Are you saying that violent revolutions have never overthrown anything with success? That's pure fantasy. Its not a very much of academical statement to say violence can't solve violence.
Violent revolutions against a tyrannical government? Yes. Militant groups pressing for social, economic, or political change within the current government? Doesn't work. Never has, never will. Also, in a great many cases of violent revolution, the victorious element is frequently the target of subsequent violence by other parties. By showing that violence worked for them they encourage others to attempt to utilize the same tactics to make their statements heard.
History isn't a conscious being and cannot therefore "remember" anything.
I am not purporting that it is a conscious being. I use the term as it is most often used, and that is to point out that successive generations are not taught, or do not hold onto ideals, due to the manner in which those ideals are attempted to be forced upon others. This is basically another way of saying that the messages which have the most impact throughout time are the ones that are made with means which defy stereotypes, not reinforce them.
Again that and the rest of what you said is pure idealism. "meeting violence with violence" being hypocritical does not pose any intelligent or scientific argument.
Firstly, I don't see any idealism in what I was stating. Secondly, it does pose a very intelligent argument. As we saw with the Black Panther party and other militant organizations of the present and past trying to effect social change the organization or government which is being rebelled against responds to militant and/or violent organizations with increasing violence, criminalization, and prosecution. As a result of that the intended message is lost amongst a maelstrom of arrests, assassinations, and court proceedings.
I can add other instances. Perhaps you remember the incident in Waco, Texas where armed religious extremists were assaulted and killed by the federal government. The government reacted as they did in response to the threats of violence made by the members within the compound.
There was also a similar incident in Naples, Idaho where a man and several members of his family were killed by the government in response to his threats of violence in order to make his position heard.
We can pick through history and see countless examples where violence being met with violence has a very different outcome than what was originally intended. When you rebel against a violent and oppressive system with violence you allow them to vilify you and that system invariably escalates the very violence you are attempting to see stopped. It is entirely counterproductive.
Posing self defense against an aggressive attack for example is technically violence and therefore hypocritical as your fighting "Violence with violence", does that change anything? Does that make your action of defense any less right?
There is a big difference between defending yourself from imminent physical harm and donning weapons and armaments to participate in a march to halt violence. This clearly sends a very different message than the words being spoken and decreases the impact. This is why nonviolent protest has always and will always have a much greater impact and greater chance of success of effecting social change.
The stereotypes of the day purported the african american community as prone to violence and then we see members of that community taking up arms and marching on government buildings. This perpetuates the stereotype that was held and dilutes the intended message of peace and political reform. Again, it is not the message you are trying to send alone, but also the way in which you go about it, that affects the success of your actions.
Not that I completely agree that a militant organization was best for the black and oppressed communities but your arguments have no validity.
You mean you disagree with my arguments. As they relate to this specific situation and the topics up for debate they are very valid and clear demonstrations which support my position.
Just because the Black Panthers took on a militant structure that doesn't mean their goals and aims were any less represented.
Actually it is because they took on a violent and militant structure that their goals and aims were less represented.
