Is violence such as we have seen in Ferguson, MO ever appropriate?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

The events in Ferguson informed this thread but the question behind it is hardly specific to what has happened there.

Throughout history, civil disobedience has always been one way - usually a last resort - if dealing with injustice, oppression and the continuing and unrelenting subjugation of civil rights.

Despite the fact that some conservative school boards would like to wash away the role that “civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law” in High School history classes, anyone with even the tiniest interest in American history can point out how from the very inception of the country, when people who are considered Patriots rebelled against Britain rule, through slave riots, Vietnam and civil rights in the '60s and the Stonewall Riots for gay rights, violence and civil unrest has been a method used to instigate profound change, even as a last resort.

And this says nothing of world history which is overflows for as long as we have records and even now where violent coups can change the government nations across the globe and not always for the worse.

Two camps have appeared in light of the Ferguson rioting. One of them simply points to the protesters and says they are animals destroying their own communities, accomplishing nothing.

The other camp - the one I am in - will respond that if all else failed, if the injustices never seem to end and nobody seems to be able to instigate change - what else is left?

When a community - whether it’s the black community in Ferguson, Missouri or any other group that feels injustice - tries everything it can to peacefully make change and finds that the corruption is too much to overcome, the institutional racism too ingrained, the infringers too powerful to overthrow, are they supposed to just give up? Futilely continue to bang their collective heads against the same walls despite no reason to expect it do accomplish anything other than more lumps on their heads?

Or are they ever justified in using their rage and frustrations through civil disobedience?

I believe that history has shown us that sometimes they are because sometimes profound and positive changes have rose from the ashes of civil disobedience. This isn’t to say that will happen in Ferguson or that it even should, but I do think that merely wagging fingers of disapproval at those whose anger and frustrations have boiled over is a lot less likely to affect change than pelting the police with rocks.

United States Declaration of Independence

[magellan01]

@Leaper

… And yet when football players follow some of the sage advice in this thread and stage a non violent, indeed silent, protest, they’re vilified for it.

Hmmm.

For a different reason. I’m sure no one would complain if those football players showed up at a town hall holding up signs a protesting. The problem was doing it as part of the football game. Politics should be left out of sports. Period.

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

For a different reason. I’m sure no one would complain if those football players showed up at a town hall holding up signs a protesting. The problem was doing it as part of the football game. Politics should be left out of sports. Period.

I guess you don’t like Tommie Smith and John Carlos, then.

[magellan01]

@iiandyiiii

I guess you don’t like Tommie Smith and John Carlos, then.

I don’t know if I like them or not like them. But I’m not a fan of their raised fists, no.

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

I don’t know if I like them or not like them. But I’m not a fan of their raised fists, no.

So it’s the fist, then, not the idea of protesting? If they had held up a sign protesting Civil Rights abuses instead of raising their fists during the medal ceremony, would you say that such a protest was wrong?

[magellan01]

@iiandyiiii

So it’s the fist, then, not the idea of protesting? If they had held up a sign protesting Civil Rights abuses instead of raising their fists during the medal ceremony, would you say that such a protest was wrong?

No. It’s not the fists themselves. I used that because that is what they actually did. But please, PLEASE stop with this trying to find fault with everything friggin’ I say. It gets old. Particularly when a perfectly clear and thoroughly unambiguous explanation appeared a couple posts up—and you even quoted it. But lest clarity still might elude, let me shine a light on it:

Politics should be left out of sports. Period.

Tell me, what possible ambiguity can you wring out of that statement?

[iiandyiiii]

@magellan01

No. It’s not the fists themselves. I used that because that is what they actually did. But please, PLEASE stop with this trying to find fault with everything friggin’ I say. It gets old. Particularly when a perfectly clear and thoroughly unambiguous explanation appeared a couple posts up—and you even quoted it. But lest clarity still might elude, let me shine a light on it:

Tell me, what possible ambiguity can you wring out of that statement?

Geez. All apologies. Just trying to make sure I understand what you’re saying.

[Bill_Door]

@magellan01

For a different reason. I’m sure no one would complain if those football players showed up at a town hall holding up signs a protesting. The problem was doing it as part of the football game. Politics should be left out of sports. Period.

I’ll remember that the next time I’m in the taxpayer purchased stadium listening to the National Anthem and watching the Blue Angels flyover before the game.

[magellan01]

@Bill_Door

I’ll remember that the next time I’m in the taxpayer purchased stadium listening to the National Anthem and watching the Blue Angels flyover before the game.

Stadium financing aside, it’s sad that you view expressions of patriotism as political/partisan.