as the term has been used by some very effective leaders, specifically excludes violence and deems violence to be ineffective and damaging. Just because violence occurred during times of Civil Disobedience doesn't mean violence saved the day.

Seems I CaN'T pOST ON THIS SUBJECT BECAUCE OF A "WORD".
If I can't can't post an opinion on a subject, THEN FUCK OFF!

We have to just accept that there are certain restrictions and good reasons for them. That's the way the board works and needs to be for us to get what we get, for free, based on behind-the-scenes volunteer time.

I know it can be frustrating but shouldn't be cause for a temper tantrum.

Don't take it personally, it's not directed at you specifically, as far as I understand.

Just try again to post, using different words if you have to, if it matters enough to you.

You can always email Sus I/S (Admin) and ask her to help you out.

I Tried editing my post 6 times. I got rid of @$$hole, I got rid of Fv<k, I got rid of Viet Nam. What else is there?

I dealt with a slew of pridgish Mormons all my life, til I broke free.

Why should I have to deal with the same baloney here?

I thought this was a place of refuge.

Guess I was wrong.

9 AM EST. Day's already screwed.

Good Morning!!!

If you want to post here, you deal with the rules here.

Someone needs to take a little nap.

Timothy

It might even be a weird little glitch. It's happened to me on more than one occasion, it's not a reason to get your panties into a twist, ok?

Violence is sometimes instigated by those in government in order to bring discredit on the movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Martin Luther King? He was not the only leader of the civil rights movement and he was not the only factor, violence was a major factor in progressing the civil rights movement, but people REMEMBER the Martin Luther Kings, not the Malcolm Xs

Same with Gandhi, when you look at the India independence movement AS A WHOLE, we find that there was also a violent side, but people want to believe that it was really not violent so they can worship Gandhi, and ignore the reality.

So, the effective leaders may use the term in a certain way, history shows that it just isn't so. Many of those same effective leaders owe their success to the violence that the they claimed to be against. It is sort of a "good cop. bad cop" sort of thing. The "good cop bad cop" thing does not work without a bad cop and in the end, the "good cop" is the cop people LIKE. The non-violence preachers loose effectiveness when there is no violence to rail against, and the non-violence preachers are the ones that people LIKE to remember.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2012 09:34AM by MJ.

And the brutal reality of government agitation to create violence can cause members of a movement to kill their own people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Mae_Aquash

I don't think the point is that violence never works, or that violence is never necessary. The point is that, in general, if something can be accomplished non-violently, that is the preferable choice.

"specifically excludes violence and deems violence to be ineffective and damaging"

Seems that the point of this thread was to claim the that violence never works by declaring violence "ineffective and damaging". TO which I say, tell that to the USA founding fathers, they knew, sometimes you have to fight violently for your rights.

In addressing to POINT OF THIS THREAD to claim "violence to be ineffective and damaging" I say history contradicts that claim.

Oh, and seem to be backpedaling quite ferociously.

just ineffective within the concept and purpose of Civil Disobedience. King and his crew were effective, I believe, in part because they did not practice violence. They shamed the Country by exhibiting grace in the face of violence directed at them. If they were violent in return, it would have defeated the purpose - it would have made it easier for people to hold on to racist views. Just an opinion.

Seem you are being rather presumptuous. Oh, and I do love how you define terms to meet your needs. The definition of Civil disobedience is NOT limited to non-violence.


IT is more likely that the Civil Rights movement AS A WHOLE, was successful because the violence made the need for change URGENT. King was CONSIDERED the successful one because politicians did not want to be linked to the people like Malcolm X, the people that were actually making the need for action URGENT, so they talked with King. But in many cases, it was the URGENCY to resolve the violence that made politicians take any action at all.

Yes, King was the "good cop" but it is likely that he would have been nearly as effective if there was not the "bad cop" Malcolm X.

Then again who really does deserver the credit? Malcolm X or King? Both were powerful political leaders, so who REALLY SHOULD get the credit?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2012 08:59PM by MJ.

I was thinking of my post back in the "respect" thread when I used the word civil, and you asked why civility was necessary. I was not necessarily addressing this OP's specific definition of civil disobedience.

There is no single definition of civil disobedience, and its proponents have often practiced it not because they did not think violence was an option, but for other philosophical reasons.

You also linked me to an article about a few isolated cases of minor violence in conjunction with the temple protests in CA. Do you really think the one guy who punched his neighbor in the face was what made that protest successful?

I was NOT the one that brought up violence. When I brought up the temple protests, I NEVER USED THE WORD VIOLENCE.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,388940,389669#msg-389669

Indeed, if you actually read that CLOSELY, you will notice it is worded to address your use of the word "civil" and never made any direct claim about violence. It was YOU that ASSUMED that I was talking about VIOLENT protest. It was YOU that thought that I was only listing VIOLENT protest. It was You that brought up the term violence in the discussion NOT ME.

I never claimed that violence WAS required for any of the protests I listed INCLUDING the temple protests, I never claimed that it was the violence that made the temple protests successful, that is YOUR FANTASY regarding what I said.

Now if you actually read the SUBJECT of the post where I replied to your assertion about violence (the first time violence was mentioned) I made a point of using the term "Probably" which is very far from a term like "does".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2012 08:58PM by MJ.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2012 08:09PM by MJ.

deleted



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2012 08:08PM by MJ.