Read on Twitter
I do, however, feel it's important to contextualize the "non-violent" protests of the 1960s that people like to romanticize.
The matches were not nonviolent for the sake of it. They were not nonviolent because they respected property or had dignity or maturity.
The matches were not nonviolent for the sake of it. They were not nonviolent because they respected property or had dignity or maturity.
Nonviolent marches as a primary movement tactic emerged at the intersection of a specific geopolitical and technological moment.
The country was in the middle of the Cold War and televisions were becoming a more important tool of propoganda. Color TV was emerging.
The country was in the middle of the Cold War and televisions were becoming a more important tool of propoganda. Color TV was emerging.
Organizers sought to leverage the American propoganda war with the Soviet Union.
They knew that American law enforcement would react violently to their protests. So they dressed up in their Sunday best and hit the streets (often shadowed by armed security, just in case).
They knew that American law enforcement would react violently to their protests. So they dressed up in their Sunday best and hit the streets (often shadowed by armed security, just in case).
Images of black people in suits and dresses getting abused by law enforcement streamed into American homes and in color for the first time. The brutality was on full display.
Moreover the Soviet Union used those same images in a propoganda war against the US.
Moreover the Soviet Union used those same images in a propoganda war against the US.
Effectively, they showed them across the world and said "How can this be the superior nation with a superior system if they treat their own citizens like this?"
It forced the hand of the federal government, which couldn't risk losing to Soviet propoganda. That's why it "worked."
It forced the hand of the federal government, which couldn't risk losing to Soviet propoganda. That's why it "worked."
Nonviolent marches were a tactic deployed with a specific strategic purpose. They weren't a reflection of the meekness of the protestors. They weren't a reflection of an inherent pacifism. They certainly weren't out of respect for property.
And the thing is, while they ultimately proved to be relatively effective at shifting public opinion just enough (with the help of the Soviets) many, many people thought they were doing too much, that it wasn't the right time, that they should take things slow.
Uncritically deploying or demanding social movement tactics from a romanticized past doesn't help anyone.
It's important to understand why they did what they did when they did it if we're to understand our own present and future.
It's important to understand why they did what they did when they did it if we're to understand our own present and future.
