[QUOTE=Daniel Patrick Moynihan]
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s make it official: This famous Moynihan quote is now obsolete. In post-rational America, everyone is now entitled to his own facts.
For example:
It took me only a minute or two to find photos or videos of protest gatherings in Washington, Boston, and Los Angeles. I am not an expert in estimating crowd sizes, but in some of the images one could zoom and literally count thousands of people in a single frame. (Some frames show several tens of thousands but discerning and counting individuals gets tedious.) With protests held in at least 600 cities, I certainly agree that the nationwide total was “likely over a million.”
So what is doorhinge’s counter-theory? Were hundreds of thousands of these protestors actually Trumpists, in attendance just to document, with their cameras and tweets, how poor the attendance was? Were the newspaper images I found produced by Photoshopping? Were a million protestors flown in from Kenya to pad the stats?
*It doesn’t matter. * Doorhinge is entitled to his own facts.
They should, absolutely. But if they don’t–if they rationalize their past behavior as a ticket to come to the march, and get energized and socialized to fucking vote already the next time–I’m not so concerned with how much shame they feel.
What does it matter as long as people are failing forward.
One does not give up their other rights by failing to exercise another right unless they refuse to leverage any of their rights.
Would it have been better had they all voted, yes. Does that diminish their current message or limit the value of their voice moving forward? No
Maybe this will encourage a significant portion of these individuals to stay active within the process, and while some parts of our government ignored the protests others were listening.
I marched in DC, and am following a lot of WMOW social media, both the Facebook page and the app; and the message that comes out again and again from most of them is “This was just a beginning.” Lots of posts about activism, and how to keep up the momentum. Just saw a post on the Georgia WMOW page about a counterprotest at a Planned Parenthood office next month.
Just going by my own experience of one of these protests, I’d say: No. The one I saw was very much like a big meeting. Thousands of politically motivated people got together and swapped ideas, supported and validated each other. I don’t know if it is a movement yet, but it could turn into one.
The election was low-enthusiasm this year, going by the turnout. Here is a source of political enthusiasm.
Huh? ISTM that King and Madonna were basically making the same point in their references to violence: i.e., that it’s emotionally tempting but ultimately counterproductive, and we must choose a better way in this metaphorical “revolt” or “revolution”.
We’ve discussed in other threads why this allegation is false. Nobody was barred from participating in the WMW because they personally held pro-life beliefs.
What was barred was anti-abortion-rights groups trying to use the WMW as a platform for their anti-abortion-rights advocacy. Since support for abortion rights was a core principle of the March, it would have been hypocritical to accept such co-sponsorship.
(And frankly I’m a bit puzzled as to why a few such groups seem to have sought co-sponsorship of the march in the first place. Why were they willing to endorse an event that strongly supported abortion rights, which they vehemently oppose?
My best guess is that these comparatively small groups such as “Feminists for Life” were just trying to piggyback on the national and international media attention to the March. In any case, certainly none of them were banned or excluded as individual feminist participants marching against the Trump Administration agenda in general.)
A few minor possible hiccups like Madonna aside, it was a remarkably well-organized, focused and on-message show of strength. There was no violence, no arrests, and even a rudimentary dress code (in the form of hats). I’d think King would have been proud.
I thought World War II nearly bankrupting Great Britain and the Indian Government of the time only agreeing to supply troops to fight the Japanese offensively on the condition that Very Serious Discussions would be had after the war about independence were what got the British out of India?
Marching in India accomplished sweet fuck all, The Congress provincial ministries resigned right after the Viceroy declared war on the Germans (as per the law he was entitled to do). The ministries were not replaced until 1946. So the question of independence never came up at the time politically.
The British policy since the First World War had been to try and take the wind out of the whole independence movement by transferring as much power as possible to elected Governments in the provinces and then when that was done turn around and say "whoa there Interdependence? You already rule yourselves leaving just foreign affairs and defense to the Center.
The ultimate expression of that was the Government of India Act 1935 which devolved most power to the provinces and their elected legislatures; (and incidentally this and India policy generally NOT Hitler was the real reason Churchill was in the wilderness) which actually went further, removed India’a status as a colony and declared it a Federation and also provided for responsible Government at the center.
The main issue by the time the war started was the role the UK would have, not as to the principal of self government. Roughly Congress and the North India Hindu majority wanted a centralized state, everyone else, Muslims, untouchables, South Indian Hindus, Sikhs etc wanted a highly autonomous loose confederation.
All the war did was make the question of the UK’s future role moot as she was bankrupt; she could not rely on US support to prop up her Empire (FDR had been adamant on that point, and Truman, while never meeting a colonial regime he disliked, had not seen reason to change policy, yet).
As for marching efficacy, don’t make me laugh. Protests and marches accomplished nothingl, the movie Gandhi notwithstanding. And the amount of repression and crackdowns it led to, lets just say if these “nasty women” currently protesting the Orangutan ever learn even a tenth of it, they will choke on their lattes and high tail it back to the suburbs.
The other side of the story, though, is that he also understood the practical use of rioting, violent resistance. While he promoted non-violence, he also did not explicitly rebuke rioters despite being asked to do so by the white media constantly (think how continually we asked/ask Muslims to rebuke extremists after every terrorist attack). A common refrain of his was that “a riot is the voice of the unheard.” When asked to rebuke the rioters, he would quite savvily turn the issue back to the root cause of the riots–suffering and apathetic middle class whites–and state the obvious: that riots will continue and increase (against his calls for non-violence) if the root causes are not addressed.
He was the carrot, and riots were the stick. Unless non-violent resistance can coalesce to completely shut down a city, the range of its effect will be limited without the threat of violence from a minority of separate protesters. And King knew that quite well, particularly in the later years of his life. That is the paradox for those who choose to be non-violent like King, me, and apparently most others here based on a thread I started on rioting.
I wonder if things would have turned out differently if the march had been held before the election instead of after it. I’m thinking 1-2 weeks before, preferably 1 week.
This is just not true. King did not condone rioting. He did not condemn rioters because he wanted to keep the movement unified. If you look at the history King and his non-violence approach got the Civil Rights Act passsed, the Voting Rights Act passed, and sympathetic administrations elected. Then the rioting happened and there was a backlash and Nixon was elected.
This is just not true. King did not condone rioting, he tried to explain it away as caused by white crimes. He did not condemn rioters because he wanted to keep the movement unified. If you look at the history King and his non-violence approach got the Civil Rights Act passsed, the Voting Rights Act passed, and sympathetic administrations elected. Then the rioting happened and there was a backlash and Nixon was elected. All of the most important victories happened before the rioting.
He got thrown in jail 30 separate times regardless. And “the media” of the time was mostly supportive of locking his uppity, commie-lovin’ black ass up.
Huh? ISTM that 