'Occupy' types

[Gary84Clark]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I agree on all points.

As to the Civil Rights Movement, it was often met with violence from authorities but, under MLK and others, I believe that the movement itself called for non-violent actions and that it was the leaders who called for non-violence who acheived the most lasting results. Given the violence used to oppose them, it is a testament to the likes of MLK and Medgar Evers that they did not resort to violence but worked to change the system from within and, I believe, accomplished a sea change in how the law operates. Had MLK and others called for violent response to the violence they were subjected to, I think we would have a very different - much worse - US today. Although some called for violence, I believe these groups were eventually marginalized and rendered ineffective by the more successful non-violent actions (legal actions, marches, sit-ins, etc.).

As to Egypt, I agree; it is a revolution of an entirely different animal than the OWS protests - that, in fact, was my point. In fact, the quoted Kennedy speech was given in 1962 to members of the Latin America diplomatic corp to encourage these countries to permit freedom of speech akin to that in America and to tolerate dissent where none was being tolerated. [ John F. Kennedy: Address on the first Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress. ] Again, I agree that the goals fo the Egyptian protests and actions like theirs, almost certainly demand "the blood of patriots and tyrants". Changing the political spectrum and the focus of political discussion in the US, however, may demand persistence, hard work and patience, it does not require that those seeking such change also seek the blood of their opponents.

I agree but one correction civil rights movement were met with violence from other civilians mostly. Anti-protesters who were never brought to justice in most instances.