patrick.net

Much has been made lately about the power of non-violence and what the black community in Baltimore (and elsewhere) should do and how is best to achieve good results. Inevitably, the white community extolls Gandhi or MLK's path of non-violence.

I believe this serves multiple purposes. One, it allows the white community a way to celebrate what they see as their superior morals and culture as compared to the minority communities. 2nd, it appeals to white liberalism in that non-violence is believed to be an effective tool when confronted by injustice or state sponsored violence. It appeals to a conservative law-and-order authoritarian in that it promotes PASSIVITY (as opposed to pacifism) and a humble and obedient underclass of minorities.

However, I had also read many years back that there was intense violence that accompanied many of these so-called pacifist movements, such as the Independent India movement, the Civil Rights struggle and so on. How then can we attribute the change that occurred to the non-violent movement, and does it serve a larger purpose to do so?

What do you think, pro or con, on the efficacy of non-violence? Do you have any historical support for that belief?

https://prospect.org/article/baltimore-police-thuggery-real-violence-problem

"Eric Garner’s gruesome choking death, which was caught on video, does not elicit calls of nonviolence, but the burning of an inanimate object spurs a landslide of Martin Luther King Jr. quotes, sanitized for white consumption. If burning buildings is an act of violence, police murdering civilians with impunity must be called violence too."