Ted Rall was quoted as saying:
> Peaceful protests are doomed to be ignored. Only a dose of
> destruction leads to real social change.
And then went on to unjustly diss Gandhi and King. I've heard that "nonviolent" is a bad translation of Gandhi's idea, but "peaceful" is completely wrong. The man did nothing but search out trouble and provoke the police to violence. That was his method. His twist was that by not striking back, his people made the police look awful. It left no ambiguity that the force used was unjust, and therefore so must be the order it was upholding. For him the point of violent protest (as opposed to war, which he would have lost) was in every sense to de-moralize the oppressors, and to make the populace that supported them disgusted with them and willing to give in to stop it. And never to stop coming until all the demands were met. And even his not striking back had its militant side. He maintained that being willing to die was braver than being willing to kill, and being willing to be hit was braver than being willing to hit. And provoking violence by peacefully breaking the law en masse and then waiting for the blow -- which had to come eventually, since en masse peaceful violation de facto nullifies a law -- took more courage than striking out, and was more effective. One can disagree, of course. It may not be the perfect strategy in all cases. But to call these guys peaceful avoiders of violence is an insult. They did nothing but provoke violence and face the music. And they both brought about change.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com