I'm going to answer, but I hate these questions. As King states:

"There is probably no way, even eliminating violence, for Negroes to obtain their rights without upsetting the equanimity of white folks. All too many of them demand tranquility when they mean inequality." (1/n) https://twitter.com/PeterJosyph/status/1266807091261571073

So, when I'm asked about the limits of violence done by the oppressed to the oppressor (we'll get to the necessary part in a minute), I'm being asked to place limits on the means whereby an oppressed people overthrow their oppressors or gain their liberation. (2/n)

Moreover, it also seems as though I'm being asked what kinds of social movements should the oppressed adopt in order to preserve white equanimity (inequality) while achieving social equalities. This is a contradiction in terms, which hinges on the nature of violence, so... (3/n)

If we're going to begin to answer the question, we need to understand the nature of the "violence" of the oppressed versus the violence of the oppressor. We can go to Frerie for this, who locates the violence of the oppressed in an act of love, a move to restore humanity. (4/n)

For Frerie, the violence of the oppressed checks the power of the oppressor to oppress and opens a space where the humanity of the oppressed can be restored. An epiphenomena of this is restoration of the humanity of the oppressor by allowing them to be more than oppressors. (5/n)

The point of violence is the restoration of humanity in Frerie's view, and he doesn't place explicit limits on the KINDS of violence used by the oppressed to check the power of the oppressor. At least not in my reading. But that's Frerie's position and one I agree with. (6/n)

Now, let's get to King on violence. King says the following in 1967: "Nonviolent action in the South was effective because any form of social movement by Negroes upset the status quo. When Negroes merely marched in Southern streets it was close to rebellion." (7/n)

If any form of social movement upsets the status quo, is seen as rebellion, then any form of organization is seen as violence to the white order. Now, how social movements do violence is direct (burn the motherfucker down) or indirect (boycotts) but it is violence. (8/n)

Moreover, it is seen as violence by the very people it intends to effect. Put another way, when EVERYTHING that upsets the status quo is viewed as violence, there is nothing that its NOT violence. The question is the kind of violence appropriate to the ends being sought. (9/n)

Now, this is also wrapped up in the nature of power. For King, "Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love." This is important to understand "violence" in the current context. (10/n)

If we take the above to be serious, any exercise of power (political, social, economic) on behalf of Black folks will be seen as violence by white society. This becomes more clear when we throw some Dewey in the mix as Dewey's discussion of power can be helpful. (11/n)

For Dewey, violence is what happens when power is used to frustrate the ends of someone, or when power is used to make present an end that was not available in current situation. In both contexts, Black use of power IS violence to the white status quo. (12/n)

And this is where we get to the "necessary:" Black violence become necessary when the status quo does not permit of transformation, or when the power to oppress needs to be checked so that space for transformation can happen. The kind of violence depends on the context. (13/n)

Again, remember that "violence" is pretty much anything that disrupts the white status-quo. The kind of disruption necessary varies from context to context, a point King observes when discussing his failure in generating an urban movement: (14/n)

"We have not devised the tactics for urban slum reform. We spent ten years in the South using new tactics of nonviolence that were successful. But in the Northern cities, with time running out, we failed to achieve creative methods of work." - King, 1967 (15/n)

Now, King attributes the failure to the distinct contexts of urban spaces with southern spaces, the ability for a city to "absorb" a march as part of its ongoing processes of life and living. As a result, King concluded that more militant protest was needed. (16/n)

Specifically, "To dislocate the functioning of a city without destroying it can be more effective than a riot because it can be longer-lasting, costly to the society but not wantonly destructive. Moreover, it is more difficult for government to quell it by superior force." (17/n)

Which basically means using Black and non-Black bodies to disrupt the functioning of the city such that the abuses in question cannot go unnoticed. If merely marching was rebellion in the south, in urban spaces FULL rebellion was necessary. (18/n)

As in active disruption of the functioning of a city, its infrastructure, it's ability to do the things that cities do. This is ALSO violence according to white folks who've had their lives disrupted. We need only look at white responses to recent protests for proof. (19/n)

This gets me back to my earlier point: in a context like ours where any disruption of the status quo is violence, where white people think of themselves as non-racist, and where white society thinks we've "solved" racism, different kinds of violence are necessary. (20/n)

Now, to the question of "taking lives," I have this response from King: "if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man." (21/n)

In contrast, if the Black lives taken by a white supremacist structure over the years were calculated and compared with potential loss of white lives in a struggle to prevent Black genocide, would we hesitate to question the necessity of "taking a few lives?" (22/n)

This is a valid response, especially if we take up King's thesis that ultimate end of racism is genocide: the utter annihilation of Black humanity in this country. How else can you explain the history of state sanctioned killing of Black people in this country? (23/n)

Moreover, this is a response intended to call into question the ways that we privilege the use of violence by white people to preserve their lives and their status-quo (e.x. every militarized response to protest), yet we criminalize Black people for self-defense. (24/n)

In our context, any life lost (or taken) in a Black struggle for liberation will be viewed as one too many as the mere act of protest (regardless of context) is viewed as violent or as insurrection. But there exists a further problem with the "how many lives" question. (25/n)

The problem is that it doesn't consider a context where taking lives becomes part of "burning shit down," or where taking lives becomes necessary. Before we can even ask "how many lives," we need to ask "what kind of situation requires the taking of life?"(26/n)

If we take King's thesis to the hilt, that the end of racism is Black genocide, then living in a society predicated on racism and white supremacy is to live in a society directed towards Black genocide, which would likely be a situation that requires the taking of life. (27/n)

Again, this returns me to the through line of King's response to riots (beyond the emotional) and on escalation: the kinds of non-violent, civil disobedience necessary are determined by the situations of oppression and the means needed to transform that situation. (28/n)

Frerie and Fanon, as example, were writing in contexts of extreme violence against the oppressed where counterviolence was the only means available to stop total annihilation. This is borne out in their language about resistance and violence. King's context was different. (29/n)

So, what I'm trying to say is that Douglass' line from the Fourth of July is still pertinent: "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them..." (30/n)

"and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

The question is how long can Black folks endure white violence until it is resisted with blows. (31/n)

My answer? Not for very much longer. (Fin)