The civil rights movement succeeded because the authorities were made to realize that if they didn’t play ball with MLK, folks like Malcolm X and Huey Newton were the alternative.
That’s just false, civil rights weren’t achieved through intimidation. The movement succeeded because it achieved it’s objective through peaceful means. The movement organized peaceful protests to raise awareness and bring attention to the issues, they organized and fought legal battles challenging the status quo, they created institutions to help campaign for their causes, and disavowed violence to win over the general public. It is the prime example in history what peaceful protesting can achieve.
The civil rights movement is not alone, other movements like the suffragette movements in the West, the Salt Marches in India, the Singing revolution in the Baltics, and so on all achieved momentous things peacefully.
When by 1903 women in Britain had not been enfranchised, Pankhurst decided that women had to “do the work ourselves”; the WSPU motto became “deeds, not words”. The suffragettes heckled politicians, tried to storm parliament, were attacked and sexually assaulted during battles with the police, chained themselves to railings, smashed windows, carried out a nationwide bombing and arson campaign…
the Salt Marches in India,
Why is India partitioned, then? (Hint: take a look at the Muslim League’s tactics and goals.)
the Singing revolution in the Baltics
Kind of a special case; the USSR collapsed all by itself and didn’t try to oppose them.
Yes. It was a peaceful movement. Their goals weren’t achieved through violence.
Why is India partitioned, then?
The goal of the movement was to end British rule over the subcontinent, and they achieved that goal.
Kind of a special case; the USSR collapsed all by itself and didn’t try to oppose them.
You’re not giving these people their credit. The Soviet Union was filled with violent factions that wanted to prevent dissolution and the end of communism. These people managed to literally sing their way to independence.
Then the peaceful protestors don’t really care about advancing the cause they’re protesting for.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-the-failure-of-nonviolence
Ah yes, I’m sure those peaceful protesters during the civil rights movement didn’t care about the cause they were protesting for.
The civil rights movement succeeded because the authorities were made to realize that if they didn’t play ball with MLK, folks like Malcolm X and Huey Newton were the alternative.
That’s just false, civil rights weren’t achieved through intimidation. The movement succeeded because it achieved it’s objective through peaceful means. The movement organized peaceful protests to raise awareness and bring attention to the issues, they organized and fought legal battles challenging the status quo, they created institutions to help campaign for their causes, and disavowed violence to win over the general public. It is the prime example in history what peaceful protesting can achieve.
The civil rights movement is not alone, other movements like the suffragette movements in the West, the Salt Marches in India, the Singing revolution in the Baltics, and so on all achieved momentous things peacefully.
You mean this suffragette movement?
Why is India partitioned, then? (Hint: take a look at the Muslim League’s tactics and goals.)
Kind of a special case; the USSR collapsed all by itself and didn’t try to oppose them.
Yes. It was a peaceful movement. Their goals weren’t achieved through violence.
The goal of the movement was to end British rule over the subcontinent, and they achieved that goal.
You’re not giving these people their credit. The Soviet Union was filled with violent factions that wanted to prevent dissolution and the end of communism. These people managed to literally sing their way to independence.
I linked to a literal book that argues otherwise.