during all of this but I'm amazed you think civil rights progression happened due to people protesting within the rules of the time and within what authority allowed them to do. 

Part of the whitewashing if MLK is portraying him as a peace loving man who just wasn't civil rights to progress via standing around abiding by the law and *waiting* for things to change.

---