Folks keep talking about MLK's position on riots as if he treated rioting and non-violent protest as an either/or proposition.

MLK chose non-violent protest because he believed it to be the most effective means to create the conditions to bring about the end he sought. (1/19)

Most of his writing on non-violence pretty much bears this out: in the context in which King was acting, and the position from which he acted, he believed non-violence was more effective at bringing about the conditions for change (political and social) than violence. (2/19)

Moreover, King came to this position pragmatically: his concern was partially for the ways that the visual image of white violence on Black non-violence would affect personal change, as well as the potential reprisals from white supremacists against the Black community. (3/19)

Further, non-violence as a strategy was not aimed at hardcore white supremacists: it was aimed at white liberals and white moderates for whom an emotional appeal would be most effective at bringing them into the struggle where their privilege could be used effectively. (4/19)

On the other hand, King recognized that there were contexts where "violent" protests would be ultimately necessary. "Necessary" might be too strong here: where the conditions would not permit of non-violent protest as an effective tool to create the conditions for change. (5/19)

This is, point of fact, the context of King's "The Other America," from which the line "a riot is the language of the unheard" is often drawn. If we break this down, a riot is the language used when all other modes of communication fail to create the conditions for change. (6/19)

Hence, King's unwillingness to condemn riots (though he didn't think they were as effective at creating conditions for change) and his position that a riot is the language used by people who have no other means to create the conditions for change necessary to survive. (7/19)

Moreover, we might recall that King recognized violence, and advocacy for violence, as emerging from a profound anguish (his words, not mine) that emerged from the failure of an entire society to hear the ways that Black folks suffered and continue to suffer. (8/19)

Part of this comes out in King's essay "Black Power," where he makes clear the continuity of the violence of riots, protests, and some modes of "Black Power" with a profound and deep agony at the failure of the country to hear and recognize the way that Black folks suffer. (9/19)

This is to say that a riot is what happens when Black folks are made to suffer and an entire society turns a blind eye to it, or treats the suffering as if it is the fault of Black folks, and not a white supremacist structure. Riots, as King might say, are cries of agony. (10/19)

They are not, as some would have you believe, rooted in a desire for destruction, which is something that King is pretty clear about. When you see a riot of the sort going on currently, you're seeing an expression of Black pain in ways that are exceptionally visible. (11/19)

Let's get back to King and non-violence. King could choose non-violence BECAUSE people were likely to listen. He could choose non-violence because his position allowed him to choose how to communicate, how to make visible Black pain to a white, liberal, moderate audience. (12/19)

Now, in a context like ours where most white people think of themselves a non-racist, where Civil Rights supposedly "fixed" racism, where we had a Black president, non-violence as a mode of communication has been co-opted by the very white folks it was intended to sway. (13/19)

Which is why so many white folks (and non-Black POC, and some Black folks) pull the "you should protest non-violently" card, without recognizing that the conditions that would make their preferred form of protest effective no longer exist. White folks have "heard" it. (14/19)

And, because they've "heard" it all before, they can tune it out like so much background noise. If you think about it in this context, a call for "non-violent" protest is a call for an articulation of Black pain in ways that can be easily ignored by those it should sway. (15/19)

Moreover, calls for non-violence make the articulation of Black pain palatable, which it should never be. (16/19)

To conclude, I can't speak for King: I can only tell you what his philosophy might say when applied to the current situation. In my read, King's philosophy might demand that we burn some of this motherfucker down, if only to make ourselves heard. (17/19)

King's philosophy isn't alone here: Frederick Douglass operated in a similar mode (What is the Fourth of July to the Negro) as did Audre Lorde (The Uses of Anger). In fact, there's a long tradition of Black thinkers recognizing when polite talk just isn't enough anymore. (18/19)

Sometimes, as Frerie says, the Oppressed need to use violence to check the power of the oppressor so that they can recognize the way that they've done ultimate violence to the oppressed.

Now, I think, might be one of those times. (19/19)