I’m still waiting to hear how ostracizing, firing, expelling, or beating up people we disagree with while wearing black masks is going to make us a better country.
People who commit crimes should be arrested, tried, and punished. People with whom we disagree should be tolerated. I can see how that will make us a better country.
It was unfortunately common for Patriot mobs to drag Loyalists out of their homes; and disposses, torture and even kill them, triggering King George III’s decision to dispatch an army to end the violence.
Could one argue something good for our country came from it? Maybe.
Would we have been a better country if they hadn’t? Probably.
Violence should be a last resort, only applied in self-defense, under a just authority, and with due process. Not a political strategy.
Ben, presenting the Timothy McVeigh case for civil disobedience.
Is his account of history supported? Or is he drawing connections between events where there was no actual connection? My understanding is that the siege of Boston triggered the king’s decision to send an army and the siege of Boston was the colonials’ response to the British army’s confiscation of militia ordnance in Concord.
Preparations for military action were underway nearly a year before the siege of Boston. And both of you miss the point.
If you mean Antifa, their attitude is that tactics are justified because their cause, whatever that is, is righteous.
Their complaint is easy enough to get, injustice is everywhere, big corporations and government in cahoots to deprive the rest of us as they lavish wealth on themselves. (See Paul Manafort).
What doesn’t add up is their tactics have no strategy that I can see.
Seems to me though, that in a plutocracy you can have this kind of wealth disparity, in a dictatorship you can suppress dissent with force.
But in a Democracy, people will vote for change, and if we don’t do something about wealth disparity, (I have no clue what), we are going to end up with a Socialist government not too far down the road.
The end does not justify the means. Every monster in the world has justified his actions. Jefferson got it better:
As to this:
a good start would be to stop subsidizing the rich.
How do we do that, stop subsidising the rich, without political power.
All I have is one vote and the small power of my purse.
“And both of you miss the point.”
I think I’ve missed the point as well then.
In my experience, politically-motivated violence is sometimes understandable in some cases, but still not justifiable except under the conditions Dave mentioned.
In my previous career, I saw and studied a lot of it and rarely does it end well.
1) Justifiable violence is a contrivance. It is never just for one to be harmed or murdered by another.
2) The United States has, and has had since before its birth, a culture of political violence. If someone thinks it is rather an abberation, they aren’t living in the same country.
3) Major change in U.S. history usually has its genesis in violence.
4) Yesterday I quoted a group of girls working in factories in 1840’s America. Did it sound like the speech of people with faith that due process will grind toward just outcomes? That is America. It is not this veneer of polite gentility some have constructed in their heads.
Not entirely. I think that Augustine got it nearly right.
Just because something has happened in the past is evidence but it is not dispositive.
Consider the title of this post. Does more political violence create a better country? Or just produce a new set of injustices?
From my POV groups like this don’t accomplish much since they are small and have no real influence. Nobody really likes them. They make useful TV fodder giving the talkers someone to hate, and that is about it. If they were all caught and sent to jail we would be better off.
I do wonder why there is so much emphasis given to this group. They don’t actually do that much.
Steve
So were Hitler’s brown shirts, to which they bear more than a passing resemblance, in 1921. By 1933 they had increased to several million.
No one really knows how many of them there are but they do seem to outnumber the neo-Nazis they claim to oppose.
Does political violence create both in equal or unequal proportion? That would be my guess, which is why I referenced what amounted to terrorist gangs in the colonies waging a private war against Loyalists. Had they not done so there’s a chance the revolution either wouldn’t have happened or wouldn’t have turned out the same way.
And whether the results were net negative or positive would depend upon one’s perspective. For American Indians I would imagine not.
The only difference between the antifa & the KKK is their target and color of their “costume” – the antifa donning black masks and the KKK white hoods. Otherwise, they are both violent & extremists
“The only difference between the antifa & the KKK is their target and color of their “costume†”
Actually, no. The KKK lynched dozens of people and killed many more. Anita throws eggs, for the most part. Look at the police and hospital reports. Not much to see.
Steve
https://www.vox.com/2017/8/25/16189064/antifa-charlottesville-dc-unite-the-right-mark-bray
“So were Hitler’s brown shirts, to which they bear more than a passing resemblance, in 1921. ”
To which they bear almost no resemblance. The brown shirts wanted to run the country. The antifa have been around for about 50 years and go away when they don’t perceive a threat. Read the interview, or the book. The brown shirts were tossing people in ovens 20 years after they formed. The antifa? 50 years going and no mass murders. They are really, AFAICT, mostly anarchists.
Steve
The colonists were violent, which was understood by Parliament, which was dismissive of various mob actions against stamp collectors. Nothing good comes from packs of drunk young men after midnight.
The genesis of the American Revolution though was in the concerted nonviolent act of civil disobedience that was the Boston Tea Party. Parliament’s fatal error was in treating it as an act of violence of a marginalizable group of hooligans, whose punishment would be instructive to the rest of the subjects. That the other colonies were already engaged in nonviolent action against the Tea Tax confounded their efforts.
Steve, I stand by the similarity of behavioral malevalance between the Antifa and KKK. If Antifa could get away with more vicious acts, like killing those they disagree with, I believe they would do so. Both groups share a heightened disdain and intolerance for those they see as different from themselves – whether it be physical or ideological
differences. Consequently, I feel the same unease & distaste for both ends of the spectrum – white supremists as well as the black garbed Antifa.
Trying to pretend that antifa equals the SA or the KKK requires that you believe that there are sympathizers within the actual police and authority for anarchism. The Klan and the Nazis took power because their views reflected those of the establishment. The delusion of the right and law and order types is that Nancy Pelosi has something in common with a crusty 20-year old punk who likes to fight. You’re basically in QAnon territory here…
“If Antifa could get away with more vicious acts, like killing those they disagree with, I believe they would do so.”
A willingness to judge by people by what you believe about them, rather than their actions, is another thing that is wrong with our country. (Ok, really, this is pretty common everywhere.) The Antifa have been around of longer than the brownshirts existed. If there were going to follow that path they are long overdue.
Steve