I can name several historic US riots which were not justified.
The Tulsa Massacre of 1921.
The series of riots occurring after the removal of confederate statues in the last decade.
When men marched with torches and firearms after the inauguration of Barack Obama.
During the BLM movement a white couple was charged with Arson of a restaurant as they were trying to delegitimize peaceful protests.
Meanwhile the most successful social movements were not accomplished with violence at all. Women suffrage, equal rights for protected classes, gay marriage, etc. Some movements had a mixture of peace and violence, such as rights to unionize, but far more effective than riots were the affected workers like miners and industrial manufacturers striking.
The LGBTQ movements go as far back as 1924 in the USA, and Illinois was the first state to legalize homosexuality in 1962.
Stonewall Riots was in 1969.
One could even argue that the real turning point for gay rights was: A) APA removal of Homosexuality from list of mental illnesses in 1973 and B) Reagan gutting federal funded and operated mental asylums which for completely unrelated reasons I think was a bad idea.
The first legalized Gay Marriage law was passed in Massachusetts in 2004 but still is not recognized federally until 2015.
Your claim was that the movements did not have violence at all, not that the violence featured in them didn’t accomplish anything. You’re moving the goalposts.
I suppose that’s a fair criticism, but you would be hard pressed to find any human activity which has always been completely 100% devoid of violence so it rather strongly implied that the [successful aspects of] the movements were devoid of riots or threats of violence.
There have been successful progressive movements that have achieved their goals through violence as well though. If you don’t limit the actions of progressives to the last century, the abolitionist movement and the civil war were incredibly violent and achieved their goals through that violence.
I hope so but I think it’s still too early to say history views it negatively. In at least a few years time I’m sure we’ll look back and agree that it was bad, but it’s a current political issue as of now.
I was referring more to the women’s sufferage movement in the USA, led by people such as Susan B. Anthony, when I made my comment.
The UK Suffragettes only turned to violence in 1912 after a decade of more peaceful tactics, the organization itself only forming after almost 40 years of unsuccessful campaigning from 1867 to 1903. As a result of the window shattering and firebombing campaigns many were imprisoned and started a hunger strike in which several died, leading the House of Lords to pass the Cat and Mouse Act of 1913 which sent them home to die there after they sufficiently starved themselves to help absolve the government of wrongdoing. The suffragettes didn’t see any results until 1918 when women over 30 and men over 21 were allowed to vote. Equality was only obtained in 1928.
Good on them for sticking it out to the end but the militant portion of their campaign was short lived and impotent.
I can name several historic US riots which were not justified.
The Tulsa Massacre of 1921.
The series of riots occurring after the removal of confederate statues in the last decade.
When men marched with torches and firearms after the inauguration of Barack Obama.
During the BLM movement a white couple was charged with Arson of a restaurant as they were trying to delegitimize peaceful protests.
Meanwhile the most successful social movements were not accomplished with violence at all. Women suffrage, equal rights for protected classes, gay marriage, etc. Some movements had a mixture of peace and violence, such as rights to unionize, but far more effective than riots were the affected workers like miners and industrial manufacturers striking.
Stonewall, the catalyst for LGBT rights, was a brick throwing riot, you could not be more wrong here.
The LGBTQ movements go as far back as 1924 in the USA, and Illinois was the first state to legalize homosexuality in 1962.
Stonewall Riots was in 1969.
One could even argue that the real turning point for gay rights was: A) APA removal of Homosexuality from list of mental illnesses in 1973 and B) Reagan gutting federal funded and operated mental asylums which for completely unrelated reasons I think was a bad idea.
The first legalized Gay Marriage law was passed in Massachusetts in 2004 but still is not recognized federally until 2015.
So stonewall accomplished fuck all, congrats
Your claim was that the movements did not have violence at all, not that the violence featured in them didn’t accomplish anything. You’re moving the goalposts.
I suppose that’s a fair criticism, but you would be hard pressed to find any human activity which has always been completely 100% devoid of violence so it rather strongly implied that the [successful aspects of] the movements were devoid of riots or threats of violence.
There have been successful progressive movements that have achieved their goals through violence as well though. If you don’t limit the actions of progressives to the last century, the abolitionist movement and the civil war were incredibly violent and achieved their goals through that violence.
It’s like a hammer. It can be used to build something great. Or it can bludgeon.
You think the sufragette movement was free from violence?
You think gay rights were achieved without violence?
Read a book!
IMO without Malcolm X and the Black Panthers I don’t think folks would have listened as much to MLK Jr. either.
On top of that…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign
This is so historically inaccurate I don’t even know where to begin with it.
I recieved historically innacurate replies and my response was to cite historical evidence and outcomes to set the record straight.
Problem is people can bullshit faster than I can tell the truth.
This is exactly what got us where we are. Well Said.
January 6th.
Yeah but low hanging fruit, half of Americans don’t even seem to believe it happened and some think it was justified.
It was secretly Antifa but also wholely justified but also the media is lying to you about it but also I was there and it was Based AF.
I imagine there’s a lot of overlap between how those who feel that about 1/6 feel about the riots you listed.
I hope so but I think it’s still too early to say history views it negatively. In at least a few years time I’m sure we’ll look back and agree that it was bad, but it’s a current political issue as of now.
The suffragettes were badass, they did firebombings and all that.
I was referring more to the women’s sufferage movement in the USA, led by people such as Susan B. Anthony, when I made my comment.
The UK Suffragettes only turned to violence in 1912 after a decade of more peaceful tactics, the organization itself only forming after almost 40 years of unsuccessful campaigning from 1867 to 1903. As a result of the window shattering and firebombing campaigns many were imprisoned and started a hunger strike in which several died, leading the House of Lords to pass the Cat and Mouse Act of 1913 which sent them home to die there after they sufficiently starved themselves to help absolve the government of wrongdoing. The suffragettes didn’t see any results until 1918 when women over 30 and men over 21 were allowed to vote. Equality was only obtained in 1928.
Good on them for sticking it out to the end but the militant portion of their campaign was short lived and impotent.