White people were throwing TNT at police during the Haymarket riots
And this was the result -
destroying property/looting/physically harming others is NOT the answer!...
- Thread starter Blankthawtz
- Start date
White people were throwing TNT at police during the Haymarket riots
And this was the result -
BelowTheMasonDixon
Veteran
White people were throwing TNT at police during the Haymarket riots
And this was the result -
This is the key right here.
Hell I was about to type the Boston Tea Party and that shyt lead to the American RevolutionWhite people were throwing TNT at police during the Haymarket riots
And this was the result -
So what exactly do you want black people to do? I mean apparently we can't be violent, and peace doesn't work, so what then?
Right now, this is getting news coverage from around the world and the US hates nothing more than to look bad on the world stage. That wouldn't happen if people were in the streets singing Kumbaya right now.
*L*E*G*A*C*Y*
Done.
They've adapted the opressor's view of how the opressed should handle issues contesting oppression. Don't. Let the system that works against you daily work for you. Show up to a gun fight with roses and good intentions.
Be non-violent and turn the other cheek to oppression in a country founded by violence and oppression brehs.
O.T.I.S.
Veteran
Not just this country neither
Other countries are probably like " Oh they're rioting in the US? How many people are dead yet???"
American media trying to make it look/seem like the riots are really worse than what they are to make the population think black people are "monsters" when burning down empty buildings and looting really isn't shyt compared to the actual revolutions going on in other places
And for the conspiracy theorists who are saying "What if thats what they wanted in the first place, to make black americans appear like monsters
" Like you just had some genius idea or something, answer this...What did you do to stop it? What could you have DONE to stop the riots in Ferguson? There wasn't shyt anyone could do to stop this other than indict Darren Wilson
I saw this shyt happening a mile away, and while I don't agree with EVERYTHING, atleast I have gone out of my way to explain to the ignorant whenever I could, that these riots by these "animals" aren't any different and a lot less worse than the riots by other cultures and nations, including their own, and is still just as significant if not more.
Nobody was going to be able to stop the riots once that verdict was reached. But instead of whining about the riots I chose to confront the closet bigots, even ones that I considered "friends", about the dumb shyt they're saying and being fed through the media... with facts too, not opinions
Last edited:
BET and Tvone are showing reality/talk shows right now SMH
BET is owned by Viacom. They haven't been "black" since Rob Johnson sold it.
BelowTheMasonDixon
Veteran
Now Malta, you know damn well that's not true.
And peaceful protest work just fine.
Show me an instance where violent protest has been beneficial to the black community over the last 50 years.
BelowTheMasonDixon
Veteran
Again White people.
BelowTheMasonDixon
Veteran
No, it is true, this is news all over the world because of the fact a riot is taking place in America, the why is getting attention now as well.
Sorry but now isn't the time to be on some "we shall overcome" bullshyt, young black males are getting killed by Police at a ridiculous rate. The peaceful protests haven't stopped that, but burning shyt to the ground will affect some change even if it means Cops have to wear body cams something will come of this.
You just said a violent protest in history that lead to change, you didn't say outside of white people, but I'm pretty sure that with the history of how fukked up this world is, that have been violent protest by people of color that has lead to change.
BelowTheMasonDixon
Veteran
I'm smart, but I ain't the smartest motherfukker in the world, but this article basically explains why, Non Violent Protest >>>> Violent Protest. And why I hold that view personally.
Peaceful protest is much more effective than violence for toppling dictators
You could make the case that this isn't what's occuring in America with Black people but.....It's still makes the points I wish yall could see. The BIGGER PICTURE if you will.
Political scientist Erica Chenoweth used to believe, as many do, that violence is the most reliable way to get rid of a dictator. History is filled, after all, with coups, rebellions and civil wars. She didn't take public protests or other forms of peaceful resistance very seriously; how could they possible upend a powerful, authoritarian regime?
Then, as Chenoweth recounts in a Ted Talk posted online Monday, she put together some data and was surprised by what she found. "I collected data on all major nonviolent and violent campaigns for the overthrow of a government or a territorial liberation since 1900," she says -- hundreds of cases. "The data blew me away."
Here's her chart, which pretty clearly suggests that nonviolent movements are much likelier to work:
(Erica Chenoweth/YouTube)
And that trend is actually "increasing over time," Chenoweth adds. "Nonviolent campaigns are becoming increasingly successful." Below is a chart of the successful campaigns from 1940 to 2006.
(Erica Chenoweth/YouTube)
The data actually show a big rise in violent successes in the 1970s and '80s, perhaps a product of both decolonization -- the departure of European powers from sub-Saharan Africa was followed by a number of violent conflicts over power -- and the Cold War, in which U.S. and Soviet backing might have helped push rebel movements toward success. But that trend has been reversed significantly since the end of the Cold War, with nonviolent successes way up.
"Researchers used to say that no government could survive if just 5 percent of the population rose up against it," Chenoweth says. "Our data shows the number may be lower than that. No single campaign in that period failed after they'd achieved the active and sustained participation of just 3.5 percent of the population." She adds, "But get this: every single campaign that exceeded that 3.5 percent point was a nonviolent one. The nonviolent campaigns were on average four times larger than the average violent campaigns."
Of course, 3.5 percent is a lot of people. In, for example, Iran, it amounts to 2.7 million people. In China, it's 47 million people. Still, it does happen. It's not clear exactly how many Egyptians protested in the February 2011 uprising that led to President Hosni Mubarak's downfall, but meeting the 2.9 million threshold doesn't sound unlikely.
Chenoweth focuses a lot of her talk on the importance of getting 3.5 percent of the population to protest in order to bring down a government and why nonviolent resistance is the best way to do that. I'd argue that the things that make nonviolence more effective than violence go beyond the question of which is better at getting more people into the streets.
I did my master's thesis on government crackdowns on popular uprisings, which involved a lot of looking at these same phenomena. To be clear, I don't have anything approaching Professor Chenoweth's expertise, and I looked at only about 30 cases compared to her "hundreds." Still, I did find a few things that back up her argument that nonviolent resistance is more effective.
I did my master's thesis on government crackdowns on popular uprisings, which involved a lot of looking at these same phenomena. To be clear, I don't have anything approaching Professor Chenoweth's expertise, and I looked at only about 30 cases compared to her "hundreds." Still, I did find a few things that back up her argument that nonviolent resistance is more effective. One thing I found is that an uprising becomes about 50 percent more likely to fail if it turns to violence. It seems to be the case that once protesters pick up guns, it legitimizes the state's use of overwhelming violence in response. In other words, security forces are much more likely to open fire -- and individual police or soldiers are much more likely to follow that order -- if the opposition is shooting at them. That's a human reaction, since people don't like to be shot at, but it also matters for the government's internal politics. Uprisings can often cause a crisis of legitimacy within the government, particularly if the relationship breaks down between the head of state and the military and/or security forces, which can in turn cause that government to fall. The more violent the uprising, the more likely that it will internally unify the regime.
Keep in mind that the state almost always has the military force at its disposal to crush just about any uprising. This is particularly true since the end of World War I, after which most states acquired tanks, machine guns and other tools that almost no rebel group could match on the battlefield.(We would be the rebel group) I found that an uprising is half as likely to succeed if the military intervenes directly and that this far less likely to happen if the uprising remains nonviolent.
Using violence also tends to reduce public support for an uprising. Chenoweth thinks this is because a violent uprising is more physically demanding and dangerous and thus scares off participants, but I'd add that violence is controversial and can engender sympathy for police and soldiers at the other end of dissidents' rifles. A violent uprising can end up polarizing people in support of the government, whereas a government crackdown against a nonviolent uprising will often reduce public support for the regime.
Peaceful protest is much more effective than violence for toppling dictators
You could make the case that this isn't what's occuring in America with Black people but.....It's still makes the points I wish yall could see. The BIGGER PICTURE if you will.
Political scientist Erica Chenoweth used to believe, as many do, that violence is the most reliable way to get rid of a dictator. History is filled, after all, with coups, rebellions and civil wars. She didn't take public protests or other forms of peaceful resistance very seriously; how could they possible upend a powerful, authoritarian regime?
Then, as Chenoweth recounts in a Ted Talk posted online Monday, she put together some data and was surprised by what she found. "I collected data on all major nonviolent and violent campaigns for the overthrow of a government or a territorial liberation since 1900," she says -- hundreds of cases. "The data blew me away."
Here's her chart, which pretty clearly suggests that nonviolent movements are much likelier to work:
(Erica Chenoweth/YouTube)
And that trend is actually "increasing over time," Chenoweth adds. "Nonviolent campaigns are becoming increasingly successful." Below is a chart of the successful campaigns from 1940 to 2006.
(Erica Chenoweth/YouTube)
The data actually show a big rise in violent successes in the 1970s and '80s, perhaps a product of both decolonization -- the departure of European powers from sub-Saharan Africa was followed by a number of violent conflicts over power -- and the Cold War, in which U.S. and Soviet backing might have helped push rebel movements toward success. But that trend has been reversed significantly since the end of the Cold War, with nonviolent successes way up.
"Researchers used to say that no government could survive if just 5 percent of the population rose up against it," Chenoweth says. "Our data shows the number may be lower than that. No single campaign in that period failed after they'd achieved the active and sustained participation of just 3.5 percent of the population." She adds, "But get this: every single campaign that exceeded that 3.5 percent point was a nonviolent one. The nonviolent campaigns were on average four times larger than the average violent campaigns."
Of course, 3.5 percent is a lot of people. In, for example, Iran, it amounts to 2.7 million people. In China, it's 47 million people. Still, it does happen. It's not clear exactly how many Egyptians protested in the February 2011 uprising that led to President Hosni Mubarak's downfall, but meeting the 2.9 million threshold doesn't sound unlikely.
Chenoweth focuses a lot of her talk on the importance of getting 3.5 percent of the population to protest in order to bring down a government and why nonviolent resistance is the best way to do that. I'd argue that the things that make nonviolence more effective than violence go beyond the question of which is better at getting more people into the streets.
I did my master's thesis on government crackdowns on popular uprisings, which involved a lot of looking at these same phenomena. To be clear, I don't have anything approaching Professor Chenoweth's expertise, and I looked at only about 30 cases compared to her "hundreds." Still, I did find a few things that back up her argument that nonviolent resistance is more effective.
I did my master's thesis on government crackdowns on popular uprisings, which involved a lot of looking at these same phenomena. To be clear, I don't have anything approaching Professor Chenoweth's expertise, and I looked at only about 30 cases compared to her "hundreds." Still, I did find a few things that back up her argument that nonviolent resistance is more effective. One thing I found is that an uprising becomes about 50 percent more likely to fail if it turns to violence. It seems to be the case that once protesters pick up guns, it legitimizes the state's use of overwhelming violence in response. In other words, security forces are much more likely to open fire -- and individual police or soldiers are much more likely to follow that order -- if the opposition is shooting at them. That's a human reaction, since people don't like to be shot at, but it also matters for the government's internal politics. Uprisings can often cause a crisis of legitimacy within the government, particularly if the relationship breaks down between the head of state and the military and/or security forces, which can in turn cause that government to fall. The more violent the uprising, the more likely that it will internally unify the regime.
Keep in mind that the state almost always has the military force at its disposal to crush just about any uprising. This is particularly true since the end of World War I, after which most states acquired tanks, machine guns and other tools that almost no rebel group could match on the battlefield.(We would be the rebel group) I found that an uprising is half as likely to succeed if the military intervenes directly and that this far less likely to happen if the uprising remains nonviolent.
Using violence also tends to reduce public support for an uprising. Chenoweth thinks this is because a violent uprising is more physically demanding and dangerous and thus scares off participants, but I'd add that violence is controversial and can engender sympathy for police and soldiers at the other end of dissidents' rifles. A violent uprising can end up polarizing people in support of the government, whereas a government crackdown against a nonviolent uprising will often reduce public support for the regime.