MLK didn’t; Malcom X did. MLK’s underlying message was ‘acknowledge my peaceful protest, or you get stuck with his less peaceful protest’. Peaceful protesting alone tends to get you a whole lot of nothing.

Edit: of course, most history classes seem to forget Malcom X even existed, because the ‘just peacefully protest over in that corner and don’t bother us, it will totally make us change our ways’ narrative is much more desirable for certain demographics.

[–] EfreetSK@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I fundamentally disagree

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Good for you. History disagrees with your disagreeing.

Look up Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and the Battle of Blair Mountain sometime. Pretty much every victory oppressed groups have won has had to draw blood in order to win the day.

[–] Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

If I may hijack this discussion, I find that quite interesting what you are saying! I'm currently see myself getting more radicalised by the weak reaction of our (German) Government towards the rising fascists.

Pretty much every victory oppressed groups have won has had to draw blood in order to win the day.

Where and how do you Differentiate between legit violent Protest and Terrorism? Is ist just the agreement with the one side but not the other?

Because, If I may go there, even Hitler claimed that Germans were being oppressed in Poland and Czechoslovakia.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

The pairing of the open palm and the raised fist often is very successful. The violent side creates the conditions for victory and the nonviolent side creates the conditions for peace. Without the threat of violence no pressure is applied, but without the peaceful people the oppressors have nobody they’re willing to settle with.

The labor wars ended with afl-cio dominance for a reason.