I feel some kind of way about people suggesting a commitment to nonviolence is a privileged position.

First, my ancestors who chose nonviolence lived at the bottom of America's caste system. They weren't 'privileged' people.

They chose nonviolence cause they knew they didn't have the means to match the state's capacity for violence.

When you say *only* violence is effective you discourage resistance from people who *know* they can't win through conventional warfare.

There *has* to be a place for nonviolent action because it's the most accessible type of resistance available to most people.

(that and it's statistically proven to be twice as effective as armed struggle anyway, h/t: @EricaChenoweth).

For these reasons, and more, it seems to me that a commitment to violence signals privilege to me. Not everyone can afford it.

All of this not to mention that in America, violence is often treated as a privilege of the dominant castes, who can brandish weapons in the street without consequence while unarmed Black activists are attacked by police.

In the U.S. revolutionary violence is a white prerogative

I'm not talking about what is justifiable. A state built on genocide, land-theft, and slavery has no moral grounds to lecture the oppressed about the morality of violence.

I'm talking about strategy.

I should've said revolutionary violence in the U.S. is *considered* a white prerogative. Not saying it should be, but naming the reality.

It's just one way that makes the barriers of entry very high.

Nonviolent struggle allows people to fight by another means. It's a different weapons system that allows all kinds of people in society to participate.

Not everyone can join a conventional revolutionary army.

ANYONE can participate in nonviolent struggle.