Nonviolence As Compliance - TA-NEHISI COATES

[Novara]

Nonviolence As Compliance

<snip>

The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when Jerriel Lyles was assaulted (“The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up. Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.”) There was no claim for nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green (“Bitch, you ain’t no better than any of the other old black bitches I have locked up.”) There was no plea for peace on behalf of Starr Brown. (“They slammed me down on my face,” Brown added, her voice cracking. “The skin was gone on my face. ...&quot

When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time-out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise" anymore than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point, tonight. Disrespect is. In this case disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the rioters themselves.

Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/

[DinahMoeHum]

1. I don't know who originally made this statement. . .

. . .but to me it sure fits the situation out there in Baltimore, and people's reaction to it:

"If property damage is more upsetting to you than institutionalized racism, your moral compass needs a realignment."

[daleanime]

6. +1

[jwirr]

2. When it is preached by the state --- MLK and those who believe in non-violence were never

the state and they were not preaching - they were doing. But according to the article I wonder why the state set their dogs on the protestors? They were just complying.

[Scootaloo]

3. Ever read George Orwell's take on Gandhi?

http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews/gandhi/english/e_gandhi

At about the time when the autobiography first appeared I remember reading its opening chapters in the ill-printed pages of some Indian newspaper. They made a good impression on me, which Gandhi himself at that time did not. The things that one associated with him — home-spun cloth, “soul forces” and vegetarianism — were unappealing, and his medievalist program was obviously not viable in a backward, starving, over-populated country. It was also apparent that the British were making use of him, or thought they were making use of him. Strictly speaking, as a Nationalist, he was an enemy, but since in every crisis he would exert himself to prevent violence — which, from the British point of view, meant preventing any effective action whatever — he could be regarded as “our man”. In private this was sometimes cynically admitted. The attitude of the Indian millionaires was similar. Gandhi called upon them to repent, and naturally they preferred him to the Socialists and Communists who, given the chance, would actually have taken their money away. How reliable such calculations are in the long run is doubtful; as Gandhi himself says, “in the end deceivers deceive only themselves”; but at any rate the gentleness with which he was nearly always handled was due partly to the feeling that he was useful. The British Conservatives only became really angry with him when, as in 1942, he was in effect turning his non-violence against a different conqueror.

[BrotherIvan]

4. So well said

So absolutely right on. Same shit from pearl-clutchers during Ferguson protests.

[99th_Monkey]

5. K & freaking R - this nails it. nt

[dreamnightwind]

7. Hmm, conflicted, but I think violence helps to justify the police state

Non-violent civil disobedience would be my preference. There is nothing passive or complicit about civil disobedience. One thing you have to do to get their attention is you have to stop "business as usual", which means either multitudes clogging the streets, or smaller groups engaged in strategic blockades.

Our nation is well equipped to put down violence, and the people being put down will win no support when the media showcases their violence. It's playing right into the narrative of the establishment and the racists. Both MLK and Gandhi understood this.

Things like general strikes, disrupting the flow of traffic required for corporations to operate, shutting down the business district, occupying city hall and courts, these kind of actions are nonviolent but not complicit in any way. They create conditions where society cannot function normally without addressing the grievances of the protesters.

I'm not saying it would be easy, or even that it would necessarily bring about reform, it takes a lot of very determined people to bring the system to its knees, and they won't give up the police state without being brought to their knees. But violent actions will feed the forces they seek to change. There is no end to the violent machinery of the state and its resolve to use it to preserve the status quo, which while bad for the 99% is seen as good for business.

[Novara]

8. In Ta-Nehisi Coates' own words:

When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con.

You can only push people so far before they'll snap. And in this case, the systemic racism is so entrenched, the police have so much power to kill at will - which they've been doing - that nonviolent protests probably won't get much done.

This is different than the original Civil Rights struggles in the 50s and 60s. Then, they were trying to establish rights. There was no pretense that blacks were treated equally. Now, these rights are supposedly already established and nothing has changed. Black men are still being murdered by cops. They are still segregated. They are still marginalized. But now, everyone supposedly has equal rights. But they certainly aren't treated like it.

[markpkessinger]

9. Brilliant essay by Coates!

Thanks for sharing it!