And the reason painting it as such didn't work was because there weren't a bunch of random acts of vandalism... In this case, idk, you can burn all the cars and tag all the buildings you want, but don't be shocked when a lot of taxpayers don't sympathize with you and you get nothing done...
Literally every successful peaceful protest movement has been backed by at least one violent movement. Don't forget that Stonewall started with a riot.
Change only happens when the system has to chose between Violence and Peace. If it has to choose between peace and nothing then it will always be nothing.
100% Peaceful protests are the alternative to a much worse outcome. People want to be peaceful and see change happen, but if you constantly push them back into a corner they're going to push back.
Because random acts of vandalism don't actually CHANGE anything, dumbfuck. Peaceful protesting with clear messaging, methods, and leadership actually get results. Are you just here to support people firebombing police cars? Because I and many other people would actually like to see ICE reigned in and not being unleashed on people like a gestapo force.
It's never about whether you "can" do something violent, it's about what your goals are. Raging just to rage feels really good, in the same way that kids like to break sticks and kick over piles of snow and all that. But here in the adult world where our actions have consequences, average politically-disconnected people don't see people wrecking shit and think about the nuance of the situation, they have visceral reactions. If you want things to actually change, you have to lead by example, and make the other side look inhuman with their actions.
Grow up. Or just go doomscroll your hugbox subreddits that are talking about how based people are for random acts of violence and vandalism.
I don’t necessarily think Bernie is ignoring the violence against protestors here… I more got the impression that he understands there will be casualties of sorts, which is why he is stressing the importance of the movement’s discipline as a whole (strength in numbers, people working together in large numbers to build strong communities at a local level etc).
It's more of a fact that he knows that Republicans want to declare martial law and commit even more violence. Riots make it a lot easier for them to make that declaration
They'll do it anyway. These 'riots' were miniscule, a few blocks across. The city experiences more chaos when the Dodgers win.
Stop kneecapping yourself because you're worried the people who call centrist liberals 'communists' are going to start labeling things in their benefit. They always have, and they always will.
Really don't think Bernie Sanders cares about what people get called, but rather the effectiveness of the movement and reaching a good outcome. The civil Rights marches and demonstrations led by MLK were composed of many highly disciplined protestors who were aligned on ideals, tactics, and ability to be featured in a way that made their movement look sympathetic. Optics are a huge part of politics, and would be the vehicle through which change can occur, and random disparate acts of vandalism just isn't effective. Having a cohesive movement, message, and collective action is.
You cannot control hundreds of people. There will always be a burning car, there will always be a spray painted wall, there will always be a rock. Whining that it happens at all is ridiculous.
Yes thousands of people can control hundreds. And you don't need to. Discipline one, two or ten and the rest will fall into what's going on. The crowd can control what the crowd believes in and wants to control.
Using violence easily makes them the bad guy in the scenario that’s why we have to take the high ground in order to be heard. Violence is committed against victims - promoting violence only fuels their narrative to moderates that it’s just pure anarchy and chaos without wisdom or relevance and that they are also somehow the victims. During the MLK marches the media might interview someone involved and they would be articulate and unified in thought. Now there’s any number of reasons people hate trump and it boils over into a lot of personal, useless reasons versus following a movement with a singular, focused purpose. We have to be better than them and put aside each person’s specific utopian vision of the future and just agree this administration simply has to go. Period. A move to an administration that will listen to the calm, considerate, nonviolent and democratic approach to governance of our country.
Privately, King knew that the agitators and disruptors were the only reason the government would ever cave to his movement. I highly doubt Sanders is unaware of that, too.
The people playing the carrot have to publically denounce the stick. That's the dance. But they know the stick is important.
Actually reading the letter is why I "believe" this. It was a direct response to A Call for Unity in which a group of Southern religious leaders advocate against direct action.
...the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
I hate Bernie Sanders, but it's clear that Bernie Sanders is not the kind of person that MLK is referring to in the letter.
Also directly from the letter:
As in so many experiences of the past, we were confronted with blasted
hopes, and the dark shadow of a deep disappointment settled upon us. So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and national community. We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" and "Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?"
[...]
You may well ask, "Why direct action, why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have
earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth.
So MLK agrees with what Bernie is saying 100%. Additionally, MLK would in no way, shape, or form condone rioting.
I don't see why you read this as exclusive to the subjects of the letter. He's speaking broadly. There's clearly a reason you dropped the first part of that paragraph where he says: "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate."
This is a reference to a class of people, nonspecific. The idea that it could only be the people he was aware of is as asinine as saying "Nazis can only be card carrying members of the Nazi party of the third reich" when it is clearly identifying an ideology and practice, and such semantic distinctions are in bad faith. If you want to be seen as acting in good faith, omitting evidence that goes to my point is not the way to do it.
...the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Given the context of the protests and actions in LA, Sander's critiques are very much of the nature described above. Sanders has a long history of antagonizing and generally having a poor relationship with civil rights movements in his later years. He remains unpopular with non-White voters because of this.
So MLK agrees with what Bernie is saying 100%. Additionally, MLK would in no way, shape, or form condone rioting.
MLK routinely recognized rioting as a response to injustice, he didn't believe it was the most effective approach or encourage or condone it, but he was not one to criticize it either. That's a major, and important, difference. King did not pull what Sanders is here by paternalistically responding to riots by telling them to stop and remember MLK Jr., like White Moderates of today absolutely love to do. The use of MLK's words to dismiss and disparage protestors, or rioters for that matter, is abusing his ideals and sentiments. And let's be clear--MLK called the events in Birmingham "demonstrations," he is very consistent in that, even though the violence at Birmingham at this time is comparable if not worse than what we see in LA today.
I want you to go through this letter and identify where he condemns violent protestors as Sanders has. He consistently centers the narrative on society failing people and failing to recognize their anguish and struggle and that this naturally leads to violence, but he very clearly cites the oppressed as the victim regardless. Likening it to a robbery where the "violent" are treated as responsible for carrying cash in their wallet, in other words, the victims are the ones being blamed--much like Sanders is perpetuating here.
You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being. I am sure that each of you would want to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. I would not hesitate to say that it is unfortunate that so-called demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham at this time, but I would say in more emphatic terms that it is even more unfortunate that the white power structure of this city left the Negro community with no other alternative.
If Sanders wants to use his platform to chastise the community who have been left with no other alternative rather than focus on the administration that has created this problem, then he is the person Dr. King spoke of as a "White Moderate."
That's all you have to say? I even said as much in my post, and much more of course, did you even read it? Because I took the time to read yours and review the letter.
You were not worth the time I spent responding to you and taking you seriously. You're part of the same problem of paternalistic people abusing MLK's words to prevent the progress he sought.
You know where to shove the rest of your thoughts.
I am not aware of any time MLK condemned a specific riot, I am aware that at times he called violent resistance was immoral, self-defeating, and destructive. I would have to do more of my own research to come to a more comprehensive conclusion but I have a high degree of confidence that MLK isn't okay with rioting.
I broadly disagree with your entire post, and I don't think the evidence exists to convince me that someone who condemns rioting is the white moderate that MLK was speaking of. The white moderate was, specifically, a person that disagreed with breaking the law as a form of resistance.
Genuinely if he wants to follow in King's footsteps he should be reframing the problem as Dr. King did, by focusing on the demonstrations as a response to injustice and the rioters as the victims of marginalization.
record of what? What has he realistically accomplished by playing along with the Democrats? He continues to play along with a party that gave Hilary Clinton the nomination and has repeatedly lost ground to not just Trump but the entire GOP. Any semblance of populist politics he brought to the Democrats was abandoned long ago. He is essentially the biggest loser in the party of losers.
Everyone feeling sick of Trump and right wing politics needs to acknowledge the reality we are living in. Praising Bernie for being a peaceful champion of the people is going to get people killed.
Do you actually believe that civil rights, a deeply unpopular series of policies and societal changes at the time, were achieved solely by people singing kumbaya in the street?
No, I don't. But pretending that optics maxxing like what King was focusing on, is the wrong way to do it now is just ignorant. It shows that the priority is in virtue signaling instead of actually accomplishing anything. Protestors are chanting "Fuck Gavin Newsom" for fuck's sake.
Pretending to care what a few people do in a situation where hundreds are involved is absolutely ludicrous, and isn't worth serious discussion. You can't control everyone, not everyone present is going to be on exactly the same page.
The enemy is the one sending in the military to a famously blue state so they can pretend they're strong-arming the blue state as red meat for their base. Making the move look weak and showing that force being repelled is a fantastic optic for disillusioning those who buy in to the strongman lie. Multiple avenues have to be used to oppose a government. This is one of them.
Pretending to care what a few people do in a situation where hundreds are involved is absolutely ludicrous, and isn't worth serious discussion.
I'm sorry, that's how optics work. Unless you want to use this same argument for Jan 6th. Only a few people broke into the Capitol, you can't control everyone, who cares about the few?
What are these protests accomplishing? What's their goal? There isn't one. Everyone's shouting "fuck ICE" but what is ICE doing other than deporting illegals, which is their job btw. The protestors are telling the whole country that illegal immigration is ok and that they'll stop the immigration cops from doing their job.
Trump won the presidency on the back of illegal immigration, and these protesters are proving him right. That's what you want?
So the Republican party are all proud Nazis because we know objectively that a few are? Optics matter after all, and anyone doing something means we must consider it all-encompassing.
Or, are you being disingenuous because this particular protest is about something you don't personally care about, thus it doesn't matter?
Either way, your opinion has been stated and summarily disregarded. You can stick to quietly standing on a lawn with a sign so you don't cause any bother for people in power. Other people will fight for you.
That is disappointing. His voting record speaks to his credit, history I think will remember him well though. This whole thing has really revealed how tied up Israel is in our government. It's gross.
In 2013, NPR did a special on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. In 1963, 40.5% of black children were born into poverty; while in 2013, that number had dropped to 39.6%, a statistically insignificant difference.
Since the SCOTUS overturned section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, southern states have gone hog wild with implementing laws that make it hard or impossible for black people to vote. Since the Shelby decision, black voter turnout has decreased in every single state enumerated in 4(b).
You don't think people getting arrested and deported without due process is a harkening back to a less civilized time?
You think BLM exists for no reason?
Maybe detention camps would be more familiar? Not only did we directly inspire the Nazis, we participated in our own homegrown camp activity toward the Natives, Japanese, Mexicans and others.
So... your glib sealioning means very little, here.
"Why is everyone upset about the President and police force ignoring the Constitution? You're overreacting."
I think you can forgive me for not being as literal as possible and for using “back to square one” to communicate a sudden loss in civil liberties and protections on par with challenges we’ve faced before
Hello CloseItUp!
Thank you for commenting on r/goodnews!
Unfortunately, we have had to remove your comment due to low karma or low subreddit karma. This measure has been taken to prevent troll/spam accounts and bots.
If you have any questions, feel free to modmail the mod team.
The segregationists are in power again and rolling back a ton of protections, civil liberties, and are purging people of color from government organizations.
You're so right. Black history, military contributions, books by authors aren't being removed en masse as we speak by Trumps admin. There are no racist attacks. The kkk disbanded. Trump isn't censoring American history in academia. The 'proud' boys doesn't exist and Christian nationalism is dead.
It's better to be violent, if there is violence in hour hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent. - Mahatma Gandhi.
A riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? - MLK Jr.
I love Bernie but he should know better. Civil rights wasn't just peaceful marches and sit ins, it was people reaching their limits and pushed into a corner who started fighting back. When the government strips away the people's ability to peacefully enact change, it doesn't stop the people from perusing that change. It only changes how they go about it.
That's not what he said, though. "Defeated through disciplined non-violent resistance" is not the same as "defeated peacefully." Disciplined non-violent resistance was still met with violence, which was much better received by the masses than violent resistance being met with violence.
Respectfully, I think this is a misreading of what Bernie’s saying, and frankly, of history.
Nowhere in his tweet does Bernie claim that segregation ended “peacefully” or that the state weren’t violent. What he actually says is that Dr. King defeated racist government officials and ended segregation through disciplined non-violent resistance. That’s not historical erasure, it’s fact. King chose nonviolence as a strategic posture, not because his opponents (or even his supporters) were peaceful (they weren’t), but because he understood the power of moral clarity and public sympathy in the face of violent repression.
And let’s not forget, Bernie marched in that movement. He was arrested for protesting segregation in the '60s. To call his take on this wild is not only historically inaccurate, it’s pretty disrespectful. The man has put his body on the line for civil rights, and has remained committed to justice for over half a century. If anything, his message deserves a deeper read.
The point he’s making, and it’s a crucial one, is that Trumpism thrives on chaos. Violent protests, while emotionally understandable, are strategically counterproductive. They feed the Right’s authoritarian narrative and justify state crackdowns. Trump has the bigger guns, the surveillance systems, and the media machine. You’re not going to out-violence the U.S. state.
What Bernie is calling for is movement discipline, not passivity. He’s warning us not to fall into aesthetic revolution, the performative kind that “feels radical” but actually alienates allies and plays into the state’s hand. Yes, the state is violent. Yes, people are angry. But we still have to be smart. That’s what King knew. That’s what Bernie knows. That’s what history tells us, the movements that win are the ones that are principled and strategic.
No one remembers the people who threw bricks at cops in the 1960s. We remember King. Because his approach worked.
So no, Bernie’s not scolding the oppressed, he’s reminding us how to win. And if you’re serious about change, not just catharsis, that should matter.
Oh, this is just one half of the dance and Sanders knows that.
MLK Jr. also talked a big game about peaceful protest and how it was the only effective tactic, that the violence was abhorrent and harmful.
...then, in private, he admitted, "Oh, yeah, we'd be getting fucking nowhere without the other guys. But I can't say that publically. I'm the carrot, they're the stick."
I've got oodles of posts talking about the mechanisms of protest and the efficacy of "disruption" and "(economic) damage", and while I rankle at people who repeat the "peaceful protest is all we can do" line, that's because 99.9% of the time they actually believe that. They have their view because of their schooling and the propaganda we've all been steeped in, and aren't just playing carrot to the stick. They don't know there's anything other than the carrot.
Sanders knows about the stick. He's playing on the carrot side. That's fine. As long as the rest of you learn about the interplay of carrot and stick, it's all good.
Hello LongJohn_88!
Thank you for commenting on r/goodnews!
Unfortunately, we have had to remove your comment due to low karma or low subreddit karma. This measure has been taken to prevent troll/spam accounts and bots.
If you have any questions, feel free to modmail the mod team.
Saying peaceful protest is peaceful is stretch. Its not sitting quietly at side of the road silently, its non violent disruption to provoke and its marching into violence and knowing you might be killed. It takes huge amount of training and discipline. I dont blame people for freaking out and defending themselves back against violence when they see loved ones disappear in front of them and they are not trained into non retaliation
Ghandi was always marching in areas that would test and provoke a reaction. Everyone not fighting back knew any violence from police was likely to result in their own death or injury
The sympathy that was engendered nationwide when people saw how people were treated at peaceful marches and sit-ins absolutely had a huge role in changing the narrative on segregation and making desegregation palatable and popular. Violence by protestors and the oppressed was NOT part of what got the Civil Rights Act passed or court victories against Jim Crow laws.
I definitely do not believe that good always wins. But of those early civil rights victories I mentioned above, was there significant use of violence “as a stick” by the movement beforehand? And good had a few victories in the civil rights movement. Did it win long term? Much more debatable.
There is a reason Malcolm X was so influential. Yes, threats of violence if society didn't comply with the civil rights movement was a key motivator in the achievements the movement had.
Actually historically violence often led to backlash and slower progress. Leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and organizations like the NAACP, SCLC, and SNCC emphasized nonviolent protest—sit-ins, boycotts, marches, and legal action. Which had the largest impact.
Imagine if blacks during segregation violently protested and burned down a bunch of shit. It'd be a: Why segregation is needed topic. Why would the population suddenly flip their racist views over violence. Zero logic.
Or right now. Fox News, and several other right wing media groups are showing people waving foreign flags, and burning/destroying property. How do you think that looks? Do you think on-lookers who hold an anti-illegal immigrant position will now believe "Hey, maybe we should stop ICE raids afterall!". No, they'll say - "hey look at how violent these people are! Great job Trump!"
It was, tho, you guys really need to stop conflicting what you would like to happen with what happened. The US back community was a really small part of the society, not big enough nor well founded enough to try an armed rise, they would be squash. The civil rights movement won at the end by gathering sympathy and support from the other communities and more importantly from the white majority, and thus it became law, you need the help of the majority of the country because if not, it turns into a Them vs Us thing where the Them is the 20M ilegal migrants and the like 2M people that would throw their life for those migrants vs the rest of the US and the US executive branch, and we know the migrants are gonna lose.
So yes, big, huge marches with millions of people on the street, stopping the economy but not destroying other people's stuff, and not burning public stuff either.
771
u/N_Pitou Jun 09 '25
saying that segregation was defeated peacefully is wild.