Hacker News Reader

Comment by asutekku | Hacker News Reader

I’ll just play the devil’s advocate, but when have peaceful protests ever helped the cause? Those are forgotten as soon as they are over.

View on HN

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/gandhi-leads-civ... https://time.com/5101740/martin-luther-king-peaceful-protest...

Of all the civil rights leaders, I’d say people remember Martin Luther King Jr the best.

It’s probably also worth asking: when have violent protests ever helped the cause?

I think that the violence of the protests helped to get Derek Chauvin arrested. But I’m not sure that continued violence will help the broader movement.

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” "

MLK, Letter From a Birmingham Jail

I actually agree with the protestors, not just in their goal but also in their methods thus far. Like I said in my earlier post, I think this helped get the police officer fired and arrested.

I hope this doesn’t get me labeled as “white” or “moderate” (I am neither).

Poland, Gdansk, Lech Walesa

Indian independence? Martin Luther King?

In both cases, the protestors were violently attacked over and over. Also, both Ghandi and MLK were murdered for their efforts.

Yes, a peaceful protest can be violently attacked and still be a peaceful protest.

It's not required that the police be peaceful, only the protesters.

And that is exactly why they were successful. When governments/police crack down on peaceful protests, it shines the light on the oppressor's behavior and creates a strong sympathetic reaction. That reaction is what evokes the change.

Ghandi is the face of that movement but was just the tip of what was a very bloody revolution. It is important that we think the movement was "non-violent" such that we can point to it to dissuade people from challenging the status quo in a material way.

Gandhi was also not a pacifist. He strongly believed in the right of self-defense.

Would you say that his protests didn't change anything and were forgotten as soon as they were over?

No, the history taught about ghandi carefully selects instances of "non-violence". I don't think ghandi is responsible for how we learn about ghandi in the west.

Just like MLK is regarded as "peaceful" when in fact he and others spoke quite a bit about the fact that there was never any response from white people unless property was attacked.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com