make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

A Retort

Nice try... Please allow me to retort.

First of all there is nothing wrong with what you’re saying… It’s just historical evidence does not support it.

Civil Rights Movement represented a popular movement that had been building over the course of the previous three centuries. By and large it was not peaceful. To start with there was Haiti 1791. The French got butchered. There was this whole civil war part that killed about 650,000 Americans. In our own town there was the Wilmington Race Riot of 1898. Some angry white folks overturned 30 years of reconstruction in one day. That was one of the only successful insurrections of a legally elected local government ever in US history. But ok, so you don’t want to count that because it interferes with your brief understanding of human history... ok, how about the 20th century examples such as the Watts riots of 1965... Not good enough? How about the Detroit Riots of 1967? Ok, how about Compton 1994? All of this came about due to disenfranchisement of a specific group or class. To be sure there were excellent examples of non-violent protests (Sit-ins, freedom rides, etcetera) as well as supportive laws; Brown vs. The Board of Education is but one example. The truth is riots cost “the Man” money and hurt so it gets results.

Women’s suffrage is not a different thing from the Civil Rights Movement. We just like to separate the two because it’s easier to think about as an independently evolving concept because we are too mentally lazy. Regardless, you are correct; in and of itself, independent of anything else, Women’s suffrage is an excellent example of peaceful resolution to what is obviously a civil injustice.

India… Dude you have got to be kidding me. Gandhi was just one dude who wouldn’t eat. The economic infeasibility of controlling a sub-continent of divisive tribal people with distinct cultures as well as incompatible religious beliefs was just beyond the ability of the rapidly collapsing British Empire to control. In short… It was cheaper to let India go. If Great Britain had the funds and was not busy fighting Hitler and Tojo do you really believe some skinny anorexic lawyer would have destroyed their East Indian Empire? As for armed rebellions….. I give you The Indian rebellion of 1857 for starters and independence still didn’t come for another 90 years.
Here are some other dudes the brought change through violence, some won some didn’t but the attempt was the same.

Hitler
Mao
Lenin
Stalin
Sam Adams
Washington
Lincoln/Davis
John Brown
Napoleon
William Du Normandy
Simon Bolivar
Stephen F. Austin
Santa Anna
Fidel Castro
Che Guevara
Your turn

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Please re-enter the code shown in the image below.