The six pillars of nonviolent resistance
January 16, 2017 10:21 PM   Subscribe

 
Thanks so much for drawing this to my attention, HuronBob; much to ponder here.....
posted by On the Corner at 2:38 AM on January 17, 2017


Lazenby, favorite of Metafilter (and maybe MeFi's own?), sketches the same ideas and influences in a slightly different style. Thanks for this post, HuronBob. Been thinking a lot about this lately.
posted by penduluum at 5:59 AM on January 17, 2017 [3 favorites]


And from Atlas Obscura this week, Why MLK Day is Such a Big Deal in Hiroshima.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:01 AM on January 17, 2017 [1 favorite]


"...required reading for every human being with a clicking mind and a ticking heart."

This.
posted by prepmonkey at 8:43 AM on January 17, 2017


MLK was much more noble than me and doubtless a better person.

I am not, by his definition, non violent though I don't use violence. I am unable or unwilling to eschew violence of the spirit, and I chose non violence as a tactic not from a deep belief in it.

He was truly a great man, and a better man than me
posted by sotonohito at 10:01 AM on January 17, 2017 [2 favorites]


While MLK was certainly a brave and beautiful man it is entirely debatable whether non-violence in he sense of agape led to the success of Birmingham or Selma. These were non-violent but, it could be argued, that the this was a non-violence of a more confrontational stlye a la Bevel, Rustin or the sit-in kids. JFK wasn't loved into action he was shamed into it. LBJ didn't want love to pass the Voting Rights Act but anger in Congress.
posted by stanf at 11:41 AM on January 17, 2017


Well those are weak philosophical arguments because shame and anger are not necessarily in opposition to the process of love, and in the actual article MLK is quoted on his thoughts on the place/role of shame. So I think a logical error in that argument is more indicative of the social distortion that MLK talked about and directly suggestive of how things still are now, how a casual tension still exists, and thus which lends credence to MLK's original point, so to speak. Did you read through the article?
posted by polymodus at 12:03 PM on January 17, 2017 [3 favorites]


I may be off beam here but I think that there is a shift in King's application of non-violence as the Civil Rights Movment progressed. I'm not saying that non-violence doesn't work or is morally just, only that seeking to create confrontation does not seem to me to be agape (or metta) but something different - something more akin to Carmichael's understanding of non-violence. As far as I know, many successful protests were predicated on creating confrontation rather than creating love. As for shame, perhaps it is a weak point but at Birmingham Bull Connor was the enemy rather than JFK. The non-violence didn't shame Connor but Kennedy; a man who talked of "paying any price" etc to defend freedom.

Perhaps I am splitting hairs. Perhaps I'm just wrong.
posted by stanf at 12:38 PM on January 17, 2017


I sure like the Brain Pickings site.
posted by Oyéah at 2:31 PM on January 17, 2017


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

Just sayin'.
posted by bert2368 at 6:18 PM on January 17, 2017


« Older The Spiritual Shape of Political Ideas   |   Dick Gautier, 1931-2017 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments