Nonviolent Protest and Resistance Privileged

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you have me not use John Lewis and the SNCC as a shining example?

I would prefer that people didn't shake the bones of the civil rights movement in order to shame people who are now rioting because of the failure of the american experiment to live up to the promise of that same movement.  

It's no more or less than the 21st century equivalent of telling blacks, for example..to be good house negroes if they want to be treated like a good house negro.  I understand that many people do not intentionally mean to come off that way, ofc.  

By all means, use John Lewis ( ) as an example...but don't use that example to denigrate, de-ligitimize, or demean another group using another means when the former means seems to have failed. It's not only sloppy thinking, it's the suggestion that the best means of resistance to oppression is to resist on the oppressors own terms, in accordance to and within the boundaries of the standards of behavior that the oppressors have determined for the oppressed. It's particularly vile, in that the majority block has a separate set of standards for their own "resisters" - who can invade federal property and fortify it with semi-automatic weapons and be lauded by that same group as heroes and freedom fighters, and leans as a cultural artifact upon violent resistance as a foundation of statehood.

Many of these rioters are just because rioters. Such as the black block, an international movement of anarchists who travel from protest to protest to wreak havock, thereby giving the whole protest and movement a bad name.

That's an international phenomenon of doing more harm than good and I don't really think these guys care.

We're not at the stage of having to pick up arms yet. We're far from it, as long as courts are still doing their work and the constitutions are upheld. I presented the example of protestors in the former soviet block. With the one exception of Rumania, which didn't even really belong to that block, they all were peaceful. There were just so many people taking the streets that the rulers no longer dared to response violently. Sure, they arrested some, picked them from the streets, but others took their place and the movements only grew in force and made the powerful fear for their own hide.

There's even a very little known example of that happening in the Third Reich. During the war, I believe around '42, a large group of women took the streets to protest their husbands being deported. This was an isolated incident, but the regime buckled. The men were released and never bothered again.

I'll ignore the block block bullshit, it's pointless.  

Here, today, people can peacefully protest -or- riot and the regime doesn't buckle, it doubles down.  The Nazis were more amenable to civil disobedience, in your example...than we have historically been or currently are to civil or violent disobedience.  Food for thought.