[specproc]

I have an undergraduate degree in Peace Studies, and have spent extensive time in and around conflict or post-conflict zones.

Violence, particularly civil war, is utterly destructive to a society, completely tears apart the social fabric and creates wounds that never really heal.

That said, when you look at America, India, both movements required the threat of violence to succeed. MLK had the Black Panthers, and whilst Ghandi himself preached non-violence he did so against a background of riots in which thousands of British officers were killed and wounded.

The social reforms Western Europe and America saw in the post-war period were an capitulation to the implicit thread of violent communist revolution.

Non-violence is effective as an alternative to violence.

[derektank]

I think you are confusing the BPP with some other organization. All of King’s substantive achievements were accomplished before the formation of the Black Panther’s and he died before they came to national prominence.

[specproc]

Heh, did I mention that peace degree was a loooooong time ago. Totally appreciate the correction.

I remember reading an argument along those lines at the time that resonated. Perhaps not the Black Panthers? Or am I just totally wrong here and there wasn't a shred of political violence in the background?

[foogazi]

You tell us - you started this thread

Do you still want to sustain your argument or retract ?

Otherwise your comment above still stands with false information + made worse by a flimsy appeal to authority (peace “degree”)

[zahlman]

> both movements required the threat of violence to succeed.

How can you know that they wouldn't have succeeded otherwise, or even been successful faster?

[pixl97]

>Non-violence is effective as an alternative to violence.

I have a feeling you probably should have put a bunch of caveats for both like "if you're willing to wait a few generations for your aims to be met".

When talking about both the American civil war, one side had engaged in violence for antiquity and had the force of the state which came to state that violence was the expected behavior. This violent behavior was very profitable, and the people profiting from this realize they were in a weak position so they started propagandizing was what they were doing was "in the name of god", "is good for the common man", etc. It moves the conversation from one looking at the violence of slavery to "Why do you hate god and country".

Simply put the US civil war was a temporary increase of violence that preceded the war with slavery and followed the war in neo-slavery.