This is why when everyone says “the civil rights movement was peaceful” I laugh. Yeah it was peaceful with a strong demonstrated threat of violent uprising, it would have never succeeded or have been half-assed “concessions” without Malcolm X and the black panthers.
Most of the civil rights movements greatest successes were before Black Panthers even existed, much less gained prominence. Your broader point is correct, though. “A riot is the language of the unheard”, as Dr. King said.
There were a LOT of armed protestors who specifically hung around the unarmed protestors, or gave them shelter when they had to flee their protests. The Deacons are one good example.
See the book “This Nonviolent Stuff Will Get You Killed” for more info. A lot of the armed nonviolent movement got pushed to the side and diminished by later histories because it’s inconvenient and uncomfortable for a lot of people to think of “Yes I don’t wish to do violence, that’s why I’m armed and train with my weapon every weekend.”
See the book “This Nonviolent Stuff Will Get You Killed” for more info. A lot of the armed nonviolent movement got pushed to the side and diminished by later histories because it’s inconvenient and uncomfortable for a lot of people to think of “Yes I don’t wish to do violence, that’s why I’m armed and train with my weapon every weekend.”
“Si vis pacem, para bellum.”
All major events are negotiations, and negotiations are performed in the lens of relative power. If someone has the power to smash your face in, and you have no power to retaliate, whatever the stakes, the opposition is at an advantage - even if they don’t actually smash your face in.
If you find a way to retaliate in kind, even if you don’t end up exercising that retaliation, you change the balance of power - and the course of the negotiations.
The tricky part is matching that with PR concerns and avoiding bait.
This is why when everyone says “the civil rights movement was peaceful” I laugh. Yeah it was peaceful with a strong demonstrated threat of violent uprising, it would have never succeeded or have been half-assed “concessions” without Malcolm X and the black panthers.
Most of the civil rights movements greatest successes were before Black Panthers even existed, much less gained prominence. Your broader point is correct, though. “A riot is the language of the unheard”, as Dr. King said.
There were a LOT of armed protestors who specifically hung around the unarmed protestors, or gave them shelter when they had to flee their protests. The Deacons are one good example.
See the book “This Nonviolent Stuff Will Get You Killed” for more info. A lot of the armed nonviolent movement got pushed to the side and diminished by later histories because it’s inconvenient and uncomfortable for a lot of people to think of “Yes I don’t wish to do violence, that’s why I’m armed and train with my weapon every weekend.”
“Si vis pacem, para bellum.”
All major events are negotiations, and negotiations are performed in the lens of relative power. If someone has the power to smash your face in, and you have no power to retaliate, whatever the stakes, the opposition is at an advantage - even if they don’t actually smash your face in.
If you find a way to retaliate in kind, even if you don’t end up exercising that retaliation, you change the balance of power - and the course of the negotiations.
The tricky part is matching that with PR concerns and avoiding bait.