Regarding Baltimore: Black people have the moral authority to call for nonviolence-whites don't.

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Tue Apr 28, 2015, 04:51 AM - Edit history (2)

To any other white folks reading this:

I hope that necessary and radical change DOES arrive in Baltimore and the rest of the nation with no violence at all. That would be the best way, in an ideal world. However, in an ideal world, radical change obviously wouldn't be needed siince things would already be, well, ideal.

But, as long as the vast majority of White America continues to unquestioningly defend all police violence against people of color(not just African-Americans, but Latinos, Native Americans and Muslim-Americans of all races) then white people(and I say this AS a middle-aged white male in my fifties) are not entitled to lecture anyone about things like looting stores.

We, as a race, are obligated, before we can say anything sanctimonious about property damage, to confront every vestige of our racial hate-fears (hatred and fear are always linked) to call on all our fellow whites to stop, once and for all, seeing people of other races as a pestilence and the enemy. We are obligated to organize our own communities to work for social justice and economic and human equality for all(including for ourselves, because we can only end poverty, unemployment and exploitation of ourselves by ending those scourges for all people), and to be part of building the national, and international, movement for change that must be built in order for any of the problems we face to be solved.

Until we as whites have done that, we are morally disqualified from denouncing other people's resistance tactics-those tactics are up to them. Period.

If we, as the still-largest part of this Rainbow Republic, can join with all others in this struggle, all racism, exploitation and suffering can be brought to an end. If we don't, it will go on...and we will never be entitled to criticize anyone for anything they do to defy the continued misery we have in our power, in our very strength of numbers, to defeat.

As the great slogan of the Black Power movement reminds us:

"If You're Not Part of the Solution, You're Part of the Problem".

The time has come for us, as white Americans, to all do what we should have done then: We must be part of the solution.

[linuxman]

2. you're right.

You're right. I'm not going to call for non violence.

I hope they burn the whole city down.

[Ken Burch]

3. Wasn't saying you should do that either.

Simply pointing out that those of us who are white have no right to tell blacks in Baltimore what they should and shouldn't do. Until we've wiped out white racism, we simply can't have the moral authority to lecture people of color on anything-we're just nt entitled.

Agreed?

[linuxman]

4. bwahahahahaha!

Yes, totally.

Until there isn't a single racist thought in the head of any white person, I can't tell black people that burning and looting stores is a terrible fucking idea if the end goal is to redress their treatment by law enforcement.

Brilliant.

[Ken Burch]

6. We have an obligation to first fight the things that led to what's happening tonight.

And to do that, we must check all our paternalism and all our self-assigned right to judge what the powerlress do at the door.
No white person who blathers on about things like looting does so out of any positive or progressive intent.

[linuxman]

8. you're right.

Keeping a city from being burned and looted isn't positive intent. Unless it comes from a poc.

[delrem]

13. You are unable to understand, so I repeat Mr. Burch:

"We have an obligation to first fight the things that led to what's happening tonight."

Now you can continue full steam ahead with your righteous rhetoric, and I'm sure you will since it makes you feel good. But that's all it is, rhetoric. And Mr. Burch is right, and perhaps inadvertently you proved it.

[linuxman]

16. you can ignore what he wrote if you choose. I'm white, therefore there is no positive intent in my

Critique. No skin off my nose.

I'll refrain from criticizing looters and arsonist in any capacity until the very concept of racism is extinct. God knows we can't tackle these two issues at once. Nevermind. I just remembered I can't criticize them at all (Due to my skin color, you understand).


Loot away! With every fifth and handle you earn America's ever-growing support, dear protestors.

[delrem]

21. Again, you're projecting your own thoughts, not those of Ken Burch.

I can only suppose that it makes you feel good. Righteous, somehow.
But your sentiments are totally opposed to those of Ken Burch, and whereas your sentiments are repugnant, Ken Burch's sentiments are not.

[LanternWaste]

118. You may however, continue criticizing the symptoms rather than the cause. Which is also brilliant..

You may however, continue criticizing the symptoms rather than the cause. Which is also brilliant...

[AgingAmerican]

20. So if some of the rioters, say, start murdering people

We have no right to suggest they stop, because of our skin color?

lol good luck with that one.

[bravenak]

26. The police are more likely to murder people.

They have a track record of such.

[AgingAmerican]

27. The OP isn't about police

nt

[bravenak]

29. So what? It's not about murder either, but you brought that up for no reason.

[delrem]

32. They've got their metaphorical pitchforks out, bravenak,

but in the end they just want the police to continue doing their dirty work.

[bravenak]

33. And for the people to shut up about the police violence.

So that they don't have to soil their beautiful minds.

[AgingAmerican]

39. Who is 'they'

That want cops to murder blacks?

Please elaborate...

Bye.

[AgingAmerican]

36. I brought it up

...as an example of what the OP suggests/condones, but you already know that.

The OP is racist poo, I'm not wasting anymore time with it. Have a good evening.

[bravenak]

38. Oh, so only you can bring up irrelevant shit? Nice to know.

[AgingAmerican]

42. The OP is still racist poo

Irregardless of your admittedly irrelevant statement.

See? I can do it too!!



Bye now.

[bravenak]

43. Maybe it's you not the op.

Seems like it might be.

[merrily]

59. +1

[FSogol]

97. There have been 68 homicides in Baltimore so far this year & 211 last year

Do you really think the police are more likely to murder people?
http://data.baltimoresun.com/bing-maps/homicides/index.php?range=180&district=all&zipcode=all&age=all&gender=all&race=all&cause=all&article=all&show_results=Show+results

[bravenak]

98. The police are more likely than the rioters.

That poster was feared of rioters murdering people. I explained that the police were more likely to do that than the rioters. And they are.

[FSogol]

106. Fair enough. n/t

[Ken Burch]

54. insane hypothetical that won't happen-didn't even happen in Ferguson.

It was demagogic to even post that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

102. If that's demagogic you should read the OP.

Oh. Wait.

[merrily]

66. If and when that happens, let's discuss it.

[Capt. Obvious]

108. What if they start raping white women?

Or whistling at them?

[delrem]

5. You are most certainly NOT echoing Mr. Burch.

You are projecting your own hope.

Mr. Burch was discussing the relative value of *rhetoric* in light of a CONTINUING campaign of murderous violence by police forces against "people of color".

By that I mean as in "walking down the street when "black"" makes one a target of a racist police force.

[Ken Burch]

7. Thanks. n/t.

[Lil Missy]

9. That's ridiculous

If someone is trashing and burning my home, business or neighborhood, my city, I damn well have the right to call for nonviolence.

If not for me and mine only, for the sake of a decent society. Riots are just exacerbating the problems.

[delrem]

10. Is it your neighbourhood?

If so, what are you doing to address the problem of institutionaled racist violence against "people of color" in your neighbourhood?

Since that, after all, is the ignition.

[yeoman6987]

127. How about voting for Democratic politicians which happened in Baltimore

Actually the state is overwhelming Democratic who I vote for. You are saying I have to complain to fellow Democratic politicians. If I would have done that on DU would it have been applauded a month ago? What are we to do? I am serious. What methods do we take? Voting in Democratic politicians I thought was part of it and then ensuring that the police force has proper representation of the population it does. So what else do I do? Seriously.

[linuxman]

11. nope, no authority to.

until you're either black or have eliminated all racism, you have zero right to tell these people how much or how little to destroy shit.

Consider your privilege checked.

[delrem]

12. And you certainly do want to tell "those people" what shits they are! nt

[linuxman]

14. is "those people"

Unsuitable for referencing a group which is the topic of a discussion, or are you just groping for a complaint?

Semantics. Truly the battleground of the justified.

[delrem]

22. "these people" is entirely your locution, linuxman. nt

[Ken Burch]

49. And we both know exactly who he means by that.

Whitesplaining at its best in the post you've just responded to.

[merrily]

77. Depends. Were you referring to African Americans or to rioters?

Because there is a huge difference.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

15. Oh, please - burning down and looting businesses that have jack shit to do w/ the issue

is pretty fucking stupid and impossible to justify.

All it does is play right into the hands of the racists and authoritarians.

Nixon and the conservative movement built themselves up with their Silent Majority "Law and order" bullshit.

Rioting and violence accomplish nothing, but scaring the shit out of most every one, and is a piss poor excuse for a protest.

[Ken Burch]

46. The need is to fight the systemic violence that provokes these acts.

And work to provide alternatives by helping create a larger movement for social and economic equality for all. When you see people engaging in hopelessness-based behavior, fight to create reasons for hope...reasons for trust.

Otherwise, you're just indulging in what I've now decided to call "Whitesplaining".

[mythology]

125. So in other words, you're going to make up words to insult people who disagree

with your absurd premise in an effort to deride anybody who you think isn't sufficiently deferential to rioters.

[cstanleytech]

47. Well it also accomplishes creating increased unemployment in the area which increases the poverty

and the crime rate overall and it diminishes the future prospects for people in the area especially the future prospects for most of the rioters if they are caught and convicted and by extension their families.

[Bonobo]

17. I sort of agree.

One cannot expect non-violence in the face of the violence being perpetrated against black people.

[Ken Burch]

48. If nothing else, white people can't sanctimoniously demand nonviolence from people of color

Without addressing the systemic violence against people of color first.

The greater crime always matters more.

[bluesbassman]

18. Patently absurd premise.

There is no metric for the right of any citizen of this country, or of the world for that matter, to call for peaceful protest against injustice and oppression. I will not abdicate my right and responsibility to denounce senseless violence perpetrated by opportunistic vandals and thieves because I was born white.

[Ken Burch]

41. The way to fight that violence is to fight the larger violence that provoked it.

In the end, it's always about the system.

[immoderate]

128. ... and the people in the system...

... and so on ...

--imm

[AgingAmerican]

19. Once someone throws a brick through a window

Or attacks a a bystander, 'moral authority' is lost, irregardless of skin color.

Your OP is stupid.

[delrem]

23. The OP does not condone violence.

You're reading your thoughts into something that wasn't said.

[AgingAmerican]

24. Sure it does

I suppose this wheelchair bound woman in this video being pummeled with projectiles and bricks has no moral authority to tell those throwing said projectiles to stop, because she is white and they are not?

Are you kidding me?

The OP is racist.

[delrem]

30. The OP doesn't say that.

You've gone exponentially into the realm of smear, and it isn't right.

Just because *you* are capable of projecting that kind of hyperbole onto the OP, doesn't mean that the OP suggested such a thing. Your projections are *your* invention, not those of the OP.

[AgingAmerican]

34. The OP is poo

nt

[romanic]

25. You can check your privileges

and still have a moral compass. If you care about poc and racism like you say you do, you should DAMN WELL call for nonviolence in black neighborhoods.

Better yet, come down to Baltimore and volunteer your time to help out and rebuild what's lost. Even better, do it in your own city. That would bridge racial inequality and improve race relations versus a self-serving online declaration posted on a message board.

Until then, talk is cheap.

[Ken Burch]

35. I'm with you on the volunteering part.

That, at least, has a purpose.

[Ken Burch]

40. The moral compass must be directed at ourselves and those in power.

Those two places are where the causes of this situation.

[romanic]

51. And then what?

More cheap talk?

You think volunteering is a great idea? Good. Do that instead of going on a white guilt trip.

[Ken Burch]

55. Not guilt-responsibility.

Going on a "law and order/property uber alles" trip ends up aligning you forever with the status quo. Look at Bill Clinton's personal trajectory on that as evidence-the fact that he set up his post-presidential office Harlem does not make up for the fact that, as president, he appeased white backlash sentiment at every turn.

[romanic]

57. Blah blah blah

More words. Boring.

[bravenak]

61. Why stay if you hate it so much here?

You could just go have pizza alone.

[romanic]

78. WTF are you talking to?

[IMG][/IMG]

Bye.

[bravenak]

79. I'm talking to you.

I'll post as I please, thanks. Hi. Why stay if you hate it so much?

[romanic]

88. I don't hate it here.

Question for you.

[IMG][/IMG]

[bravenak]

89. Seems like it.

[romanic]

92. Well I don't

Now put a period on it and get to steppin.

[bravenak]

93. Still seems like it. Get to steppin'?

I go where I please. You are very disrespectful. It's ugly. And your one liners are old and stale as fuck.

[delrem]

119. They sure do like to show themselves, don't they?

They're ugly, it's a t-baggin mentality, and they're all over.

[bravenak]

123. Yep. I noticed this one as soon as it showed up.

[delrem]

124. yep. no-accounts.

The kind that feed from Limbaugh and can't even smell it.

Not worth the bother.

[Ken Burch]

69. The OP was a call to act...it wasn't just words for words' sake. n/t.

[Scootaloo]

28. Given that so many of these people were utterly silent about violence by the police?

It's very clear that most of them are more horrified by affronts against capital - MONEY, THINGS - than they are with affronts against persons.

breaking a man's neck? No problem. breakign a window? The world comes to a screeching halt.

[Ken Burch]

37. Good observation.

Property fetishization is big on DU.

[romanic]

44. Caring about black neighborhoods

is a fetish?

Go read up on some history regarding riots in black neighborhoods and see what the long lasting effects are. There's a reason why most of us are concerned about further looting and destruction.

[Scootaloo]

45. When voiced by people who expressed no care about black LIVES? yes.

[romanic]

50. I've seen plenty

of support for black lives along with concern for the livelihood of black neighborhoods. You and others have decided to make it an "either/or" scenario to start arguments and accuse others of not giving a shit.

[Scootaloo]

52. No, it's not an "either / or" situation

It's the simple fact that a great many of the people yelling the loudest about rioters and looters, have said absolutely nothing about hte murder of Freddie gray up until this very point. NOTHING. and for a good number of them, it's repeat behavior, not a word about police violence killing a young black man (or, on occasion, an effort to justify that violence) until they can shit all over an entire community because of some hooligans.

I can't see into people's souls, so I can only guess about this sort of thing. But i like to think I'm a pretty good guesser.

Property is not more valuable than lives. But you'd never know that, from some people.

[romanic]

56. Who the hell said

Property was worth more than Freddie's life? No one did. Just because people are concerned and posting about the riots doesn't mean they don't care about the cause. Go point your damn finger somewhere else im through trying to inject sanity into this god damned conversation. Goodnight!

[Scootaloo]

58. But when that's the ONLY THING THEY HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER...?

No, no one has said outright "I care more about property than human life." That would be... unstylish. And ultimately that is what most of the people here are posting for, to make themselves feel like htye are hip and in style.

But when you have a "discussion" of the situation in Baltimore, with peopel who have only now expressed any concern, and their concern is about anything from shop windows to 'how the republicans will spin it," with never a word said about Freddie Gray's killing before now?

When these are the same people, who have consistently done the same thing, every time a black man os killed by police? No concern for the victim, but a huge outpouring of rage if someone happens to break a windshield? When htey outright reject any notion of how riots happen, in favor of whitesplaining and holier-than-thou binary condemnations?

it doesn't have to be said outright, for it to be said loud and clear just the same.

[merrily]

60. +1

[Ken Burch]

71. +millions

We're seeing a lot of "Whitesplaining" in this thread.

[romanic]

75. I'm not white

White boy. >:I

[bravenak]

82. You're not black though.

I know cause you said you were not black. I believe you said white and hispanic.

[romanic]

91. I said I was black and Puerto Rican.

And again who the hell are you to come antagonize me? I said my piece several times on this thread, I don't need no fucking antagonism from random nobodies like you.

ETA: Honestly this is the first and only forum where some go out of their way to dig deep in other people's identities (and usually get it wrong in the process) to make some kind of point. I already said what I had to say and I don't need nobody to dig into my fucking business just to win a debate like a fucking creep with no life. I'm sick of swatting away at gnats, into the ignore trash bin where you belong.

[bravenak]

94. Really? Hmmm.

Funny you seem to always be against us. If you hate this forum so much, and think we're all fucking creeps with no lives, why do you stay here?

[bravenak]

100. Wow. You are very nasty.

[msanthrope]

104. And now he's hid, 5-2.

On Tue Apr 28, 2015, 07:47 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Whose "us"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6580710

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"You fucking loser" personal attack

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 28, 2015, 08:00 AM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: There are better ways of handling this. This is definitely hide worthy. This post is a mirror of the poster! HIDE IT!!!!
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not the best choice of words, but emotions run high in times like this. Reluctantly, leave it.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I'm OK with this post up until the last two sentences. That's what put it over the top for me.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Piece of shit troll can go take his retread act to MIRT--HIDE, per msanthrope
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is a caver.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[bravenak]

105. Good! Thank you!!!

I feel like I recognize that one for some reason. Thank you very much!!

[Ken Burch]

87. Than this thread wasn't aimed at you. n/t.

[merrily]

86. It should be the other way round.

What would be so heinous about saying something like, "I feel I am a person of goodwill. Yet, my knee jerk is to disagree with you. Can you or some other posters, esp. African American posters, say more?"

[Ken Burch]

53. Sanctimony about looting has nothing to do with caring about black neighborhoods.

If you really cared about those neighborhoods, rather than being judgmental about small-scale acts of rage and despair, you'd focus first on calling out all the institutions of white dominance whose traditions of redlining, neglect and continued racism have created the larger context that led to all of this-not only the cops, but the institutions known collectively as FIRE-the finance, insurance and real state-industrial complexes that have spent the last seventy years choking those neighborhoods to death.

[merrily]

83. mic dropped

[delrem]

120. Yah, and some of them are just plain racist, first. nt

[Sherman A1]

31. You are entitled to your opinion

I am entitled to disagree with your OP.

I believe ALL have the moral authority to call for non-violence and peaceful means of expression.

[Orsino]

62. Nonviolence is its own moral authority.

Violence has next to none.

[Sherman A1]

63. Well Said!

An Eloquent Statement and one the is so very true.

[Scootaloo]

73. Well, so long as feeling morally superior is what you're after, sure

[hack89]

76. You just broke my irony meter. Nt

[Scootaloo]

81. Good, maybe you can buy one that works better

[hack89]

84. Right. Nt

[KittyWampus]

103. Any DU'er that spends their time attacking pragmatism can't actually talk about

not feeling morally superior and be intellectually consistent.

[Scootaloo]

110. If you want to discuss your political "pragmatism," we can do so elsewhere

because it won't be short and this really isn't the thread.

Now, for my point, "violence is never the solution" is a very easy moral position to have, but keeping it relies on it never facing challenge. Now if what is said is "violence should never be a first option," okay that's fine, but no, it's always presented as the absolutist "violence is never the solution" often with some other harmonic twaddle.

it's easy enough to swear by this mantra, if you yourself are not a constant victim of violence. it's no challenge at all to maintain it, if you have assurance everyone you deal with is both reasonable and abiding by it as well. But the reality is, not everyone enjoys those luxuries. in fact, all around the world, a great many people suffer in their absence. Easy enough to say 'violence is never the answer" when the worst day of your week is finding a fly in your ice cream, it's something quite different when people are literally trying ot slaughter your entire people so they can cut some timber.

You're in a community that suffers grinding poverty. Racism is a constant reality, degrading nd threatening you. The people who are supposed to maintain law and order hate you and literally want you dead - and seem to have no problem making it happen. And all these wonderful humming people are going to swarm over you if you chuck a rock, screaming "VIOLENCE IS NEVER THE SOLUTION VIOLENCE IS NEVER THE SOLUTION VIOLENCE IS NEVER THE SOLUTION" while pretty much giving a free pass to the daily violence inflicted upon you, simply because it's not inflicted on them. Violence isn't a first option. You're a rational human being, you understand that. But options run out, threats grow greater, and even rational people only carry so many fucks that they can give in a lifetime. But these would-be gurus are going to demand you live to their expectations of what a brown person should be like - King or Gandhi, two men lionized specifically BECAUSE of their apparently superhuman patience. These people yelling "VIOLENCE IS NEVER THE SOLUTION" are not treating you like a human being, they are treating you like a cause something that exists solely FOR THEM, a platonic ideal for them to cradle and fawn over, and if you reveal yourself to be a human being, instead of "theri cause' they will discard you and scream at you for your insolence.

Fuck those people.

[AngryOldDem]

64. I agree that we as a society have a long way to go.

But burning a senior center in a neighborhood that has been blighted since 1968; destroying a CVS where perhaps a lot of people depend to get their medicines, etc.; to trash and rob a mom-and-pop liquor store and ransack a mall in another part of town that's trying to come back...sorry, but that smacks of opportunism and will do absolutely NOTHING to bring ANY meaningful change.

It's like destroying the village in order to save it, and I don't think a lot of African-American leaders would necessarily agree with you, either. A lot of people lost a lot last night, and stand to lose more in the days to come. I'm in solidarity with them. Not with the rioters.

[Quantess]

80. An RT reporter was knocked down and had her bag stolen.

[merrily]

65. Wow. I'm glad I clicked. I read the headline as saying whites have no moral

authority to call for nonviolence from the police and I was about to open both barrels on the OP (figuratively--no actual guns!).

Would it be great if everyone could have a calm meeting, pass the coffee and Danish, come to conclusions and change everything the next day? Duh.


But that has not happened and may never. In the meantime, who is nervously waiting for her son to come home from school in one piece? Some white moms and dads and grandparents, sure. But mostly people of color, and specifically African Americans and Hispanics. If I were in their shoes every time my child left home, 24/7/365, good grief, I don't what the fuck I would have done, or to what. The most fucking amazing thing to me about any persecuted group is how fucking long they just take it and take it, without doing anything.

Whatever effort anyone is going to spend on this--and it should be a lot from people of goodwill of every hue-- ought to be directed at fixing the root causes.

[Oktober]

67. Bullshit...

Don't break the law and keep your hands to yourself... It isn't that hard.

Side note : Talking about what I am 'obligated' to do as a member of a race is fucking creepy. Grow up...

[Euphoria]

96. OP is talking about moral obligation. n/t

[mwrguy]

68. Bravo, OP

[Ken Burch]

72. Goodbye, since you won't be here long.

[get the red out]

74. Is it ok

To agree with the brave AA religious leaders in the community who showed up to stop what violence they could? Or Mr. Valentine, in his Vietnam Nam vet jacket, standing tall in front of out of control teens telling them to "go home"? Those people are an inspiration to all people.

[merrily]

85. I see nothing wrong with commending them, but that's

a bit different than agreeing or saying you stand with them.

[get the red out]

112. I am not saying I have an opinion, shouldn't have used the word "agree"

It's not my state, not my neighborhood, I am aware I have privilege..... I have no right to a self-generated opinion; but would someone who is white not even be supposed to agree with the opinion of someone who does have the moral authority to form an opinion?

Seriously, I do not have an opinion on what anyone should be doing in this situation. I hope there are no more lives lost and/or people hurt, but that is all. I was inspired by the bravery the people I previously mentioned showed, however.

[merrily]

113. I answered that question to the best of my ability, given I don't walk in those shoes.

You might try asking in the African American forum.

Personally, I would stick to commending their leadership, while recognizing the searing frustration on the other side. But, I am not speaking from knowledge, only from my gut.


Then again, I don't think I will be in a situtation where I have no choice but to make a comment on this. So, truth is, I probably would not say anything unless I am totally comfortable.

[Ken Burch]

95. I said THEY had the right to call for nonviolence.

Re-read the thread title.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. Racist nonsense

The OP is literally skin deep and thus not worth any more consideration than that.

[Codeine]

101. Speaking of sanctimony. . . nt

[JCMach1]

107. Yet, the mayor uses a racially charged term, 'thug'

to describe her constituents...

[cherokeeprogressive]

109. What about mixed race people like me?

[former9thward]

111. You have that "moral authority" every other time....

[cherokeeprogressive]

116. ! n/t

[Calista241]

114. Were all citizens, and it's going to be all of our job to fix this mess.

[Throd]

115. Non-violence will always be my default position...

...no matter how much other white people try to shame me out of it.

[Ken Burch]

122. Fine. Support nonviolence by fighting the causes OF violence.

Simply saying "don't be violent" to those who are totally powerless is useless and insulting, though-especially when those of us who are white (and therefore automatically somewhat privileged) say it to those who are neither.

The smaller violence can only be stopped by defeating the larger violence.

I'm relieved that the black community in Baltimore itself has taken the lead on working against violence-that is how it should be

[stone space]

117. Since when do I need authority from anybody to call for non-violence? (nt)

[Comrade Grumpy]

121. People who say "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem..."

...are usually part of the problem.

[MFrohike]

126. This is wrong

Non-violence is a method, not an end in itself. Too many people have gotten confused about that over the decades since Gandhi first employed it on a mass scale. The purpose of non-violence is to take advantage of the scruples of the oppressor AND to prevent doing unnecessary damage to everyone. It is not to be non-violent for the sake of non-violence.

Given the above, anyone has the moral authority to call for the use of non-violence IF it is an appropriate method to use. It's simply silly to elevate a tactic to the status of all-encompassing truth. After all, non-violence had success, after decades, in America and India, but would have been utterly pointless on the Eastern Front (though it was effective for the Danes, to be fair).

To be clear, I'm not advocating anything. I'm pointing out that you've confused a tactic for a goal. That's a big mistake.

[Quantess]

129. Non-violence is not a method, it is a way of life, a goal, an end in and of itself.

I completely disagree with you!

The circle of life is inescapable. We are all part of it.
Jesus supposedly said something really noteworthy regarding this, "what you do to the least of my brothers you do unto me".
I happen to be agnostic, but I believe that everyone pays the price, NO MATTER WHAT.

[MFrohike]

131. Ok

From reading both of your posts, I think what you're describing is pacifism, not non-violence. Pacifism involves a renunciation of violence and its substitutes. To me, it's akin to the Jainist priests who wear masks over their mouths so as to not to injure or kill insects. Pacifism has its merits, but it's not non-violence.

Non-violence, as we've seen it practiced over the last century, is a thoroughly active and aggressive method used to change the status quo. That word method is really key. You use it because it's the best available option, not because it's some overarching idea of life. Gandhi, lest we forget, chose non-violence not because he viewed it as morally right, but because he determined violent resistance to the British would fail. He wasn't trying to rebel to make a point, he was rebelling to WIN. Viewed in that context, by its first great practitioner, it gets hard to take people seriously when they harp on this method as though it's some great philosophy or ideology. Non-violence requires taking the violence inflicted by your opponents on yourself, rather than inflicting it on them, as both a means of delegitimizing them and strengthening yourself. It seeks to absorb the violence in order to create the opportunity for change. That ain't pacifism.

Note: I'm not advocating violence at all, not even implicitly. I want people to be realists. There are multiple methods to make change happen. Each has its merits, each has it demerits. Non-violence is completely ineffective if not done on a stage or if facing completely malevolent intent. Violence does solve problems, but it always creates new ones that take the place of the old. Non-violence requires discipline and self-sacrifice. Violence requires the most inhuman of all acts, namely hurting and killing other humans. Non-violence has the potential, only the potential, to create a change that doesn't rely on force to maintain it. Violence can rarely say the same, unless it's been overwhelming. These are examples of some drawbacks of these methods. It does no one any good not to be informed about them, even if you find one or the other repulsive. If nothing else, an examination of the possible methods to be used can inform about possible methods to be used against you.





Edit: I should mention that there is a philosophy, of sorts, of non-violence. You can see it in some of MLK's speeches and writings, particularly when he mentions the necessity of love as a part of the strategy. It's sort of "no greater love" as action, not just words.

[Quantess]

130. I have always believed that peace is the end goal.

I want both young men and women to be able to plan to have ONLY as many children as they can afford to support.
I want them to have job opportunities, and to be able to be responsible citizens and caretakers of the earth.