Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy

Debating with the enemy Discuss politics, current events, and other hot button issues here.


'Occupy' types

Debating with the enemy


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-23-2011, 01:13 PM   #1
JoeRedskin
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 63
Posts: 10,401
Re: 'Occupy' types

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
There are many types of revolutions and the Civil Rights Movement is but one type of a revolution....and although the movement considered a non-violent revolution it wasn't short on bloodshed.

As for a peaceful revolution not being attainable in Egypt I think it is important keep in mind that this is a revolution where the people are trying to transfer state power from those who held it before to a new ruling coalition. You would be hard pressed to find revolutions such as the one in Egypt that is peaceful.
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.
__________________
Strap it up, hold onto the ball, and let’s go.

Last edited by JoeRedskin; 11-23-2011 at 04:04 PM.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 11-24-2011, 07:46 AM   #2
Gary84Clark
Registered User
 
Gary84Clark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,035
Re: 'Occupy' types

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
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.
Gary84Clark is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 1.82290 seconds with 11 queries