#peaceful protests vs violent protests

[constantvariations]

It kinda sucks we never see why Blake turns against the White Fang besides "but the crew members :("

Like, she feels so strongly that peaceful protest is better than violent but... why? Who introduced her to it? What happened that cemented this ideology? Did a mission go too far and get too many people killed? Is she uncomfortable with the scorched earth aftermath? It's clear that she has no problem getting her hands dirty so long as it's Faunus blood, so what finally compelled her to leave the Fang and run away to a school?

For fuck's sake, she can't even give a real reason for why violent protest is bad!

This lack of thought into her motivation and methods, as well as her constant chastisement of the Faunus while cowering before blatant racists, makes her seem like she's catering to the oppressor class. She's written to be palatable to people with privilege, to never force them to question their own in/actions, and definitely never shatter the illusion of docile catgirl spankbank by having strong, consistent morals or a personality

Fucking disappointing

#rwde #blake couldve so much more #like if you HAVE to have a peaceful vs violent protest debate then you need to put your money where your mouth is #and blake does shit for faunus rights even in the first few volumes #she even states that violent protest was actually working! which is the fucking point of protest! #while i understand the philosophy of peaceful protest i can never agree w it #in order for peaceful protest to work your opponent must have a conscience - stokely carmichael #generally if you have to ask someone to treat you w bare bones decency they aint got one #and everyone who does the peaceful protests gets deified in the worst ways possible #mlk jr is hailed as a great man that everyone quotes and loves nowadays but the man was suicide baited and killed by the fbi #he was the most hated man in america and those same people who condemned him are now throwing his methods in peoples faces #peaceful protest is theatre #if youre going to be condemned anyway then you might as well do smth that actually leaves a mark #take some fuckers down before they take you out

[i-am-dulaman]

petition for that long rant on revolutions here, i really enjoyed the way you laid out your facts and explained the first rant and am not too good at reading theory myself (i am still trying tho) thanks!!

Okay okay so the problem with revolutions is they get messy. Real messy. You get counter-revolutionaries, moderates, extremists, loyalists, and everything in between. One revolution turns into 5, and even if your side wins, its almost guaranteed to have been tainted some way or another along the way.

Take the first french revolution. It started as civil unrest, the estates general initially called for reform of the french state into a constitutional monarchy similar to Britain. Even king louis XVI was in support of this. But extremists wanting a republic and counter-revolutionaries wanting absolute monarchy clashed and things became more and more chaotic and violent. Eventually the extremists won, the jacobin reign of terror ensued, and 10s of thousands of people were executed. Now don't get me wrong, i am all for executing monarchs and feudal lords, but look what happened a few years later; Napoleon used the political instability to declare himself emperor, a few more years later his empire had crumbled, and the monarchy was back with Louis XVIII.

Or take the 1979 iranian revolution. It started as protests against pahlavi, who was an authoritarian head of state and an American pawn. As the protests turned into civil resistance and guerilla warfare it took on many different forms. There were secularists vs islamic extremists. There were democrats vs theocrats vs monarchists. Etc. Through all the chaos, Khomeini seized power, held a fake referendum, and declared himself supreme leader and enforced many strict laws, particularly on women who previously had close to equal rights. Many of the millions of women involved in the revolution later said they felt bettayed by the end result.

Or the Russian Revolution. It started as protests, military strikes, and civil unrest during WW1 directed at the tsar. He stepped down in 1917 and handed power over to the Duma, the russian parliament. This new provisionary government initially had the support of soviet councils, including socialist groups like the menshiviks. But they made the major mistake of deciding to continue the war. Lenins bolsheviks were originally a very tiny group on the fringes of russian politics, but they were the loudest supporters of peace, so they gained support and organised militias into an army and thus began the russian civil war. Lenin won and followed through on his promise to end the war against germany, but its a bit ironic that they fought a civil war, that killed about 10 million people, just to end another war.

Im not saying any of these results were either bad or good. They all have nuance and its all subjective. But the point i am trying to make is that they get messy. The initial goals will always be twisted.

France wanted a constitutional monarchy, they got an autocratic emporer.

Iran wanted democracy and an end to American influence, and well they ended american influence alright but also got a totalitarian theocrat.

Russia wanted an end to world war 1 and got one of the bloodiest civil wars in history.

I cant think of a single revolution in history that achieved the goals it set out to achieve.

But again, im not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, just a warning against revolutionary rhetoric and criticisms of reformism. Sometimes revolution is the only option, when you're faced with an authoritarian government diametrically opposed to change, then a revolution may be worth the risk. But it is a risk.

But if you live in a democracy, claiming revolution is the only way is actively choosing both bloodshed and the risk of things going horribly wrong over the choice of peaceful reform.

So when i go online in some leftist spaces and see people claiming revolution in America or UK or wherever is the only way out of capitalism I cant help but feel angry.

I know our democracy is flawed, and reform is slow and can even go backwards, but we owe it to all the people who would die in a revolution to try reform first.

I know socialist reform is especially hard in our flawed democracy where capitalists own the media, but if we can't convince enough people to vote for socialist reform what hope do we have of convincing enough people to join a socialist revolution. Socialism is supposed to be for the people, but how can you claim your revolution is for the people if you can't even get the support of the people?

So what I'm trying to say is; if youre one of those leftists that are sitting around waiting for the glorious revolution, doing nothing but posting rhetoric online - at least try doing something else while you wait. Join your labour union, recruit your coworkers, get involved in your local socialist parties, call your local representatives (city council, senator, governor, member of parliament, whatever) and make your opinions known, push them further left, and keep pushing.

#thank you anon this waa fun #also when i say i cant think of any revolution in history that achieved its goals #im not counting wars of independence #i know americans call the american war of independence the revolutionary war but its not a revolution l #(for reference - the first rant that anon mentions is a reblog a couple days ago about the communist manifesto)

[transrevolutions]

I feel like it would be funny (probably OOC but funny) if enjolras and combeferre had online accounts that neither of them knew about and they constantly got into inter-leftist discourse about the role of violence in protest and reform vs. revolution

combeferre posts a ton of socdem stuff talking about how peaceful reform is important and enjolras posts anarchist content threatening violent action against the oppressive state. they leave passive aggressive comments on each others' posts and get into fights about whether robespierre was right or not.

eventually they figure it out and they're both so fucking embarrassed. because they get along so well in real life, so what's different? probably it's that all the nuance and context is stripped away online so two like-minded irl friends with some minor disagreements can become bitter discoursers in a matter of days. courfeyrac makes fun of them for it for months to come.

#is this a commentary on leftist internet spaces #maaaaybe #enjolras #combeferre #les mis #les amis #les miserables #modern au #pigeon.txt

[ahaura]

??? Also are you implying that Hamas never misfired and accidentally bombs Gaza?? An extremely well documented, recorded fact??? With videos of bombs heading toward Israel falling and missing their targets??? Like. Why are you people desperately slobbering for a bloodthirsty Jew image. Sometimes Hamas accidentally bombs itself and its citizens. That is a fact.

the fact of the matter is that hamas does not have that kind of fire power. misfired rockets have happened, yes, but only israel has the fire power to blow up a hospital and kill 500-1,000 people. also the idea that people are trying to "paint jewish people in a bad light" does not apply when

israeli officials LITERALLY called palestinians HUMAN ANIMALS

the israeli state and western media apparatus have so thoroughly dehumanized palestinians that the idea of 2.2 million people trapped in an open air prison 25 miles long when they have been starved, abused, beaten, murdered, and oppressed does not bother the majority of western nations.

it's pretty antisemitic to assume that israel represents all jewish people. it's fucking antisemitic to say that israel = jewish people. especially when jewish anti-zionist activists exist and are actively putting their bodies on the line protesting with allies as the genocide continues. the idf regularly harasses anti-zionist israeli citizens. don't do jewish people the gross disservice of saying or implying israel represents them.

the fact that you think this is a "jewish vs muslim" issue shows that you fundamentally do not understand that israel is a settler colony who murdered and displaced the palestinian people - often times bulldozing or living in the VERY HOMES THEY LIVED IN. this is an issue of settlers vs. indigenous people. prior to british colonialism in the region, christians, muslims, and jewish people lived in the region peacefully. there are jewish and christian palestinians but the israeli state doesn't care. the israeli state has done nothing but brutalize, murder, imprison, and displace palestinians since the state's inception. or do you think that palestinians willingly left their home and just fell over and died in 1948? when zionist forces with the aid of the british army either expelled or massacred entire villages?

on second thought dont answer that. you'll only justify apartheid and utilize racist and orientalist language and say "hamas is using human shields!!!1" and how it's arab people's fault there isn't any peace and that they should just lay down and let the israeli state kill them and their families.

also hamas is literally an invention of the israeli state. hamas as it exists now is entirely the israeli state's fault.

i will not debate the humanity of people who are currently undergoing genocide by a fascist regime who claims to speak for and act on the behalf of all jewish people who has been subjecting palestinians to an apartheid since 1948. under apartheid all violence that occurs is the fault of the state, even if the oppressed engage in violent action. i am NOT saying that people should have died; i am saying that what happened on oct. 7 was inevitable . the israeli state chose fasicsm and apartheid and has now escalated to genocide.

the israeli state does not care about you. the state does not care about jewish people. if they cared about the safety and security of their citizens there would be no apartheid, no settler colonialism, no second-class citizenry. violence always begets violence; the violence of the apartheid is the DIRECT cause of what happened on oct. 7. the far-right government, including netanyahu and gvir, are squarely to blame.

the way to peace - to prevent ALL deaths - is to end the genocide, end the occupation, end settler colonialism, and end the apartheid. to make everyone equal citizens under a secular government and make restitution to palestinians and for everyone responsible for civilian deaths to be jailed. you cannot have peace if the violence of apartheid and oppression continue.

[dappersautismcreature]

mm ok if we wanna talk about feds vs rebellion i gotta, gotta bring up the ideas surrounding resistance and nonviolence. like, you cannot rebel against a violent organization without violence. you can't sit calmly while someone pelts you with stones and expect to win. you can't bring a fake knife to a gunfight. sure it would be nice if peaceful protests worked 100% of the time always, but expecting it from people being oppressed? not really the move'

idk im sick ill come back and elaborate on this some other day.,. if you wanna argue just go look up nonviolence and resistance because im feverish and headache

#qsmp #qsmp analysis

[unsoundedcomic]

I think I understand the themes of the first part of Unsounded well: the inevitable corruption of big human institutions, fatherhood, the corrosiveness of repressed trauma, self delusion as a coping mechanism etc. I'm wondering what the themes are in the next book if you can say

Good analysis~

Next book is very much about revolution in a repressive authoritarian system and the efficacy of violent revolt vs peaceful protest. There's a lot of class warfare and exploration of privilege, but in a nice high fantasy way so no one needs to get their nuts knotted over it :) The fighting is both smaller and more personal in scope, and existentially more devastating.

But there will still be pie and squishes.

[che-bur-ashka]

I don't think people are giving Mary and Stede nuance, they're just okay with Stede being a violent misogynist (assaulting Doug for literally not justified reason) because he's gay. Like I know they kissed and made up after because OFMD is a serious romcom and it's fine. Glad they didn't try to fit a serious domestic abuse arc in one episode! But if you want to seriously analyze OFMD through abuse as a lens Stede is deadbeat misogynist who gets away with neglecting his family because he's wealthy and Mary doesn't have equal power to him in their marriage.

i mean i think with respect this is sort of exactly the take i’m responding to right, only for stede-mary instead of izzy-ed. i think — omfd being fundamentally a rom-com aside — that part of what it’s trying to do is complicate the abuser-victim binary by setting up relationships where everyone is hurting everyone. it asks us to think about where harm comes from beyond the actions of individuals.

like to some extent im not even talking about stede’s return much as their earlier life together. stede and mary are both involved in making their marriage miserable — i’m not sure it’s helpful to try and tally respective damages (and im not totally sure that, in the relationship we see in the show, mary is actually subordinate to stede). none of it matters, anyway, because the peace that they get at the end of season 1 is: we were bad together, we can have a different relationship and be mutually happy for each other. my point is that ppl seem to be able to get that far, and then fall into the same trap of trying to sum up the harm izzy and ed have done to each other and figure out who’s on top. nobody’s on top. izzy and ed are mutually harmful because theyre products of the same homophobic-homosocial education about how theyre allowed to be around each other, just like stede and mary’s relationship is a product of a regressive heterosexuality. we’re supposed to read them against each other and hope that izzy and ed can find a new configuration like stede and mary did.

afterthought: i think stede vs doug has a lot more to do with demonstrating that he can’t even pretend to fit in in “polite society” anymore than it does misogyny (if you want to argue it the other way i’d be glad to hear the case but also like. i think sometimes we have to stop treating characters like real people and start thinking about what their purpose is in the narrative, & i dont totally grasp the broader use of that read)

tldr yadda yadda enlightenment imagination of the individual subject yadda yadda protestant ethics married to heteropatriarchy etc etc etc awakening queerness against the social structure i.e. the same stuff im always on

#ofmd #our flag means death #our flag means death spoilers #we r all subject to our environments (derogatory)

[pussypopstiel]

Holy fucking shit dude. I am 10000% here for Palestine, I got detained by the NYPD yesterday for daring to exercise my right to protest at Grand Central in the Jewish Voice for Peace rally. But it is undeniable that there is a massive wave of antisemitism growing within the movement and that shit you just posted is absolutely part of it.

"Jewish people" as a whole aren't framing the liberation of Palestine as something inherently violent and reblogging a post that repeatedly accuses of this is antisemitism! And don't ever, ever make light of Jewish people being concerned for our own safety and compare it to a hysterical white supremacist idea of "white genocide," are you fucking nuts?? Yeah those crazy paranoid genocidal Jews who make up all this nonsense about being in danger. Oh hey what are those massive camps over there with those gas chambers in them haha I wonder what that's about??

I'm sure you will take this and turn it around on me and say yeah well the Holocaust doesn't justify what's happening to the Palestinians and OBVIOUSLY it doesn't. But holy SHIT. Sometimes when people say "criticizing Israel isn't antisemitism" you really have to take a pause and realize that what antisemitism you are being accused of has nothing to do with criticizing Israel at all. There are swastikas painted all over my fucking neighborhood right now!! The way you talk about this genocide matters!! That post is HUGELY antisemetic. Please don't accuse me of claiming criticizing Israel is antisemitism, because that's not what I'm doing! I'm saying that you specifically reblogging a post in which Jews worldwide are repeatedly accused of making up hysterical fears for our safety and falsely equivocating this to what the Israeli government is doing in Gaza is antisemitism, which it IS! Don't ever, ever act like Jews globally are making up nonsense fears in order to justify the Israeli governments genocide. That is NOT what is happening! The Holocaust isn't some made up rhetorical device that Jews use as a get out of jail free card, holy fuck! It's an actual genocide that occurred in living memory and it is not comparable in any way to a made up imaginary white genocide. And posting something that accuses Jews, JEWS rather than the Israeli government, of using a nonsense fear for our safety to justify the Israeli government's actions is absolutely textbook antisemitism! For the love of God watch the way you talk before this wave of antisemitism and Holocaust denialism and conflating of Judaism with the Israeli government gets even more people killed.

I think youre taking what i reblogged in a completely different way than what i had in mind when i reblogged it. Many zionists are saying that if Israel were to not exist than where would the jewish population in Israel go, as if jewish and muslim people cannot peacefully coexist on one land. I understand the fear jewish people would have about waves of antisemitism, but the whole “screaming about white genocide” part is not a criticism of jewish people as a whole who may fear antisemitism—but Israeli zionists who cannot fathom Palestinian liberation without their own personal harm. If the post youre talking about is the one i think it is, ive read over it many times and i dont see anyone claiming its jewish people as a whole who frame Palestinian liberation as a violence against them, and I know jewish people as a whole arent framing it that way. I’d never invalidate your personal experience with antisemitism. The post is a criticism of people who feel Palestinian liberation is directly linked to jewish harm, because people who really take the time and care about the issue know that whats happening to the people of Palestine is not a Jewish vs Muslim issue as some may try to turn it into, but an issue of an apartheid state ethnically cleansing a population for nearly 80 years.

#my silly little posts #ask #if you have any more qualms don’t refrain from telling me. when I reblogged that post I didn’t think it was a criticism of Jewish ppl #and I still don’t think it is #but if that’s what you feel I want you to know that wasn’t what I thought it was 👍 and I wouldn’t want you to feel like #I was making a post grouping Jewish ppl as a whole into that of being zionists or whatnot #this is about an aparthied ethnostate #and people who fight tooth and nail to justify its existence and all its done to a group of people #not jewish people as a whole

[hazardous-waste-containment]

I feel like to many people don't recognise fascism because they think fascism will arrive selling oppression and tyranny, but if you're part of the privileged group fascism is selling you safety, normalcy, and tradition

With regard to this (see also that Michael Rosen poem), it’s one of those very basic, inchoate, vibes-based misconceptions about fascism to the point that it feels almost silly or missing-the-point to try and correct it with definitions and history – I don’t know if OP even has a specific meaning of fascism in mind, and the sentiment being expressed isn’t without merit as it applies to the wider authoritarian right – but it should be addressed somewhere because when people hear this they’re at least vaguely thinking of the Axis.

–

The most direct counter here would be that the movement of squadrismo that primarily carried Mussolini to power in 1921–22 was one of insurrectionary terror which lionized danger and youthful rebellion and daring acts of violence, openly aiming to annihilate the Socialists, establish a dictatorship, and throw out the liberal politicians. There was a bit of tradition and romanità to their aesthetic (like the fasces or the neologism duce) but ‘safety’ and ‘normalcy’ could not be further from the ethos of what was in 1922 the most politically decisive part of the Fascist movement.

Other factions included the national syndicalists who organized Fascist unions and wanted a social revolution to, if not overthrow the bourgeoisie, at least give workers a genuinely equal and independent share in political power, and the more marginal futurists, on a perpetual quest for radical new horizons. No safety, normalcy, or tradition here, though it’s also true that both camps, national syndicalists in particular, didn’t explicitly want to create a tyranny either and styled themselves as democratic and progressive. The point is less about the status quo vs tyranny dichotomy than about the status quo vs radicalism in general: in either case, the Fascists were not trying to look safe or normal.

To the right of the original Fascists, Alfredo Rocco’s Italian Nationalist Association likewise hated Liberal Italy and promoted a total end to parliamentarism, but also preached law, stability, and a controlled transformation from above with no change to the social hierarchy, had closer links to the establishment but little popular support, and did not merge with the PNF until 1923, though of course it then came to massively influence Fascism’s more conservative character in power.

–

National Socialism is more ambiguous because NSDAP messaging was wildly diverse and often very opportunistic – e.g. Hitler was clear about the need for massive territorial expansion to the east in Mein Kampf, yet the Nazis still mobilized significantly on the slogan that “National Socialism means peace!” Nazism promised young people a bold new world and independence from stifling family life, even while it promised their parents a staunch defense of Christian family values (both were kind of true, both were kind of lies). In some places virulent antisemitism was integral to mobilization, in others it was downplayed as too frightening. And so on.

It is true that Nazi electoral support (which was more important than in Italy) came mostly from the dislocated Protestant middle class, who had abandoned the mainstream liberal parties and saw the NSDAP as a patriotic anti-Marxist movement that would rebuild the economy and restore traditional values. But even so, there’s the unavoidable fact of the SA, a violent mass militia based in the working class, which beat up leftists but also resented the bourgeoisie and scared elite circles as too unruly and extreme (hence it was briefly banned along with the Red Front by the right-wing Brüning government).

–

The Spanish Falange was a movement of radical university students influenced by Italian national syndicalism, very marginal and esoteric prior to the outbreak of civil war precisely because of the experimentalism of their ideas; it was the mainstream conservative CEDA that successfully presented itself as a defense of stability and tradition. In a sense the balance of support was reversed in Hungary and Romania, where the deep unpopularity of the ruling conservatives (plus the absence of the left) opened space for the Hungarists and Legionaries to build mass movements by promising revolutionary changes to their countries’ impoverished lower classes. Of the above the most ‘traditional’ were the Legion who strongly upheld the peasantry’s religious culture and agrarian way of life, but this was within the wider context of plans for radical land reform and mass insurgency.

I could go on, and every individual case is nuanced and different appeals were used at different times, but I think this bit in The Brown Plague captures the point really well, even if what I’m suggesting goes further than Guérin would have:

“You see, we’re pitted against each other. Our passions are so white-hot that occasionally we kill each other, but deep down we want the same thing...”

“Really?”

“Yes, the same thing, a new world, radically different from today’s, a world that no longer destroys coffee and wheat while millions go hungry, a new system. But some believe adamantly that Hitler will provide this, while others believe it will be Stalin. That’s the only difference between us.”

And that’s why in the barracks, before the lights went out, an old vagabond road song which the Nazi intoned with as much conviction as the Socialist or Communist would resound from some fifty sonorous breasts:

As we walk along side by side / And sing the ancient airs / Which the forests echo back / Then, we feel, it has to happen:

With us will come new times! / With us will come new times!

The unanimity was barely shattered by the discord of three antagonistic cries shouted in unison as if to say goodnight or issue a final challenge:

“Heil Hitler!”

“Freiheit!”

“Rotfront!”

#varieties of fascism #.

[connorinabeanie]

What are some parts of dbh would u like to rewrite

Heya! Sorry for the delay on this.

Ohman, what a question though. Honestly, overall I like DBH and think it has a reasonable amount of issues in terms of like, other shows/games/stories/whatever, so there's little that I would do a total rewrite of. That said, I do have one part I'd love to make some substantial edits to.

Markus' plot is fine overall, but I would really like to rewrite how the revolution is handled. I don't think I've made it a secret that I think the revolution is not only a better route, but a completely warranted one in terms of how things develop overall, so I'd like to rewrite how that final revolution vs demonstration choice plays out.

There's two main ways that I think would both work: one would be to either make the narrative neutral on your choice (as opposed to guilting you all game long if you're not totally peaceful), and the other would be to make the story tailor itself to your choices so that having been pacifist rewards you instead of being pretty much exactly the same up to Night of the Soul. It's a serious issue that pacifist vs 'violent' changes literally nothing about the response to the android revolution (except that like, the news reports change a little in Stratford Tower and Crossroads, and I think what people on the street during Freedom March say also changes depending on public opinion.)

If humans, say, supported androids (even by just yelling protests at the cops) during the confrontation in Freedom March if you'd been pacifist the whole time, that might've given a player some reason to believe it was worth it to keep believing humans might turn to their side. As it is, imo you have absolutely no reason not to do the revolution, because there's no reason to believe this time would be any different. Instead, at this point you've seen over and over that peace doesn't work and it's time to take action, and then the game treats you like you're some sort of ridiculous monster for choosing to fight for your people. Wild.

And then in sillier stuff: let Kara use a gun more often. She deserves it.

#ask and answer #detroit become human

[graceful-not]

Layton and Clive having the peaceful protest VS violent protest argument while Luke and Flora stand there:

#layton live

[rollercoasterwords]

i’m so sorry but i’m not finished talking about NI marlene okay

you don’t understand the ways in which it altered my brain chemistry

because it’s just so nice to have someone from here have a fully fleshed character and not just protestant catholic troubles grrr

and the way you did present it!!

“She’s English?”

“Oh, don’t start, Lee, her da’s from Belfast—he owns McKinnon’s Mechanics. S’not her fault her mam lives in London.”

The boy—Lee—settles back into his beanbag chair, still scowling. He gives Marlene a scrolling look, sizing her up.

“You protestant or catholic?”

Aoife rolls her eyes, and the girl in the other beanbag chair groans.

“Er…” Marlene stammers, hovering awkwardly beside the sofa, “I…don’t believe in god.”

idk why but this part hit me because it’s literally this. and that met sound so obvious and very no shit sherlock but it is!

idk where you’re from but if you’re not from here it’s hard to get it right. and you did.

because when lee starts talking about the peace sign and more violence that’s quite literally what some people have in mind

i know people who literally have the most detached perception of their own country’s history that will come out with disgusting ideologies because that’s what their parents and grandparents and friends want to remember. not the pain and suffering and how it was getting us virtually nowhere. but catholic vs protestants us against them etc etc

and marlene saying she doesn’t believe in god and lee responding with that’s not what i asked!?! yeah.

and the mentions of NIGRA!!! oh bless your little cotton socks

every so often this just rots my brain and it is very much a so often moment rn

i’m not saying it’s hard to find ni representation i just think it’s hard to find it when there’s no bias and the characters are more developed than just their religion

this sounds very incoherent and im not really getting my thoughts across well but im shite with words so take this as you will

no doubt this won’t be the last time i bring this up

i’ll pray to your alter for forgiveness 😭

ahhhhh please do not ever apologize for bringing this up TRULY it means so much to me!!!

i have never set foot in ireland or anywhere in the uk and i had also never like. studied irish history or the history of the troubles at all aside from just like. hearing a bit about it before i decided to write ni marlene for this fic so!! i was trying very very hard to get it Right.

and like the thing is...yeah because i knew my knowledge on the subject was gonna be limited i wasn't really trying to make like. huge sweeping statements about taking One Side Or The Other. although i will say in trying to show the "both sides"/multiple perspectives it was like. within ireland. like in a conflict that traces back to colonizer vs. colonized i am....not ever going to be very interested in the perspective/side of the colonizer lol. what i wanted to focus on was what was going on in northern ireland at the time and the various responses from the people around marlene, from lee who very much believes that violence is necessary to aoife who thinks lee isn't giving adequate consideration to the weight of that violence to marlene who is sort of floating in the middle not really sure what to think. because yeah at the end of the day we can look back at history and try to pick Which Side Was Right but like. war and any kind of violent conflict are so much more nuanced than that and trying to boil it down to a clear right side/wrong side pretty much always feels reductive to me.

like i think there's this tendency especially with history to try and zoom out and look at violence through the lens of these very abstract concepts or talk about war in terms of nations the way you'd talk about two sports teams but. i am much more interested in zooming in and looking at conflict on the level of individual humans and the impact it has on us as people.

anyway this is getting rambly on my end now lol but !! thank you so much for sharing ur thoughts it makes me so happy to hear that my portrayal of ni marlene is appreciated <3

#thtf #the hand that feeds spoilers #ask

[puppyboyumi]

[TikTok video from AjPlus.

The caption: “This young activist (@khahliso.amahle) from South Africa is calling out double standards around support for protests in France vs those across Africa”]

(Transcript Start)

Khahliso Myataza: When Africans protest, we are barbaric. When French people and Europeans protest, it’s like, “Yeah! Let’s do it the way that French people are doing it—they’re doing it right!”

Narrator: This young activist is calling out double standards around support for protests in France vs. those across Africa.

Myataza: Hi, I’m Khahliso. I’m from Johannesburg, South Africa. There were protests in South Africa on the Monday I made that video. And then, in other parts of the continent, there were protests in Nairobi, Kenya, and in Lagos, Nigeria.

Narrator: Around the world, protests against French President Emmanuel Macron’s pension reform bill have been celebrated as heroic. This wave of protest across France has been understood to form part of a longstanding tradition of French workers rising up to safeguard their rights. But protests in Africa rarely attract similar international attention and sometimes go unnoticed.

Myataza: Necropolitics and neocolonialism are killing us. So there is a certain urgency to our protests or to our struggles, right? And so, when our voices aren’t met with the urgency that we want, it is disheartening.

Narrator: Did you know that in November 2022 a nationwide strike took place in South Africa among unions that represent some 800,000 workers? Or what about the thousands of protesters who took to the streets of Kenya against the cost-of-living crisis in March 2023? Kenyan protesters even defied a government ban on rallies that came in after the protests began.

Narrator: But less coverage and support around protests in Africa isn’t the only thing troubling Myataza. She explains that how Africans and Black people globally are portrayed and perceived when they challenge systems of power is still influenced by violent colonial legacies.

Myataza: Media has the legacy of portraying African people as barbaric, whether it be through our protests [or] through the way that poverty is framed in our countries. And I do think that people need to understand that these come as a product of colonialism. This was how colonialism framed African people to be; It’s not just with Africans on the continent, you know—looking at how Black Lives Matter was framed, looking at how Haitian people are still demonized.

Narrator: How media chooses to cover a story influences public perception on events and people. Here’s one example: vandalism, property damage, and looting received widespread coverage at the Black Lives Matter protests in the U.S. during summer 2020. But it’s reported that at least 93% of the BLM protests that summer were peaceful. Nonetheless, negative images of violence and looting remain front and center for many—overshadowing the organized calls for an end to police violence in the U.S.

Myataza: French people being the face of resistance is something that angers me because they’re not the only people to have resisted oppressive forces. And as much as we praise the French, we should also be praising communities outside of Europe—people who are doing the same things, for people who are fighting other struggles, right?

Myataza: I’m not dismissing or invalidating the pain that French people have or the vitriol that they might have to their administration, but what they’re doing is not more, or it’s not, like, more special than what is happening on the African continent.

(End Transcript)

I’ve reblogged posts on this topic before, but this is always something that irks me with the hype around the French protests and riots, especially when someone says something along the lines of “Why haven’t Americans done this?” or “Americans are too damn weak. We should protest like the French!” Because, well, WE DID! The BLM protests, especially the few riots that occurred, were a call to action against an oppressive government, police force, and justice system.

They were killing us in the streets and our own homes and when we did the smallest “everyone’s idea of a revolution” shit like breaking a window or spray painting on walls or stealing a tv from Walmart, y’all wanted to switch up on us and tell us that we were going too far and overreacting. No matter how peaceful we are, how much abuse we take, how many of us are killed trying to be peaceful, the media will still paint us as “thugs,” and our murders will continue to be excused in some bullshit way all while we’re thrown scraps of “reform” to make us think we’ve won.

#a part of me has genuinely lost faith in peaceful protests at this point #black lives matter #black lives still matter #blm #africa #African protests #ghana #haiti #south africa #anti fascism #antifascism #anti colonialism

[sophieinwonderland]

You've ignored my reblogs, so I'll just come to you directly: Peaceful Protest against Nazis is only possible by Nazis. At Rosenstrasse it was Aryan Nazis protesting that their Privilege was being infringed upon. During the protests to recover their husbands and wives, 10,000 other Jewish people went through the Jewish Administration Building at 2-4 Rosenstrasse. The only reason the machine guns didn't fire was because of all the blue eyed blondes in the crowd.

It also remains ridiculous to suppose that people who would be -targeted- by the Nazis should protest peacefully. Again, Rosenstrasse didn't turn into a bloodbath because the commander looked out on "Ubermensch" and didn't want to kill them. Meanwhile the White Rose were arrested, tried, convicted, and beheaded IN THE SAME DAY because they tried to share leaflets opposing Fascism. 11am, arrested. Dead before dinner. Had Rosenstrasse been Jewish people, the machine guns would've fired.

Oh. and the "Study" you linked while talking about the effectiveness of Nonviolent Protest to try and say that it would've worked? Notes that the preference for nonviolence has increased, but it's effectiveness has decreased. Which, again... yeah, not really an option. Trans people like me, "Mentally Ill" people like most of us, physically disabled people, LGBTQ+ in general, Jewish, Black. any of us at a peaceful protest in a Nazi Regime? Dead. En Masse.

I agree with most of your points. But I don't think it's anymore true of violent revolution, is it? If your goal is overthrowing the regime, it's almost impossible without majority support. I don't think a violent contingent of minority groups would have faired better against fascists than nonviolence.

I think that maybe the problem is that we might be focusing on different goals. My previous posts were focused on overthrowing the leadership or enacting change. That's not realistic without a majority support.

On the other hand, if your goals are self-defense or escape, and helping others get to safety, violence is absolutely going to be necessary.

I guess my position is this:

Violence is more often than not less effective for regime change and garnering support of potential allies.

Violent actions will be necessary in defense of yourself and others from the regime.

Would you disagree with this position?

Oh, and regarding the source, I'm not sure what part you're referencing. Here's the table showing the success rates of nonviolent campaigns vs violent ones:

It does show that effectiveness of nonviolent campaigns have decreased in past 10 years. But it also shows that it's still significantly more effective than violent campaigns, nearly 4 times as much, which have also been decreasing in effectiveness. (Albeit less so.)

(It also shows that violent campaigns were more effective in the 40s, specifically, so it's probably a mistake for me to try to apply modern standards to that time period.)

#ask box #politics #political

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 10.14 (after 1950)

1952 – Korean War: The Battle of Triangle Hill is the biggest and bloodiest battle of 1952. 1956 – Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, leader of India's Untouchable caste, converts to Buddhism along with 385,000 of his followers (see Neo-Buddhism). 1957 – The 23rd Canadian Parliament becomes the only one to be personally opened by the Queen of Canada. 1957 – At least 81 people are killed in the most devastating flood in the history of the Spanish city of Valencia. 1962 – The Cuban Missile Crisis begins when an American reconnaissance aircraft takes photographs of Soviet ballistic missiles being installed in Cuba. 1964 – Martin Luther King Jr. receives the Nobel Peace Prize for combating racial inequality through nonviolence. 1964 – The Soviet Presidium and the Communist Party Central Committee each vote to accept Nikita Khrushchev's "voluntary" request to retire from his offices. 1966 – The city of Montreal begins the operation of its underground Montreal Metro rapid transit system. 1968 – Apollo program: The first live television broadcast by American astronauts in orbit is performed by the Apollo 7 crew. 1968 – The 6.5 Mw  Meckering earthquake shakes the southwest portion of Western Australia with a maximum Mercalli intensity of IX (Violent), causing $2.2 million in damage and leaving 20–28 people injured. 1968 – Jim Hines becomes the first man ever to break the so-called "ten-second barrier" in the 100-meter sprint with a time of 9.95 seconds. 1973 – In the Thammasat student uprising, over 100,000 people protest in Thailand against the military government. Seventy-seven are killed and 857 are injured by soldiers. 1975 – An RAF Avro Vulcan bomber explodes and crashes over Żabbar, Malta after an aborted landing, killing five crew members and one person on the ground. 1979 – The first National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights draws approximately 100,000 people. 1980 – The 6th Congress of the Workers' Party ended, having anointed North Korean President Kim Il Sung's son Kim Jong Il as his successor. 1981 – Vice President Hosni Mubarak is elected as the President of Egypt, one week after the assassination of Anwar Sadat. 1982 – U.S. President Ronald Reagan proclaims a War on Drugs. 1991 – Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 1994 – Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres receive the Nobel Peace Prize for their role in the establishment of the Oslo Accords and the framing of future Palestinian self government. 1998 – Eric Rudolph is charged with six bombings, including the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, Georgia. 2003 – The Steve Bartman Incident takes place at Wrigley Field in Chicago, Illinois. 2004 – MK Airlines Flight 1602 crashes during takeoff from Halifax Stanfield International Airport, killing all seven people on board. 2004 – Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 crashes in Jefferson City, Missouri. The two pilots (the aircraft's only occupants) are killed. 2012 – Felix Baumgartner successfully jumps to Earth from a balloon in the stratosphere. 2014 – A snowstorm and avalanche in the Nepalese Himalayas triggered by the remnants of Cyclone Hudhud kills 43 people. 2014 – The Serbia vs. Albania UEFA qualifying match is canceled after 42 minutes due to several incidents on and off the pitch. Albania is eventually awarded a win. 2015 – A suicide bomb attack in Pakistan kills at least seven people and injures 13 others. 2017 – A massive truck bombing in Somalia kills 358 people and injures more than 400 others. 2021 – About 10,000 American employees of John Deere go on strike.

#Events

[thesirhandsome-tepalehuia]

Words vs. Actions

Your words convey your desire to effect change in a peaceful manner but, your protests are demonstrations of your willingness to support your words with actions that may result in faster and possibly violent evolution of your desires.

ALL People that seek to demolish even the smallest portion of the established system for the sake of personal/community betterment are, in spirit and in fact, supporting Indigenous Peoples, whom have been struggling for centuries to be recognized as Human beings

#revolution #indigenous