@Jaden2@mstdn.social
I speak from the perspective of a white person, so taking that into account...
Malcolm X was the stick and MLK was the carrot. MLK wanted to discuss, reason, come together to find a way. Malcolm wanted to fuck shit up. That's how it's always been presented to me.
They were both necessary, each in their own way, and what progress there's been (not enough) was only possible because both were there. One as a promise, the other as a threat.
@savvykenya @Jaden2@mstdn.social
Absolutely. There has to be a line, and there have to be consequences when that line is crossed. That's the only way some people learn.
@ScottSoCal @Jaden2 sometimes violence is necessary if your own government is responding only with violence.
@ScottSoCal @Jaden2 sort of but what gets left out on King side is the misunderstanding/oversimplification of nonviolence, which isn’t abt hugs & singing kumbaya. It’s a COERCION tactic. Read MLKs “Fill The Jails,” which explores how the goal of nonviolent direct action is abt gumming up the system to bring it to a screeching halt. There is a Machiavellian power move involved. Non violent direct action is FORCE (minus military weapons). Gene Sharp has tons on this
@ScottSoCal @Jaden2 also King understood as a practical matter that a violent uprising would be mercilessly crushed with untold #s of dead revolutionaries
@ScottSoCal @Jaden2 he also largely agreed with Ghandi that widespread “civil” disobedience evaporates the power of the powerful. The minority can’t rule without the consent/obedience of the masses
@ScottSoCal @Jaden2 let me quote Nelson Mandela and his decision to resort to acts of sabotage aimed at power plants, military facilities etc that would cripple the apartheid government.
"At the beginning of June 1961.. I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic and wrong for African leaders to continue preaching peace and non-violence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force."