acts of violence vs. civil disobedience

My friend and I were having this debate. I believe that sometimes acts of violence are necessary for change. By putting fear of revenge into oppressors they quickly smarten up. The subjects were Martin Luther King and the black panthers. I believed that though Martin Luther King was given the kudos for effectively changing human rights for black Americans, the panthers were more effective and should be given more credit. I think that the only reason these dim-wit racists smartened up was because they were afraid. Their attitudes didn't necessarily change, just their actions. They pretended that they learned their lesson (through Martin Luther King or knowledge) as to save their butts, but really the real reason they changed (in action) was because they were scared sh*tless. I (knowing this may cause some forum users to really get p.o.'d at me) believe that Martin Luther Kings ways might have even delayed getting equal rights to black Americans as well as allowing for compromise when none was needed or wanted. I'm not saying all racists didn't learn from knowledge or from the civil disobedient approach, just not most. What is your opinion?

I'm all for not backing down when you're being threatened and fighting for your life, but not for using violence to strong arm change. The problem with using violence to promote political ends is that it can turn around and bite you back. After all... if it's OK to use violent action in SUPPORT of your goals, then it's equally OK to use similar actions in OPPOSITION to them. Worse - it perpetuates a cycle of violence... since the oppressed will eventually become oppressors themselves, inciting people to use the same violence that propelled them into their position.

^ IA. Violence just begets more violence, fear more fear. What brings about change is a change in tactics, not responding in kind to perceived or actual injustice.

Let's take this down to a personal level. Someone starts screaming at you, raging at some supposed failing on your part. You can scream back. You can escalate the argument to violence. You can, through your actions and words, change the tone to one conducive to more civil resolution of your differences.

It's quite normal to lash out defensively, and sometimes needed if you're actually being physically threatened. But I can't think of a single time when I've succumbed to that temptation that it solved anything. Halted for the time being, maybe, but not solved. The only times I've been successful at bringing about change is when I've chosen the third option above.

The same holds true on the macro level, in countries and communities.

In my mind our response to 9/11 was a perfect example of doing all the wrong things albeit for understandable reasons. Rather than overwhelming terrorists with force or intimidating them with fear, we simply fanned their flames, added thousands of new recruits to their ranks, and essentially became who they'd been claiming we were to justify their initial attacks.

We could have chosen to lead by example, rallying a sympathetic world to hunt down only the specific individuals responsible for planning those attacks while condemning violence and demonstrating non-violent acts rather than invading countries.

But we didn't, and thus generations to come will experience the results.

Sadly, such is human nature, it seems.

femme fatale wrote:My friend and I were having this debate. I believe that sometimes acts of violence are necessary for change. By putting fear of revenge into oppressors they quickly smarten up. The subjects were Martin Luther King and the black panthers. I believed that though Martin Luther King was given the kudos for effectively changing human rights for black Americans, the panthers were more effective and should be given more credit. I think that the only reason these dim-wit racists smartened up was because they were afraid. Their attitudes didn't necessarily change, just their actions. They pretended that they learned their lesson (through Martin Luther King or knowledge) as to save their butts, but really the real reason they changed (in action) was because they were scared sh*tless. I (knowing this may cause some forum users to really get p.o.'d at me) believe that Martin Luther Kings ways might have even delayed getting equal rights to black Americans as well as allowing for compromise when none was needed or wanted. I'm not saying all racists didn't learn from knowledge or from the civil disobedient approach, just not most. What is your opinion?

I think both methods were necessary. Some people can have their hearts changed through communication and rationalization....but others have closed minds and refuse to budge. They can't be reasoned with. When situations like that occur, then sometimes you just gotta forcibly push your way past those people "by any means necessary." MLK and The Panthers provided multiple solutions. Each side was effective.