OK. White people meeting.

If you grew up in a financially comfortable situation (like myself), you probably did not go to protests. Maybe you went to a march/public gathering, but not a sign-waving, rousing, existential protest. You probably were taught that those were bad.

If you studied non-violence at all, you probably learned to associate stability and peace, calm and resistance, politeness and righteousness, respect and good.

News flash: that’s absolutely not how protests work. That’s ESPECIALLY not how non-violent protests work. You’re probably reading articles these days that make provocation/rabble-rousing out to be a bad thing, to be antithetical to non-violence.

Non-violent resistance works BECAUSE it forces the underlying societal tensions to the surface. This is dangerous, intense work. It does not look polite.

Resistance work is “destabilizing” “out of touch” “unnecessarily disruptive” “rude” “chaotic” the list goes on, but you’re reading a lot of these words rn anyway so you get it. These words are used by people in power to dismiss people challenging the status quo

A non-violent resister uses the techniques of disruption to make what is invisible visible. The non-violent resister does this in order to provoke societal change and fight for justice.

And you know what? If you value stability, democracy, and moral good, this is absolutely necessary. Disruption and protests are a way for people who are having their votes/voices suppressed and who are getting pummeled by systemic issues to effectively communicate as civic agents

Yes, this looks like you having trouble finding parking, feeling uncomfortable, having your day-to-day disrupted. It looked like me getting yelled at as I walked up the stairs when I worked in politics. It looked like having to drive an extra 30m to try to get to the restaurant.

The state of the nation is not in danger because now the disruption is visible and it’s interfering with transit. The state of the nation might be in danger because of the systemic issues that now you’re having to think about.

To put a fine point on it: there’s some argument about whether Nathan Phillips provoked the situation we saw with Cov Catholic. I’ve watched the full video and I believe his account, and you can see from the video that in many ways he succeeded in his attempt to deescalate

However, EVEN IF his intention was to create a confrontation, as some have suggested, his actions would be entirely in line with the principles of non-violent resistance. In either case, the incident made visible systemic problems and forced American society to wrestle with them.

Protests and confrontation are a necessary part of the democratic process. We do a huge disservice to people doing resistance work when we make it sound like all they do is give rousing speeches and preach unity (I’m looking at you, white folks quoting MLK today)

Non-violent resistance functions on the assumption that real change and resistance happens by putting your body on the line, especially when that is dangerous and uncomfortable and provocative. It takes great strength of character to do such a thing.

There is little more disruptive or dangerous than holding a mirror up to people benefitting from systemic injustice. When this happens, those of us with power/privilege must decide if we will defend the person willingly putting itself in danger FOR US, to force our introspection

We must decide if we will defend them, if we, too, are willing to put our bodies and privileges and reputations on the line for the sake of what is right, or if we will dismiss and further endanger them, saying that they incite violence and chaos through their disruption.