Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Physically, no. Economically, he absolutely did. Just ask the lunch counter owners and the Birmingham bus drivers. The whole point of his civil rights movement was to use economic pressure to solve the problem. You could use the term "economic violence" and wouldn't be far off the mark.
|
Economic violence? I'm kinda surprised at this sentiment. He caused a negative economic effect, of course, but to suggest that this was in any way something that can be called "violence" seems so totally incorrect that I've actually had to look up the word violence because I feel like I've lost my grip on language for a minute.
To make something clear, as one who has committed non-violent protest: when we, the protester, use the word "non-violent", we specifically are speaking of physical harm. When GreenPeace uses the word "non-violent" to qualify their protesting, they are specifically speaking to their not wanting to physically hurt anyone. We're not saying we're not going to inconvenience people. As a matter of fact, that's often the idea.
As for Martin Luther King Jr., inconveniencing some racists was the best thing he could have done and helped to change not only the transportation system, but actually brought about a real change in society. Had that bus company wanted profit, they could have caved before the planned boycott. Had the restaurant owners not wanted to take a hit, they could have allowed black americans to use decent restroom facilities, drinking fountains, and to sit where they please. It was up to them to figure out which side would be less profitable. If they had a lot more white customers, and were racist, they could have ignored the boycott. If, however, you realize your consumer base is black, then you plan accordingly. Instead, they stuck to their racist guns and took a hit. That's the free market.