Charles Pierce: "Non-violent resistance requires a kind of implicit reason on both sides."

[phantom power]

Non-violent resistance requires a kind of implicit reason on both sides. It requires that both sides see an end to matters, that they acknowledge, even tacitly, that there is a level of violent repression that is unsupportable in a civil society. But how does one reason in the face of brutalized futility? How does one reason in the face of repeated injustices, of unacknowledged crimes, and of injuries blamed not on the perpetrators, but on the victims? The logic of non-violent resistance breaks down in the face of that, when official violence fails to acknowledge any limits at all, when it does not recognize any possible point at which official violence becomes intolerable to the public at large. At that point, there is no telling what comes next.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a34648/the-fires-in-the-morning/

[stone space]

1. Non-violent resistence requires reason on the part of nonviolent activists.

But it is designed and intended as a means of struggle against opponents who may not be so nonviolent, and whose own actions may be quite unreasonable.

[trumad]

2. Charles Fucking Pierce

God I wish I could write like him.

[DonCoquixote]

3. Non Violence works when

The dominant side actually gets sick of the violence. The difference between 1940's India, 1960's usa and the modern day is that we have a punditry and media that feels NO shame about enabling the very worst bigotry in people. When Joe Scab can get on the news, on a suposedly liberal netwoprk, and blatantly carry water for the crooked cops. Gandhi's england was tried of war, and the US in the 60's was getting tired of war, wherease in the 21st century, war is just another backdrop (save for all the brown people getting killed.) When some of out cops have better access to miltary gear than out own troops (some of whom have family go to Florida gun shopws to get them bullet proof vests) we have a problem.