I will not participate in any online website involving talk of advocating violence.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,389947,390134#msg-390134

Martin Luther King? He was not the only leader of the civil rights movement and he was not the only factor, violence was a major factor in progressing the civil rights movement, but people REMEMBER the Martin Luther Kings, not the Malcolm Xs

Same with Gandhi, when you look at the India independence movement AS A WHOLE, we find that there was also a violent side, but people want to believe that it was really not violent so they can worship Gandhi, and ignore the reality.

So, the effective leaders may use the term in a certain way, history shows that it just isn't so. Many of those same effective leaders owe their success to the violence that the they claimed to be against. It is sort of a "good cop. bad cop" sort of thing. The "good cop bad cop" thing does not work without a bad cop and in the end, the "good cop" is the cop people LIKE. The non-violence preachers loose effectiveness when there is no violence to rail against, and the non-violence preachers are the ones that people LIKE to remember.

and should have contradicted it. Gandhi and MKL certainly did NOT connive with the those using violence to accomplish a common end. In fact, their strength, moral and physical, came precisely from radical nonviolence. It was not just a facade or the right hand blessing while allowing the left hand to club, stab, or shoot.

In the name of 'worldly wisdom' or so-called "realism," the people who assert that progressive movements necessarily countenance violence and in fact SHOULD employ it, surreptitiously, are simply repeating the same thought patterns that humanity has knee-jerkedly employed since primitive times. It seems they don't believe in psychological evolution...or at least don't want to be pioneers in it. And maybe they've been watching too much TV--where violence is the pat solution in order to wind up plots in an hour.

The poster in question is not advocating violence. Hoggle and Richard Foxe are just twisting words to make it seem that way.

Ever wonder if Ghandi and King might be mere historical side-notes had those hard punches to the jaw not followed push coming to shove?

The associated violence is simply a matter of fact.

Ignoring facts is hardly what I call psychological evolution.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2012 06:19AM by Timothy.

Well spoken as always, Timmy.

were very much aware of the violence in the populace, and if this were given in to, protesters would have been slaughtered and the movement quashed. They were also keenly aware that violence might be directed toward themselves, but the fact that they were not dissuaded by this and did not compromise their visions...is precisely the reason why they are not "mere historical-side notes."

They may have been side-notes in earlier ages--likely there were peaceful movements that did get annihilated--but the changing attitudes of the time and widespread media coverage of the mid 20th century supported them. Evolution?

I was referring to you.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2012 05:30PM by Timothy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi_Behind_the_Mask_of_Divinity
http://www.zimbio.com/Ghandi+quotes/articles/23/ML+King+know+Gandhi+racism

I am not quite sure what to think, now.

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> were very much aware of the violence in the
> populace,

And MLK and G used it to their advantage. By playing the proverbial "good cop" they were able to USE the violence to gain political power, the same way the "good cop" uses the "bad cop" to gain the trust of the person being interrogated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2012 06:03PM by MJ.

And I am wondering if the Fox's and the Hoggle's of the world would think I am advocating violence for saying that violence was a critical part of the founding of the United States?

The extent of word twisting is beyond belief.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2012 05:56PM by MJ.

And it likely to do so in the future as well.

That is not advocating violence, that is accepting reality.

Agreed. Even the peace/love movement in the 60's was a reaction to violence in Vietnam.

And let's not forget that there was a violent component to the protests as well.