Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The last couple months have offered one of the most absurd displays of hysterical overreaction I've seen since Jerry Falwell declared Tinky Winky to be gay. I am speaking, of course, of the reaction of mainstream Republicans and the conservative media to a report on the growing dangers of right wing extremism by the Department of Homeland Security.
Did anyone react this way a mere ten weeks earlier when the DHS put out a virtually identical report on left wing extremism? We didn't hear liberals throwing a fit about that report and claiming that the government was out to destroy its political enemies or deliberately conflating mainstream liberals with violent radicals.
There was so much missing from all that faux-outrage. Like the fact that the bulk of the report on right wing extremism was completed during the Bush administration, not the Obama administration (such reports are done by careerists, not political appointees) and that it was based on all kinds of other government reports put out under Bush.
For example, one of the constant refrains was that the report, by mentioning that there may potentially be a problem with some returning veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, was smearing all vets and soldiers as right wing extremists. Bill Kristol sputtered on Fox News that the report "does reveal something about the way they (the Obama administration) thinks about veterans, that based on all these movies from the Vietnam era, these guys are pathological killers who are one step away from unleashing and that this is something to worry about when the vets come back."
But even a cursory glance at the actual report shows this to be utter nonsense. The report clearly says that they are concerned only about a "small percentage" of military veterans:
DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists--including lone wolves or small terrorist cells--to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
The report doesn't say "military veterans are crazed lunatics waiting to open fire on people." It says that white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups have sought to exploit a relatively small number of returning veterans and use them in their unholy wars. It also points out that such groups have deliberately planted people in the military to get training in weapons, demolition and tactics for that very purpose, something that was confirmed by an FBI report during the Bush administration.
We already know that some returning vets have joined white supremacist groups. The Pentagon knows it too. The only way to turn a report acknowledging that fact in to an attack on all soldiers is through sheer demagoguery - which is, of course, a particular specialty of the conservative media.
After all of that juvenile fit-throwing from conservatives, everything since then has only confirmed the findings of the original DHS report. Just days before the report was released to the public, a right wing nut named Richard Poplawski killed three police officers in a fit of rage over Obama allegedly plotting to take his guns away. Then we had the murder of Dr. George Tiller and a white supremacist killing a guard at the National Holocaust Museum.
Frankly, the conservatives who went apeshit over that report owe the country an apology. Not that we'll be getting one, of course.
Politics
Comments
Can we expect a non-apology apology blaming "left wing" bloggers for distorting the facts?
Posted by: DPSisler | June 18, 2009 9:26 AM
We already got the "those guys aren't true right wingers" line many times over.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | June 18, 2009 10:37 AM
I think that this strikes a nerve with the right because of a difference in quality of threat from each source.
On the right there are insane members of their base that have sympathies with groups that violently oppose abortion, immigration, gays and others. Since they have less political power at the moment they are very sensitive to anyone pointing this out. This is why everyone NEEDS to point it out. They need these people to get back into power.
The report on the left on the other hand shows less violence and more electronic terrorism. I can't speak for everyone but I am more afraid of a right wing nut shooting me or blowing me up. If my bank account (or worse get hacked Ill live.
The right has been very good over the last decade at emotional manipulation in politics and elsewhere. I think we should use those same techniques in parallel with rationally picking them apart (but without the dishonesty). Keep pointing out the parallels and connections between their base these terrorists until it becomes so obvious that they have no choice to distance themselves from then at every public event. If they can convince Americans that the left is out to turn their children gay and destroy marriage maybe we can turn the tables on them and convince the moderates that the instinct of right is out to convert or kill anyone who does not agree with them.
This tactic might not be the most respectable way try to change things, but human are screwed up evolved creatures that respond to these kinds of techniques better than rationality.
Posted by: Joshua White | June 18, 2009 10:51 AM
Joshua, I think animal researchers might disagree with you about the "quality" of the various threats.
Posted by: bob | June 18, 2009 11:15 AM
@bob
Very true. I forgot about that.
I would point out however that they have far less public support. Also recent "in your face" efforts in England (google Pro-Test) have diminished public support and scaled back the threats.
I am not saying not to worry about your point. But maybe more psychology and emotional techniques in our efforts could help where rational deconstructions and take-downs alone will not work with most (sadly simple and ignorant) Americans.
Posted by: Joshua White | June 18, 2009 11:30 AM
Aminal-rights activists are all technical pacifists, as far as I know. None of them have killed anyone or attempted to do so. There is, in fact, a big difference in threat quality.
The claim I've seen (which I suspect isn't true, but haven't verified) is that the report on left-wing groups named specific groups and individuals to look out for, while the right-wing report tarred ideologies. I.e. naming Earth first, but then saying to look out for militias in general.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | June 18, 2009 12:43 PM
Aminal-rights activists are all technical pacifists, as far as I know. None of them have killed anyone or attempted to do so. There is, in fact, a big difference in threat quality.
Maybe they haven't tried to kill anybody directly, but they've burned down buildings and engaged in dangerous vandalism without regard for people who might have been affected. In the case of burning buildings, that could have caused someone's death if anybody had been there working late or a maintenance person was still at work after hours.
I agree that it is a different approach than shooting somebody point blank, but it's still dangerous, and could still qualify as violent terrorism. I would consider setting a building on fire an act of violence, personally.
Posted by: rob | June 18, 2009 1:26 PM
Ace of Sevens,
Planting bombs to destroy property is hardly the act of a pacifist.
Wikipedia, Animal Liberation Front.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 18, 2009 1:33 PM
Ed, you may have been out of the loop for this one, but as Jonah Goldberg, Michelle Malkin, et al have clearly explained, the perpetrators are really left-wing extremists.
Your prompt apology will be accepted and noted.
Posted by: Shygetz | June 18, 2009 1:35 PM
David, I think that acts of vandalism can clearly be consistent with many forms of pacifism. Many pacifist protesters in the Vietnam War era vandalized public property. What ALF does is dangerous, but so long as they try to avoid any injury to people, I don't think you can say they are not pacifist.
Posted by: Shygetz | June 18, 2009 1:45 PM
David, I think that acts of vandalism can clearly be consistent with many forms of pacifism. Many pacifist protesters in the Vietnam War era vandalized public property. What ALF does is dangerous, but so long as they try to avoid any injury to people, I don't think you can say they are not pacifist.
That is not unreasonable, but if they are blowing up buildings then they are still cause for concern. Whether or not they are trying to kill people, they stand a good chance of doing so. For most of its life, Weather Underground tried to avoid killing people, but people still ended up killed.
And I still think the term terrorist applies, because as I said blowing up a building does seem like violence to me, pacifist or no.
Posted by: rob | June 18, 2009 2:10 PM
Here's a recent article in Salon re the acceptance of neo-Nazis in the US military.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/15/neo_nazis_army/index.html
Posted by: LightningRose | June 18, 2009 3:00 PM
A lot of conservatives seem to engage in/display black and white thinking. We also see this WRT homosexuality. They seem to be afraid that EVERYBODY will "go gay", just as they seem to think that the DHS report says that all conservatives are homicidal maniacs. The idea that some people will act one way, and that other people will act in other ways never occurs to them. For people who yack about freedom so much, conservatives seem to have a lot of trouble with the idea of someone not doing or thinking what they do.
Posted by: Blue Nine | June 18, 2009 3:09 PM
Oh, absolutely cause for concern, and they should be stopped for their criminal action and intimidation, especially of scientists. But, if you call non-violent vandals "terrorists", then you blunt the meaning of the term. Once ALF starts murdering people for the cause, THEN call them terrorists and prosecute them appropriately.
Posted by: Shygetz | June 18, 2009 4:04 PM
Criminal intimidation (coercion) directed against any lawful occupation is the definition of terrorism, whether the target is black people (the KKK), abortion doctors, or SUV dealers.
And a wide variety of "mainstream" leftist groups are fronts or funding sources for these terrorists. See activistcash.com for plenty of proof, with names and details.
I'd like to see anyone on the left show even one similar connections between a terrorist crime such as the murder of Dr. Tiller and any of the major right-wing people or groups. If you can, I promise to desert the bad groups and help you publicize why.
So long as our country has freedom of speech, (mostly) fair elections and (mostly) fair courts, those are the only methods anyone should be using to object to anyone else's actions. The other way lies total chaos. I hope nobody here wants that.
Posted by: John David Galt | June 18, 2009 4:55 PM
And after you vist Mr. Galt's "activistcash" site, be sure to check out what SourceWatch has to say about it.
Posted by: Taz | June 18, 2009 5:32 PM
Shygetz:
I disagree. Calling people who destroy others' private property "pacifists", blunts the meaning of the term. A pacifist would be a nonviolent protester.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 18, 2009 6:13 PM
Re taz
Sourcewatch page linked to is empty.
Posted by: SLC | June 18, 2009 7:18 PM
Re taz
Try the following links to articles on sourcewatch about the phony consumer organization activistcash. The web site activistcash is nothing but a shill for the tobacco companies, among other vested interests.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ActivistCash
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=A_visit_to_the_ActivistCash.com_web_site
Posted by: SLC | June 18, 2009 7:30 PM
Thanks, SLC. Not sure how that happened.
Posted by: Taz | June 18, 2009 9:06 PM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TechnicalPacifist
Since many of you apparently don't know what a technical pacifist is.
Posted by: Ace of Sevens | June 18, 2009 9:08 PM
The warnings about "right-wing militias" tarred almost everyone outside the two major parties who's to the right of center, and smeared anyone who expresses support (a clear attempt to chill protected speech). Don't take my word for it, read the relevant page of the document:
These policies have had real effects, as the aggressive and unwarranted detainment of a Ron Paul supporter at an airport recently proves beyond doubt.
(continued next comment to avoid the spam trap due to another hyperlink)
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | June 18, 2009 10:07 PM
The tarring of anti-immigration groups on page 21 should trouble everyone. Whatever your sympathies, the USA IS supposedly a nation of laws, and we DO have laws against entry into the country without following procedures or overstaying a visa, and it IS a violation of the law for any such person to be in the USA. In addition, the masses of illegal immigrants cause extensive property damage and environmental degradation in certain parts of the country. The same people who would be up in arms if the damage was caused by domestic polluters, and no doubt supported the "militias" which kept watch against arsonists in Detroit on October 30 for so many years, think the folks watching the border (or the local big-box supply store parking lot) and reporting unlawful activity should be criminalized.
Not only do I not think so, I think that the bureaucrats and police agents who wrote the policies which take aim at people who are only asking for the law to be enforced should be fired and barred from public employment.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | June 18, 2009 10:10 PM
Am I correct in thinking we've been treated to a heaping helping of horseshit by the clown who signs as John David Galt?
Typical empty rhetoric by a dickhead.
Posted by: democommie | June 18, 2009 11:31 PM
I see that the "Engineer-Poet" is now giving us the benefit of his sagacity; can mroberts be far behind?
Posted by: democommie | June 18, 2009 11:34 PM
Oooh, devastating takedown: insinuate that I am someone who names himself after a character in an Ayn Rand book (without following my blog link; you probably won't follow the one on this comment either), instead of reading the source material and attempting to show why the law-enforcement authors did not over-reach.
Of course, doing the latter is so much harder. You might even fail.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | June 19, 2009 12:45 AM
Engineer-poet,
All I have to say is that there is a world of difference between "A's are B's" and "B's are A's". Saying that "militia members" are "not uncommon[ly]" or "usually" "supporters of ... [] Paul, [] Baldwin, and [] Barr" is not the same as "tarr[ing] almost everyone outside the two major parties who's to the right of center." In fact, it makes no commentary about the membership of minor parties other than an existential one, and existential claims of badness within a group are not disparaging. By way of example: "Some Christians are liars! Some pacifists are pedophiles! Some soldiers are adulterers!" I could go on, but that's enough introductory logic for one day.
A lot of people seem to wish that it was the same, because that would feed into their victimization complexes, but it isn't the same.
I share your concerns about chilling effects. However, the plain facts of the matter are that such reports are common, have been diligently aimed at all possibly threatening groups across the ideological spectrum, have been produced by the executive branch under all recent presidential administrations, and (to some degree) serve a legitimate purpose. The histrionics addressed in the OP, on the other hand, serve no purpose apart from self-aggrandizement.
Also, perhaps you could explain why vigilante efforts to enforce one set of laws (against illegal immigration) through keeping a watchful eye on those groups thought likely to be committing those crimes are acceptable (commendable?), whereas government efforts to enforce another set of laws (against terrorism, murder, etc.) through keeping a watchful eye on those groups thought likely to be committing those crimes are unacceptable?
Posted by: Douglas McClean | June 19, 2009 4:07 AM
Engineer-Poet - you are conflating The Missouri MIAC Strategic Report: Modern Militia Movemen- of February 20, 2009; with the DHS Report: Rightwing Extremism: Current. Economic and Political Climate Fueling. Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment of April 7, 2009.
Regardless of whether this was intentional or inadvertent disinformation dispersion on your part, it might be best if you skipped Alex Jones for a while...lol...
Posted by: a knight | June 19, 2009 5:12 AM
Who is the Poseur John Galt, and why does he lie about what Thomas Jefferson said?
And who are the damn fools that believe they can be Randroids and libertarians simultaneously? As a Freedom-Loving Objectionist, I strenuously protest this slanderous association with a megalomaniac bodice-ripping movie script writer from Hollywood, and her clueless idolaters:
-----------------------[
"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to ‘do something.’ By ‘ideological’ (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the ‘libertarian’ hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies." - Ayn Rand, "What Can One Do?" - Philosophy: Who Needs It
]-----------------------
AtLast, Shrugged the Fountain Pinheads.
Posted by: a knight | June 19, 2009 5:36 AM
Engineer-Poet:
"Oooh, devastating takedown: insinuate that I am someone who names himself after a character in an Ayn Rand book (without following my blog link; you probably won't follow the one on this comment either)..."
WTF? I insinuated nothing about you and the John Galt signer being the same person.
As for your "source" material; Alex Jones. You're fucking kidding, right?
Posted by: democommie | June 19, 2009 7:39 AM
Engineer-Poet: your assessment that anti-immigration groups are being tarred, only further proves your anti-libertarian world-view. What kind of demented Anti-Market Alice in Phantasmland do you live in anyway? Any environmental damage cause by immigration would simply disappear overnight if the Libertarian Party's Free Trade and Migration Platform Plank was US policy:
-----------------------[
3.4: Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.
]-----------------------
And page 21 of the Missouri MIAC...Seriously? Run, do not walk away from your Alex Jones iconocranium. Dude the whole report was only 8 pages in length.
Posted by: a knight | June 19, 2009 12:47 PM
Shygetz:
Cheers, I didn't know "technical pacifist" had a specific meaning. Fine, a technical pacifist is a person who is free to violently attack property and even people: but he's not allowed to kill them. It that sense, you're certainly correct. The vandals of the ALF are technical pacifists.
But pacifists? No. As rob @7 wrote, they're closer to terrorists.
Now, your point was that groups like the ALF (i.e. technical pacifists) were less harmful than right-wing extremist groups. But both groups are equally free to (and do) destroy property. Both groups are equally free to (and do) cause harm to humans. The sole restriction on the left-wing crowd is that they're not allowed to murder people -- the definition of a "technical pacifist". I don't see how this really makes your point.
Sure, the left wing doesn't kill; but that's all they don't do. That's not much better!
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 19, 2009 3:34 PM
"Sure, the left wing doesn't kill; but that's all they don't do. That's not much better!"
Horseshit.
The left wing doesn't have something like a dozen lying sack-of-shit cheerleaders on AM, FM and cable/satellite television. The left wing is not running the democratic party. And, if property crimes, no matter how egregious, are equal in your mind to murder I think you need to go back to school and learn something about the law.
To date not one, afaia, right-to-life lightning rod has been murdered by a pro-choice advocate. No evangelical or fundamentalist churches have been bombed by zealots from pro-choice, anti-war or atheist ranks.
Left wingers do not, in the main, promote murder. The right wing not only promotes it, they actually commit murder.
Posted by: democommie | June 19, 2009 4:03 PM
David - just a couple of quick things (I've really got to go to bed):
a) Those notable 'terrorists' the Weather Underground killed a grand total of 3 people (their own members), during the group's existance, how many did those they were protesting against needlessly kill in the same period?
b) If that's the definition of a terrorist, then the ANC (the current government of SA) are terrorists too. You want to tell the South African Government that Nelson Mandela should be locked up (again) for opposing Apartheid by terrorism? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 19, 2009 4:34 PM
democommie @33: if it's a choice between property crimes and murder, property crimes, of course, are better. But the ALF is walking a tightrope if it thinks its property crimes will not, eventually, end in murder.
We have rightwing elements willing to use intimidation to win their aims, intimidation including murder. Leftwing groups use intimidatory tactics that carry the possibility of killing someone at some point. How are they so much better than the rightwing?
Fine, they're not poisoning the airwaves, nor are they in control of the Democratic Party. So what? Just because they've failed to emulate the rightwing's political and cultural success doesn't make them any better. The actions of leftwing groups are such that one of them will, at some point, murder someone. They're almost as bad as the rightwing; just not as successful.
Respectful Insolence had a number of posts about terrorist mindset and tactics of the ALF.
-- A spokesman for the ALF thinks killing animal researchers is fine. [link]
-- Animal rights terrorists firebomb the house and car of a pair of researchers. Two children were in the house at the time. [link]
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 20, 2009 5:38 AM
DingoJack: of course Mandela should've been locked up. He participated in a bombing campaign!
The USA repealed its racist laws without terrorism; why couldn't South Africa? Especially since, unlike the US, the victims were the majority.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 20, 2009 6:01 AM
David Ratnasabapathy:
"They're almost as bad as the rightwing; just not as successful."
This is false and I can't believe that you really think it's true.
There certainly ARE some fucked up individuals on the left wing, dozens perhaps, who own guns and spout hateful rhetoric, even criminal threats, against people. And yest they do engage in property crimes that have the potential for causing injury or death.
There are thousands of reichwing fuckheads, heavily armed and delusional as can be. They DELIBERTATELY kill people they disagree with.
Do you think that these two things are even roughly equivalent?
As for South Africa, the blacks were a.) Invaded by and terrorized by the whites. b.) The whites in SA showed no hesitation or remorse for slaughtering black South Africans to retain their hold on power. Your statement to DingoJack is just fucking ridiculous.
Posted by: democommie | June 20, 2009 8:26 AM
democommie: I agree with you. Rightwing terrorists outnumber leftwing ones. Rightwing terrorists have committed worse crimes than leftwing ones. The harm done by the rightwing exceeds the harm done by the leftwing.
But this just means that the leftwing is not as successful as the rightwing.
eg: in terms of their ideology, modern neo-Nazis of the USA follow exactly the real Nazis of Germany, yes? But neo-Nazies haven't committed genocide. So are they less bad than WWII Nazis? I say no. I think that neo-Nazis are just as bad -- just, fortunately, not as successful.
As for Mandela: I don't know the details. Can we agree that he took part in a bombing campaign which killed innocent people? Because if so, how can you say that he should stay out of jail?
Especially since the USA committed the same crimes as South Africa; yet it achieved enlightenment without embracing terrorism.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 20, 2009 4:46 PM
Especially since the USA committed the same crimes as South Africa; yet it achieved enlightenment without embracing terrorism.
Ummm ever hear of "reconstruction" and the rise of the Klan? The Black Codes and Jim Crow? Plessy? Lynchings? The Klan running numerous state governments? Segregation?
Tell me again how we achieved anything without resorting to what happened in South Africa?
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 20, 2009 5:18 PM
David Ratnasabapathy:
You keep trying to say that the leftwing crazies are the equal of the rightwing crazies. They simply are not. The leftwing nuts are, by and large, non-violent--by concious choice--as they view violence against persons as a crime. The rightwing crazies advocate for and, from time to time, commit horrific violence. Think pipe bombs outside an army recruiting station v the Murrah Federal Building. No equivalence exists.
Posted by: democommie | June 20, 2009 6:44 PM
fine dogmeatlB, tell me what terrorist actions Black organizations in the US took, that are recognized as part of Blacks' struggle for equality before the law.
When you mention the Klan etc, you're making my point for me. Those were terrorist actions by the politically powerful to oppress Black people. Despite them, Blacks achieved equality without terrorism. How, then, can Mandela's participation in terrorism be justified? We agree he participated in murder? Fine. He should be in jail.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 20, 2009 11:09 PM
democommie, I get the feeling that we agree, we're just talking funny.
We are discussing "leftwing crazies". I'm perfectly happy to stipulate that the proportion of crazies among leftwings in the US is less than that of crazies in the rightwing. I agree that the number of terrorist actions by the rightwing exceeds those of the leftwing.
Nevertheless, the worst of those leftwing crazies are almost as bad as their counterparts in the rightwing. When they finally murder someone they will be equally as bad. I linked above to a description of an ALF spokesperson who is fine with murdering animal researchers; I also linked to a report about an ALF firebombing that endangered children. This is only marginally less bad than rightwing crazies' activities.
The way I see it, it doesn't matter if you're rightwing or leftwing. It's the extremist mentality that's at fault here. Anyone, whatever their orientation, who thinks it's ok to get back at the "government" by violently attacking the property, privacy and life of innocent people is beyond the pale.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 20, 2009 11:36 PM
David - Sorry I think I've misled you. The ANC campaign was against infrastructure such as power pylons. No-body was killed. It was rather similar to the French Resistance sabotage and 'go-slows' against the Germans.
I am not supporting either the Moonbats and Wingnuts, but..
Isn't there a difference between 'economic terrorism' (ie damaging the production, distribution and sales of goods) and true terrorism. The former is coercive but certainly not designed to create 'terror' (nor 'fear & despondency'). Surely there are differences between various acts of so-called 'terrorism'?
a) How do you define 'terrorism' (using examples)?
b) Under what circumstance could near terrorist acts be used?
c) If you, yourself, were involved in a hypothetical struggle with a superior force, how would that be likely to change the answers to the two questions above? - curiously DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 21, 2009 1:24 AM
DingoJack:
ah fine, he didn't murder anyone. I still think he should to be in jail. He's demonstrated that he has no respect for others' property. He's blown his right to walk among the law-abiding.
As for kinds of terrorism -- economic terrorism is obviously better than the murderous kind, but I think they both deserve the same penalty. Jail every one of them. For life.
(a) I define terrorism as the destruction by private groups of lives/property not owned by them. e.g. blowing up power pylons, firebombing animal researchers' houses, murdering abortionists.
(b) I don't see terrorism as acceptable under any circumstances. IMO, If a people are being oppressed by the State, the only justifiable response is peaceful protest. Any other way involves the protestors taking lives and property which are not their own. That is wrong. Private groups have no business making those choices for other people. They don't have that right!
(c) If they really can't live together -- amass weapons, declare a separate State, and try defending that. Fat chance that'll work though. The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka tried that, and look where it got them. Slaves in the US periodically staged mass revolts too didn't they? All of them total failures.
The way I see it modern States are so powerful, yet so dependent on public support, that a peaceful campaign to change public opinion is not only the sole justified way, but the only viable way to effect change.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 21, 2009 12:34 PM
David Ratnasabapathy:
Do you seriously think that "peaceful protest" would have worked in places like South Africa. It never did. What worked was peaceful protest AND a guerilla campaign. The SA regime of DeKlerk and Bothe would have been quite happy to simply round up the peaceful protestors and jail them, or beat them, or if necessary kill them. The reason that they didn't do that anymore--after some years of doing exactly that--was that violent acts by blacks who were willing to die for what they believed in brought the plight of ALL black South Africans to the world's attention.
If you believe that violent action is always impermissible then you must believe that George Washington and a host of other men who secured this nation's freedom from the British Crown should have been jailed or executed.
Posted by: democommie | June 21, 2009 6:45 PM
Posted by: Taz | June 21, 2009 8:17 PM
democommie:
Of course, yes. It worked in the US. Why wouldn't it work in South Africa?
George Washington & Co. did exactly what I said is allowed -- they declared a separate State and defended it.
My position is that it's wrong for members of a society to change laws through violence. Violence between separate States -- that's sad, but allowed because there's no expectation of peace limiting interState behaviour.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 21, 2009 10:50 PM
David Ratnasabapathy -
Then you're completely dismissing the non-peaceful protests that occurred in the US? Massive race riots in places like Watts, Detroit, Newark and numerous other places? Some of the actions of groups involved in the Black Power movement? The civil rights era was far from peaceful.
Posted by: Taz | June 21, 2009 11:26 PM
Engineer-poet fails at basic logic. He thinks that by watching out for people who are violently anti-immigration (including legal immigration), then we automatically want to ignore laws and invite illegal immigrants to take over our country. For all he goes on about laws, he doesn't seem to care at all about domestic terrorists breaking our laws to enforce the laws that they think we should have. It's illegal to kill someone, even if the victim is an illegal immigrant.
Posted by: catgirl | June 22, 2009 11:34 AM
David - Quick quiz for you:
What happened on the 4th of June, 1989 in Tiananmen Square? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 22, 2009 11:40 AM
David Ratnasabapathy:
"George Washington & Co. did exactly what I said is allowed -- they declared a separate State and defended it."
You're fucking kidding, right?
The Declaration of Independence was an act of treason as far as the British Crown was concerned and they would have likely hung all of its signers had their armies prevailed in the war against the colonies.
And if you believe that your statement was correct then you would support the secession of Texas from the U.S.? Do you support Hamas takeover of a fair chunk of the West Bank?
Speaking of peaceful protests having the effect you claim; check out Tibet or this past weekends love fest between the Iranian authorities and their muslim brothers.
Posted by: democommie | June 22, 2009 12:34 PM
David - Piling on Demo's point, are you saying the Tamil Tigers are tragic heroes or evil terrorists?
Posted by: DingoJack | June 22, 2009 12:40 PM
fine dogmeatlB, tell me what terrorist actions Black organizations in the US took, that are recognized as part of Blacks' struggle for equality before the law.
I misinterpreted earlier your statement to mean that those events hadn't occurred. My mistake.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 22, 2009 1:14 PM
This is my position:
1. Peaceful methods are the only morally correct ways to change a society from within.
1a. I also think peaceful methods are the ones which are most likely to succeed.
2. Violence is permitted only between societies. So if any group wants to perpetrate violence they should declare themselves a separate State.
2b. In general, declaring a separate State doesn't work.
Taz: Yes, the US experienced Black violence. Did that violence lead to political change? I don't think so. I believe it was the peaceful protests of the Civil Rights Movement that won Blacks equality. Just as, e.g., peaceful protests by gay rights organizations are winning the same battle; just as peaceful protests by atheist organizations are winning them public acceptance.
DingoJack: Yes, peaceful protest didn't work in Tiananmen Square. So what? (a) it's still the only morally acceptable way to effect change from within; and (b) In the long run it will transform China. Do you disagree? Are you claiming that violent upheaval must take place before China recognizes individuals' rights?
democommie: Where's the issue? George Washington & Co. wanted to use violence. Therefore they declared a separate State and waged war. That's fine! What would've been wrong is pretending to be British and engaging in violence.
Because the property they were expropriating was, at the time, owned by the British Crown, the King was perfectly justified too in trying to kill them.
Similarly, if Texans disagree with the Federal Government, peaceful action is their only morally justified means of protest -- if they want to continue calling themselves Americans. If they want to use violence they're morally obligated to secede first. (Not that that'll win them anything of course.)
In Tibet and Iran, yes, the authorities are cracking down on the protesters. This doesn't argue against the effectiveness of peaceable methods because these take time. Changing public opinion is a long-term project. Surely peaceful protest extended over time can't fail? e.g. In Burma, the country's Buddhist monks joined the protests 2 years ago. This shows that the democratic opposition's peaceful methods are working.
Similarly for the Soviet Union. In the face of State repression, individuals gradually denied more and more services to the government: so effectively that they destroyed it.
DingoJack: Hamas won a fair election in the West Bank, yes? In that case they are morally in the right when they choose to secede and use violence. I think it's sad that they do so. But they're playing fair; and in this case, in the long run, they'll probably succeed since they have (correct?) the support of the rest of the Middle East.
The Tamil Tigers on the other hand are just murderers. Their first actions were the systematic, brutal elimination of all other Tamil voices. They never won a fair election. They have no claim to the support of the Tamil people. As such, they don't have the right to declare a separate State. Their violence is therefore not morally acceptable; and on top of that, was a monumental failure -- look what happened last month in Sri Lanka.
dogmeatlB: sorry, I should've realized that :-)
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 23, 2009 1:16 AM
David - So in order to overthrow a brutal regime that has no compunction in rounding up and murdering it's own citizens (without any trace of messy publicity and costly trials), first all you have to do is to declare yourselves a separate state (recognised by whom one wonders), hold a free and fair election (again, as determined and witnessed by whom), declare the result on the free media (that all such states have), then commence fighting with the masses of money and weapons left by the aforementioned brutal state to assist your new state.
You really think so? I not sure if your naivete is touching, or just touched in the head.
The Tiananmen Square massacre may have high recognition in our countries, but it has zero recognition within China, any change has been in spite of, rather than because of that (unsuccessful) protest.
Didn't the Tamil Tigers declare themselves a state, as you required? Their 'first action' was the "systematic, brutal of all other Tamil voices". Really, their absolute first action? Says who? What biases might that channel of information contain? So the Tamil Tigers never won an election? Don't remember George Washington et al. holding an election until after the war was over either. In fact few new-born states call elections until after they have won their independence war. Kinda goes with the territory.
Out here in the real world, realpolitik rules. As has been noted before:
All violence in the service of the revolution is explained away neatly as 'morally justified' (you think 'Founding Fathers' never participated in immoral violence? Dream on!}. If unsuccessful the rebels are equally neatly tarred as 'terrorists' or the like.
Does this mean that peaceful revolutions should not, or cannot happen? Of course not! Are such revolutions generally successful? On the whole, no. But, if peaceful revolution becomes impossible; violent revolution becomes inevitable, the only course of action to effect necessary change, unforetunately. - :( DJ
"The only revolution is a successful one." Politics 101
Posted by: DingoJack | June 23, 2009 3:32 AM
DingoJack: it's like playing a game. To play the game fairly you need to follow the rules. When it comes to members of a State, one of the rules is that you don't use violence to attack other members' lives or property. Don't like the rules? Fine. Withdraw from the game.
It's not fair to stay a member of a State and use violence.
As to whether violence will be effective -- no, most of the time I don't think so.
Suppose the State is committing genocide against a subgroup of its people. e.g. what happened to Jews in Germany. Here violence is morally acceptable because the victims aren't members of the State -- the State itself declares this so. However, I seriously doubt that violence will work sans outside help. The victims' best bet is to flee. Which is exactly what the Jews of Germany tried to do, in the years of Hitler's ascendancy.
Suppose things are not as bad? e.g. Tibet. China certainly isn't committing genocide there; so there's no moral justification for violence. The best hope Tibet has for equality is to change Chinese public opinion. Peacefully. Look at how the Chinese government is becoming more and more responsive towards its own people. That's certainly not because of terrorism.
IMO, Tiananmen Square has recognition within China -- why else does the government censor it on Google, and close the square on its anniversary? It's got major recognition in Hong Kong.
Fine, I wrote badly. You don't need to hold an election to declare a separate State. You do need the freely given support of the majority of the people you claim to be fighting for! The Tigers never had that, and that is why their claim to Statehood is empty. Moreover, I don't think they began by demanding a separate State. They began as a protest movement against the government's second-class treatment of Tamils. They protested violently. And where did that get them? Arguably, Tamils are more discriminated against after 30 years of civil war.Wasn't the American Revolution supported by the majority of the people?
The Tigers' first action was the murder of the Mayor or Jaffna (The principal city in the region they claim for their State.) Technically he'd be an opposing voice to their separatism, yes? From that beginning they continued to murder moderate Tamils. It was part of their leader Prabhakaran's policy -- support the Tigers or die. Even now (with the Tigers in defeat) other Tamil politicians cower in Colombo, 300km from their constituents.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 23, 2009 5:26 AM
David Ratnasabapathy:
I think you're wrong on most of the points in your last comment, but this one:
"You don't need to hold an election to declare a separate State. You do need the freely given support of the majority of the people you claim to be fighting for!"
is a lulu.
Do you have some polling data from 1776 to show that Washington, Madison, Jefferson, et al. had the "freely given support" of the majority of the colonists? If so, please share it.
While I have no doubt that a substantial percentage of those living in the thirteen colonies were quite upset with King George's policies, there were many who were content, if not happy with those same policies.
I read a fascinating book about the American Revolution a few years back, wherein the author spent a lot of time on that very aspect of the conflict. It would appear that the American Revolution was, in fact, the FIRST civil war that this country engaged in. He posited that this occurred as a result of the northern colonies being very anti-crown, the middle colonies being ambivalent and the southern colonies being pro-crown.
This other tidbit:
"Even now (with the Tigers in defeat) other Tamil politicians cower in Colombo, 300km from their constituents."
does not really support your case for peaceful means of achieving one's goals, btw.
Posted by: democommie | June 23, 2009 8:31 AM
David Ratnasabapathy -
Why not both? Blacks had to fight not just bigotry, but complacency. The race riots shocked a lot of people into realizing there was a problem that wasn't going away. It would be nice to live in a fairy-tale world were violence is never effective, but that's not realistic. You claim that only peaceful protests did any good because that's how you want it to be, not because that's the way it is.
Posted by: Taz | June 23, 2009 9:29 AM
DingoJack: fine, let's stipulate that supporters of the American Revolution were in a minority. I don't know this is true, but let's assume it is. Well then, my position is that the Revolutionaries were morally wrong to use violence. They destroyed other people's property, without the owner's consent. They took lives without their owner's choice! How can maniacs like that be permitted to live among reasonable people?
To be sure, their violent tactics succeeded.
(a) They were lucky. My understanding is that they avoided a stomping because Britain was preoccupied with a war with France. In general a minority group has no hope of winning against the resources of a State, when it comes to a contest involving violence.
(b) Just because the Americans succeeded doesn't mean that violent protest in general will do so. You haven't explained why Jews in Germany of the 1930s failed to use violence. You haven't addressed the failure of the Tamil Tigers' violence.
Those Tamil politicians are in hiding for fear of the Tamil Tigers. i.e., The Tigers' violent activities further disenfranchised the very people they claimed to be fighting for. How does this support your claim that violence has a place in the struggle for equality?
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 23, 2009 11:58 PM
Taz: the race riots were wrong. They destroyed the property of bystanders. They involved, yes, the murder and torture of people not part of the struggle? I don't consider this in any way morally correct. How is it right that a person should see their homes or businesses burned, have their bodies assaulted or their lives taken from them, by total strangers?
As for utility, it seems to me that the race riots would've done a splendid job of telling Whites to beware of Blacks, undoing the work of the peaceful Civil Rights activists. In Sri Lanka the violence of the Tigers has poisoned the circumstances of all Tamils, whether or not they support a separate State.
Consider too the situation when violence is used by bigots. Martin Luther King was assassinated by a person who thought Blacks should be second-class citizens. Was this violence justified? Certainly it gave wide publicity to the concerns of the racists. Murderers of abortionists, too, are raising the profile of the antiabortion movement. Do you think these publicity successes justify those actions? Do you believe these violent actions encouraged people to support the racists' and antiabortionists' goals? Rather the reverse I think.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 24, 2009 12:13 AM
David - Sorry I've taken some time to get back to you. I generally read your posts then go away and think about them seriously for a while before replying [although this doesn't always seem to be apparent in my replies ;)].
So, in response to #59:
I never said anything about the relative numbers of American rebels/loyalists (that was demo, i believe), in fact, as I understand it, the numbers of loyalists and rebels were about equal, with the rebels being concentrated around the coastal districts and large towns of New England (a distinctly whiggish & urban makeup). Lord North's policies had a great impact on their lives so, naturally, they had most to lose, and therefore they were the most highly motivated to seek redress for their grievances.
They claimed that their liberty, property, businesses and goods were being infringed on (and damaged, I suppose) by the British pursuit of compensation for the defense of the colonies from attacks by the French/Indian forces a decade earlier. I would imagine the rebels would agree with you about damage to thier property (and loss of life), however who was going to pay for the British 'lives and treasure' lost in the defense of the colonists?
The colonists tried to negotiate a peaceful settlement of their grievances (this was not helped by incendiaries like Paine et al.), but Lord North proved to be intransigent. The route to peaceful resolution being blocked, and egged on by the more extremist elements, the Americans declared their own country (in order to justify their rebellion against their god-given sovereign) and took up arms. As you mentioned the British were in a state of virtual war with the French at the time, and so their forces were not able to concentrate on, what they considered, a minor colonial problem. The rest is history, as they say.
I never claimed that violent revolution always (or even generally) works, merely that peaceful ones generally (although not always) don't. Consult history books for more details. - DJ
PS: Jewish Resistance. Warsaw Ghetto, April/May, 1943, comes to mind.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 24, 2009 3:40 AM
David Ratnasabapathy:
That still doesn't answer questions I asked in #57.
Your position seems to be that violence is a.) ALWAYS morally wrong and B.) Never works.
My position is that violence is tool of last resort with mixed results from its use.
Posted by: democommie | June 24, 2009 7:44 AM
DingoJack: sorry! #59 was supposed to read "democommie"!
democommie: yes, my position is that violence to change a society from within is always morally wrong. In addition in general it won't work.
There could be instances where violence does achieve equal treatment faster than peaceful tactics -- but I think that happens rarely. Even when it works, IMO it's to be regretted that violence was resorted to.
w.r.t your post #57, if the American Revolutionaries had the support of the majority of Americans, their actions were justified; if not, they were in the wrong. From what DingoJack writes (cheers) they behaved in a morally upright manner -- though I think it's a pity that they resorted to violence.
They were lucky that their violence succeeded.
w.r.t the Tigers: the Tamil Tigers' violent tactics harmed the position of Tamils in Sri Lankan society. Their failure exemplifies the futility of violence in the face of government power.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 24, 2009 8:07 AM
David Ratnasabapathy:
Gee whillikers, you want both ends and the middle.
"w.r.t the Tigers: the Tamil Tigers' violent tactics harmed the position of Tamils in Sri Lankan society. Their failure exemplifies the futility of violence in the face of government power."
This would, of course, also be the justification used for the Iranian government's reaction to the demonstrations of last weekend.
So, you're saying that IF the founding fathers were not supported by the majority of the colonists then they were in the wrong? Sounds to me like you're hedging your bet. As far as whether they "behaved in a morally upright manner" you would probably have to read a fair bit of history re: punitive campaigns against innocent civilian colonists and various groups of native peoples, by both sides, in that conflict to arrive at the understanding that "morally upright behavior" was not always the rule of the day.
It's fairly apparent that you are opposed to violent revolution in ANY instance except that very narrow set of circumstances as evidenced by your earlier comment:
"2. Violence is permitted only between societies. So if any group wants to perpetrate violence they should declare themselves a separate State."
Which is a process that has been followed successfully by few countries, without resorting to force of arms. Using that rationale, the world would still be ruled from someplace like Babylon.
Posted by: democommie | June 24, 2009 10:31 AM
democommie:
The failure of the Tigers' violent tactics is a fact. That those tactics have left Tamils worse off than they were before the Civil War is also quite probable. Which is to say, in the case of the Tamils of Sri Lanka, violence was not only wrong: it didn't work.
As for Iran: yes, the Iranian security forces are violently repressing the protesters. Let's assume that those demonstrations are peaceful (not all of them are.) Clearly they aren't having an immediate effect. But as I wrote before, peaceful protest takes time. Even if the repressed citizens are a minority, they're close to the 50% mark yes? Surely peaceful protest over the long term will win them their goals -- especially since their ultimate goal is to empower all Iranian citizens.
If the protesters are in a minority, how is violence going to convince the majority to oppose the security forces, when those forces are protecting the majority's lives and property?
On the other hand, if the protesters make up the majority of Iranians -- how can peaceful protest fail to make a change? The security forces oppressing the people, the politicians and mullahs directing the repression -- they're drawn from the people themselves!
I'm not hedging my bets, I'm highlighting my ignorance of American History. Do you think the revolutionaries had the support of the majority of the population? Or were they in a minority? Tell me your opinion; I'll stipulate it and tell you mine w.r.t. the morality of their actions.
Wait, my position is that peaceful protest will generally work in modern States, which are dependent on the support of the majority to function. e.g. peaceful protest wouldn't work in, say, an agriculture-based kingdom from 1000AD because (a) the peasants wouldn't have the resources to invest in collective action; and (b) the King would have no problem slaughtering them all and replacing them with new peasants. I'm happy to stipulate that peaceful protest would've failed in those days: the best course of action when oppressed by the State then would be to flee. Didn't the Jews of Christendom do that on a regular basis? While Christian heretics who didn't got slaughtered?
But today, no -- society is too dependent on the contribution of too many people for the government to be able to safely ignore the concerns of the majority.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 25, 2009 1:17 AM
David Ratnasabapathy
Your words:
1. Peaceful methods are the only morally correct ways to change a society from within.
_______________________________________
(c) If they really can't live together -- amass weapons, declare a separate State, and try defending that. Fat chance that'll work though. The Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka tried that, and look where it got them. Slaves in the US periodically staged mass revolts too didn't they? All of them total failures.
____________________________________________
democommie: Where's the issue? George Washington & Co. wanted to use violence. Therefore they declared a separate State and waged war. That's fine! What would've been wrong is pretending to be British and engaging in violence.
____________________________________________
I admit that I'm quote mining, but they're all your words, all on this thread.
So, it would appear from what you've written in those three quotes is that:
A.) Only peaceful means are appropriate in gaining freedoms, etc.,.
B.) The Tamil Tigers, using peaceful means failed miserably at securing their objectives.
C.) Their subsequent violent opposition was wrong, even though they had apparently followed your dictum of amassing weapons and declaring a separate state, after having tried the peaceful route.
The Tamils, btw, were not living a life of ease, prior to the present unpleasantness.
As for the U.S. having done away with racial inequality:
A.) It hasn't happened.
B.) Some major gains, such as school desegragation were accomplished with prayer, peaceful protest and the implicit force of arms represented by the deployment of U.S. military troops in place MI and AR.
I do not know that Mr. Washington and other colonial revolutionaries had, or lacked, the approval of a majority of colonists for their violent confrontation with the British Crown. I do know that there was no way for them to KNOW that they had such majority. At best they might have had the approval of a majority of the representatives of those colonies--hardly the same thing. I'm also fairly certain that if the British had not had a concurrent war going on against France--it was only smoldering during the period of the American Revolution, but quite likely to re-ignite at any moment--they would have sent a larger military force to the colonies and crushed the revolutionaries just as they did the Indians after the Sepoy Mutiny and Boers of SA. That the American Revolution was a "success" can be credited as much to the Crown's impatience and lack of resolve as the colonists' courage and tenacity. Regardless, according to your ideas, the revolutionists were only right, or wrong, depending on whether they were supported by a majority of the other colonists. This is a question that cannot be answered.
You seem to have ignored my comment about where the world's seat of governance would be, absent violent revolutions.
Posted by: democommie | June 25, 2009 8:10 AM
democommie:
Sorry, I should've been clearer. The Tamil Tigers were never a peaceful group. They were pro violence from day 1.
1. The Tiger's declaration of a separate State was empty because they people living in their State didn't support them. Why else did the Tigers insist on killing every moderate Tamil politician they could lay their hands on? If the people had supported them, those politicians would've been Tigers! The Tigers had no right to declare a separate State: and as such, they had no moral justification for the use of violence.
2. They nevertheless used violence. And failed utterly in their aims. Before the Civil War Tamils could travel freely through the island. Tamils could establish themselves anywhere, start a business, get a job. Now?
(a) There are provinces in the country (Tamil majority areas) where you need a permit from the Army to enter or leave.
(b) The traditional Tamil homelands are devastated: roads and beaches and fields are ruined or mined.
(c) 300,000 Tamil refugees languish in camps, waiting for Army clearance so they can return to their homes.
(d) Tamils can't travel safely at night, must register with the Police when they travel outside their home province and are liable to arbitrary arrest.
All of these resulted from Tiger terrorism. If you want an example of violence leading to equality you need to look elsewhere.
Here peaceful protest scored a victory.
Yes, the security forces of a State are allowed to use violence. My opinion is that private individuals have no moral justification to use violence to achieve political ends.
In that case I can't give a moral judgement about their actions.
Fine, we agree. The Revolutionaries were lucky. Which is another way of saying that violence against the State is a bad idea. "Lucky" implies that when a group rebels violently against the State, most probably they will be crushed.
You're making my point for me. Your own examples demonstrate that it's a bad idea to get into an armed fight with the State. The State outguns any private group!
Private citizens of a State, past or present, have no moral justification for taking up arms against each other. Nonviolence between citizens is part of the social contract! Violent members are cheating to achieve their aims. Violence is justified only when a community declares itself, or is declared to be, outside the State. e.g. violence during the French Revolution was justified: the revolutionaries founded a new State. Victims of the Inquisition, too, would've been justified if they'd resorted to violence.
Can you give an example of a violent revolution, which was (a) supported only by a minority of citizens, and (b) that created a more just society?
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 25, 2009 5:49 PM
David Ratnasabapathy:
I just reread your post, after writing a longish reply.
On the second reading I saw this:
"Some major gains, such as school desegragation were accomplished with prayer, peaceful protest...
Here peaceful protest scored a victory.
... and the implicit force of arms represented by the deployment of U.S. military troops in place MI and AR.
Yes, the security forces of a State are allowed to use violence. My opinion is that private individuals have no moral justification to use violence to achieve political ends."
That's just it, it's your opinion. It's my opinion that you're a statist and a fascist. I'm done replying because it's quite obvious that you are as fixed in your convictions as I am in mine. The difference is that you're an absolutist. I'm a bit more flexible, because that's how things operate in the real world.
Bye.
Posted by: democommie | June 25, 2009 10:07 PM
Posted by: Taz | June 25, 2009 10:35 PM
democommie:
Thanks for arguing. You clarified my thinking on this a lot. The same goes for DingoJack.
Taz:
Not so. I think violent protest is wrong. Independently of that I think it's generally futile because the State has any private grouping outgunned.
I would strongly advise you not to take on the US army :-)
We can assume you'd be in a majority in opposing the government -- otherwise the President wouldn't need the support of the military. Why bother attacking his security forces then? They'd be Americans just like you. While they might obey orders in the short term, there's no way they'd continue to prop up a regime opposed by their friends and family.
You claimed that the race riots highlighted Black concerns to the rest of America. I disagreed. The race riots would've been a public relations disaster. Similarly, the Tamil Tigers seriously damaged the public standing of Tamil equality in Sri Lanka.
Why wouldn't a racist State deploy overwhelming force, in reaction to violence, against a group it regards as second-class anyway? Why would a racist majority change their minds about the inferior status of a minority, if that minority resorted to violence? It's far simpler to stomp them.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 26, 2009 4:27 AM
David - My pleasure. Often debate is, as you said, an excellent way to clarify your position and pose hypotheticals to test your assumptions.
I don't think anyone changed position much, :(
but it was enlightening anyway. :D
Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | June 26, 2009 5:47 AM
David Ratnasabapathy-
I didn't say I would win. ;) You say such action is generally futile. I say some things are worth dying for.
Because the security forces would be the ones terrorizing people and hauling them off to detention centers. Think true believers in a theocracy.I don't think so. While they may have caused some people to dismiss blacks as barbaric, such people were inclined to be racist anyway. A lot of people, those who did listen to King's speeches, could not so easily dismiss what was happening. I was living in Detroit in 1967. I remember a lot of conversations - between my friends, my father and his friends, etc. A lot of conversations that may not have happened otherwise.
I don't like violence, and I certainly don't like riots. But I can't just completely dismiss what happened as ineffectual.
Posted by: Taz | June 26, 2009 9:33 AM
Taz:
On reflection, I was wrong. I've changed my mind.
If people with a grievance are prevented from expressing themselves peacefully, they will resort to violence. This surely would give pause to those government officials tasked with oppressing the aggrieved community. So the threat of violence safeguards the nonviolent activists!
i.e., you're right, those race riots would've been helpful -- in demonstrating that the peaceful protesters should not be silenced.
So here's my modified position:
1. Private individuals should never use violence against fellow citizens. It's morally wrong.
2. In addition, violent opposition to the State is a bad idea. On its own it will fail because the government has overwhelming power.
3. BUT a willingness to engage in violence if peaceful protest is suppressed safeguards the nonviolent protesters.
To be sure, there are plenty of exceptions -- if the government doesn't care about the damage done by violence, the threat is no deterrent. e.g. democommie's example of the Sepoy Mutiny.
But that doesn't change the fact that yes, morally wrong though it is, violent protest (more precisely, the threat of it) can be a vital part of a nonviolent campaign against oppression.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | June 27, 2009 12:40 PM
WOW Ed. You really stepped out of the box on this one, and stepped right into the manure. Have you no shame? Ohhh wait...you're a "journalist." Of course you have no shame, but you sure as hell have your bias then don't you. If you think some of the main streams were wrong in their reactions -- I submit to you, all YOU heard or saw, was either "Conservative" or "Republican" and that was all you needed to jump all over it like "white on race...oops I mean rice." Can you be anymore biased and foolish I wonder...? Probably. Did you stop to consider the person or persons labeled have been so wrongly? Again, probably not. I would surmise that to be a situation in you're own world, where you just do not care. Its people like you on both sides that are the reason this country is being slowly, but surely choked to death; and its your boy - the so-called "Mobster-In-Chief." that is the killer. I am not leaving out GW either. I have my bits with him as well. Going to reply to me? Don't worry, I won't hold me breath -- much to you and your fellow libs distaste. He WAS right on one thing though, Obama i mean...this country DOES need change. Its too bad the changes he is making will ultimately spell the end of this country. How many times in your life have you seen a US President turn their backs on Israel and then almost hand them to their enemies. How many times? That idea alone is offensive to me. Since when is it the job of Barack O'Prompter to dictate to ANY country what they can or cannot do in their own lands..? The Jewish people returned to their Promised Land in 1948-49. So who are we to take the land that God promised them? Good luck with that stuff by the way....because in the end, Israel will stand. With, or without the USA. I would however keep a close eye. They already deem Obama as an enemy. Not even a year in office.... This man who cant even prove if he was born here or not, or is too afraid to release certain info (the long form thank you--not that crappy fraud) about himself revealing him for what he really is. A Liar. Plain and simple. Although he doesn't hold that Monopoly. What will it take to wake you political nuts to see the truth? another 911? 2? 3? A revolution or Civil War in the near future? Because that's where we're headed. And if you think that this is ridiculous, then I would urge you to go back to school, because by then it would be far far too late for the American People. So go on ahead. Pick at, point to, demonize, label, and demoralize the Republicans all you want. And by all means let them do the same to the left. And when the dust settles on a new sunset in this country, you and many many others will realize that "you are on the wrong side of history..." -- to quote Alan Colmes. So go for it man! Keep up the names, and demonetization. Because in the end, you and those you support will fall. All of them --- both sides. And you know it. But you just don't care do you? How hard is it to love the American people enough to tell them the truth. How hard is it to stick to the constitution and the bill of rights...? How hard is it for your fellow liberals and your counter parts to open your eyes and for once in the last 50 years : OPEN YOUR EYES, EARS, and shut YOUR MOUTH. You might just learn something. MIGHT.
Posted by: MeMyselfAndI | July 7, 2009 4:18 AM
Well, Mr. Brayton, you left out some things in your article(Big shock! lol). For example... even head of DHS Janet Napolitano APOLOGIZED for the report; and the MIAC report was "retracted" (bc they realized it was wrong and unfair), although they still ACTED on the report (which shows they are ruthless liars) - even after the so-called retraction, people were pulled over and detained by police merely for having a Ron Paul bumper sticker or other such "EXTREME and POTENTIALLY THREATENING" reasons, and people from Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty rallies were detained at airports and police and FBI called in. And the media has worked overtime in falsely blaming "the right" for any and all murders and extremist behavior, even calling the Holocaust Museum shooter a right-wing terrorist when in fact he was LEFT-WING, and some such as Liberal hack Paul Krugman of the NYTimes even blames FoxNews for the Holocaust Museum murder (despite the FACT that the killer was against FoxNews, too!!) - but like most of the liberal media, Krugman is not one to let the facts interfere with his opinion. We have also witnessed this administration, even moreso than the previous admin., make sweeping power grabs including seizing cotrol of the census and the internet and business, and seem obsessed with attacking any dissenters. Not to mention the Hitleresque "youth brigades" Obama is putting together. Also Rahm Emanuel said putting these "POTENTIAL extremists" on the no-fly list & depriving them of the right to gun-ownership is "our #1 priority"! So I respectfully disagree with you: it's NOT overreaction and I'd say there is plenty to be concerned about!
Posted by: Orrin | July 19, 2009 10:43 AM
Interesting that the Obama administration has declared that Islamic extremists can no longer be referred to as terrorists, but informed American citizens who are pro-Constitution and who have committed no crime can be deemed potential terrosists/ right-wing extremists! Oh I'm SURE no one is playing politics here. lol.
Posted by: Orrin | July 19, 2009 11:02 AM