understood reality? certainly. but i do not believe he either wanted the violence or used it. it just was. it made it easier for him, but thats the simple reality.
He used it. And he wasn’t above it. There were armed brothers in the woods when they marched.
I would say that being armed is not being violent… some might say that being prepared to defend against violence is the best way to avoid it. But i do know that for the left it depends on who is armed.
Self defense is violence. Justified violence.
Then you don’t know much about MLK.
Although he didn’t condone violence he understood it was necessary to affect change. He knew what it took and didn’t shy away from it.
Most of the civil rights protests ended in violence. It was mostly because cops and other counter protestors started the violence.
3 Likes
the simple act of being armed is not. and is justified to prevent violence
Agreed, and the latter is what I just said.
King didn’t carry, he didn’t want them armed in the march, but he knew and gave tacit approval.
He certainly wasn’t above putting people in a position to have violence visited upon them. He understood the power of the imagery.
i do know that i have no desire to listen or read about what MLK stood for from race revisionists who condone what he did not. those who hate whitey need not preach to me about racism.
Well that escalated quickly!
Was it this?
Quite condescending.
true and yes.
i think i’ll avoid this thread for a while.
1 Like
I don’t hate whitey. What a weird statement.
Anywho… MLK needed violence to provide the imaginary necessary to push for change. He invited it.
Not really. This isn’t about what MLK liked for breakfast.
I would expect anyone discussing the basic tenants of the CRA movement and MLK would understand his stance on violence.
I don’t believe business were boarding up out of fear of libs winning last Nov.
How do you know?
Damn right it is…and as you said justified.
no he did not invite violence, nor did he “need” it. the reality of there being violence did give him an assist, but he would have succeeded either way and he believed the violence could also be counter productive. small acts unconnected to him gave enough people pause to listen. It was him or the “others”. large violent upheaval would have been counter productive and hardened peoples opinions against the violence. he knew that too.
Yes, it really was. He was just repeating the myth the movement and media created.
No need to be condescending. Rise above it.
So you shouldn’t have any problems if Conservatives uses violence to effect social change.
1 Like
See @WuWei
This is what I am talking about. I’m willing to have a discussion about MLK based on merits but I need both sides to start from some basic sets of facts about MLK
