Lee is one of my favorite journalists (and follows btw), but he's kind of wrong here. I have a feeling MLK's name is going to be invoked a lot in the coming weeks so it's important to understand his entire philosophy and what "nonviolence" actually meant. https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1267151629955952641

Nonviolence was a tactic into garnering support from the white moderate (who he lamented as a bigger impediment to racial justice than even outward bigots). The idea being: protest non-violently, get attacked, whites see this on TV and are shocked and appalled, then get involved.

You could argue MILK found the limits of nonviolence when he was killed but I don't think it's even necessary. While MLK wasn't a proponent of riots, he wrote apologia to their effect and explicitly drew the distinction between destruction of property and violence against people.

He also viewed property as the physical manifestation of white-dominated power systems. Here's a bit from The Trumpet of Conscience (1967). You should read the whole thing if you can, but buttoned up quotes are better for Twitter's character limits.

He said:

"I'm aware that there are many who wince at a distinction between property and persons—who hold both sacrosanct. My views are not so rigid. A life is sacred. Property is intended to serve life... it has no personal being. it is not man."

Here, he draws the distinction, then later goes on to say this, in the context of race rioting in the 60's.

"Why were they so violent with property then? Because property represents the white power structure, which they were attacking and trying to destroy"

Would MLK have approved what happened last night? No one can know. But to distort the intent of nonviolence to muzzle protesters without first addressing their grievances is wrong, and we'll be seeing a lot of it the coming weeks. (&FYI, I don't believe that's what Lee was doing)

Lastly, in a time where there's so much information flying at us we can't even keep up let alone know who to trust, it's important to keep in mind who is saying something just as much as what they're saying.

The solution is to take a pluralist approach to what's happening. You can understand the concept of looting as a price tag for generations of inaction while wishing it wasn't happening, or didn't need to. It's okay to be upset or scared.

You can also say white people should stop looting/smashing shit and leaving black people with the blame, while understanding that this narrative is going to be exploited and distorted by white capitalists who do not share your class interests and seek POC erasure.

Mostly I think it's important (especially for white people) to sit back and listen. Follow the lead of those who are impacted by this, and try not to use a black body as a blanket pass to make this about your interests. My two cents.