Read on Twitter
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& #39;s caste system. They weren& #39;t & #39;privileged& #39; people.
First, my ancestors who chose nonviolence lived at the bottom of America& #39;s caste system. They weren& #39;t & #39;privileged& #39; people.
They chose nonviolence cause they knew they didn& #39;t have the means to match the state& #39;s capacity for violence.
When you say *only* violence is effective you discourage resistance from people who *know* they can& #39;t win through conventional warfare.
When you say *only* violence is effective you discourage resistance from people who *know* they can& #39;t win through conventional warfare.
There *has* to be a place for nonviolent action because it& #39;s the most accessible type of resistance available to most people.
(that and it& #39;s statistically proven to be twice as effective as armed struggle anyway, h/t: @EricaChenoweth).
(that and it& #39;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
In the U.S. revolutionary violence is a white prerogative
I& #39;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& #39;m talking about strategy.
I& #39;m talking about strategy.
I should& #39;ve said revolutionary violence in the U.S. is *considered* a white prerogative. Not saying it should be, but naming the reality.
It& #39;s just one way that makes the barriers of entry very high.
It& #39;s just one way that makes the barriers of entry very high.
Nonviolent struggle allows people to fight by another means. It& #39;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.
Not everyone can join a conventional revolutionary army.
ANYONE can participate in nonviolent struggle.
