[cjs_ac]

> Already, as many as a quarter of Americans seem accepting of violence as a tool for achieving political change.

I'm surprised it's only a quarter: violence as a tool for achieving political change is the entire point of the right to bear arms.

EDIT: I'm not arguing for or against political violence, just noting an apparent inconsistency between Americans' views and one of the documents that they talk about as though it's holy writ.

[ofjcihen]

I don’t condone it but I’m also expecting it to escalate. I grew up extremely poor and remained so until I dug myself out (through an absolutely ridiculous amount of work that no one should have to do this is not pro bootstraps).

Every week was a struggle to eat and the cost of living has significantly increased since then.

I guess the question is what is the terminal percentage of people who can’t afford to exist?

[mrhottakes]

It's 100% accurate to say that the history of the United States is filled to the brim with political change via violence.

[tenacious_tuna]

Some friends and I read "A People's History of the United States" a while back and were surprised at how true this is. US classroom history textbooks hold civil disobedience up as the One True Way to bring change, but it's alarming how often the backdrop of famous acts of civil disobedience was in fact incredible violence.

Our conclusion in our impromptu book club was that made sense: why would the state schools give students lots of examples of how violence against the state was an effective negotiating tool? It was extremely jarring to reconcile with the image of US history we'd been imbued with up to that point, which of course was also a reflection of our socioeconomic status at the time.

As a counterpoint, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" is also taught in schools, so it's possible I'm just selectively remembering things.

[Balgair]

Tomas Rick's Waging a Good War: A Military History of the Civil Rights Movement 1954-68 should be required reading at this point

https://www.amazon.com/Waging-Good-War-Military-1954-1968/dp...

Ricks kinda beats a dead horse as he goes over and over again that non-violence is not unaggressive. It is typically quite militant when done well.

Non violence is a tactic, one that is typically better at achieving results than violence, as it tends to change the other side that is violent to adjust down to non violence as well. Like getting a drunk to be quieter by whispering to them (Note: that is a poor analogy).

Rick's book is just so very good and my poor internet comment can't possibly do it justice. He convinced me that the Civil Rights movement is so big because it gave the US a brand new tool in conflicts. It's not just violence or submission anymore.

[mrhottakes]

Your "poor internet comment" got me to check the book out, so I'd say it's a pretty good comment!

[mrhottakes]

A truly fantastic book. I'm glad to hear of more people checking it out.

[ndsipa_pomu]

Here in the UK, political violence has had its moments. My go to example is the Suffragettes who had to resort to violence (letter bombs if I recall) to effect change and get votes for women.

I often think that people will always criticise protests for not protesting the "correct" way, but it's exactly the violent and/or disruptive protests that tend to work.

However, I think the current U.S. political problems can be better addressed with economic disruption such as general strikes.

[bluecheese452]

And you can extend that to the history of the world. Change via non violent means is a historical aberration. We hold those examples up because they are so rare.

[scruple]

What percentage of people "seem accepting of violence as a tool" when they're starving to death?

[tim333]

The right to bear arms is more of a last resort against tyrants and invaders. You don't want to be shooting people for everyday politics.

[dlev_pika]

It’s 25% increase…for every meal missed.

[ndsipa_pomu]

Civilisation is three meals away from anarchy