This isn’t at all the gotcha this person thinks it is.
Martin Luther King Jr. called for nonviolent resistance. The people resisted nonviolently, including Bernie Sanders. The media lied and called them violent, but MLK Jr. continued to call for nonviolent resistance in the face of that, and it worked.
Here, Bernie Sanders is doing the exact same thing. He’s not suggesting that the protestors are violent any more than Dr. King was, as satirized by the propaganda cartoon. He’s just doing the exact same thing - call for nonviolent resistance. No more, no less.
I know nuance is dead, but it is just insane to think this is a “gotcha.” This person is the one “leaning into the hysteria” by assuming a call for action by itself is actually a condemnation of the protests.
See if you can spot the difference between Bernie’s statement and MLK’s:
Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. … But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again.
I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to criticize Bernie for leaving that second part unsaid. Not to mention the point Hasan was making, which was picking this moment to talk about nonviolence - at a time when Trump is preemptively painting the protests as violent and insurrectionist - affirms Trump’s framing and justifies police escalation.
I’m with Hasan here, this was tone-deaf of Bernie, if not completely hypocritical.
Bonus MLK quote:
These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.
MLK Jr.'s speech on riots being the voice of the unheard was powerful, and stabbed at the heart of a complex issue.
But a year before that speech, here’s what he had to say about the Watts riots:
“What did Watts accomplish but the death of thirty-four Negroes and injury to thousands more? What did it profit the Negro to burn down the stores and factories in which he sought employment? The way of riots is not a way of progress, but a blind ally of death and destruction which wrecks its havoc hardest against the rioters themselves” (King, 12 March 1966).
Uhhh, yes, he did say that… While addressing black americans living in the slums of Chicago, pleading with them not to “strike out with revenge against white people for the many wrongs perpetrated against you and yours”.
I don’t really think there’s any comparison between the Watts riots and the nature of the LA protests, not even close.
I don’t really think there’s any comparison between the Watts riots and the nature of the LA protests
See if you can spot the difference between Bernie’s statement and MLK’s:
Let me say as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. … But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard.
MLK wasn’t discussing Watts in that quote, he was speaking very broadly about placing emphasis on the conditions that lead to riots instead of the riots themselves, and specifically on how much condemnation to place on them vs the conditions that lead to them.
In yours, he’s speaking directly to people who are living in a slum where violent retribution was a commonly understood feeling, and who had every reason to feel justified in lashing out in revenge. He specifically uses Watts as an example of an extreme expression of that revenge.
The LA protestors are not lashing out in revenge - I don’t think that quote, in the context in which it was given, applies to the protestors in LA. And I don’t think MLK’s thoughts on Watts in particular have any applicability to what’s happening in LA, but I do think it’s worthwhile for Sanders to take a lesson from MLK on where to place his condemnations.
Didn’t MLK also work because the Black Panthers were lurking in the background? Either the establishment dealt with MLK or they dealt with the Panthers.
He’s literally calling for discipline, not to stop protesting. A small minority of people were being violent. I think you’re looking for things to be upset about.
I think because there are calls for violent resistance too and even if it is non violent now he is reminding people to keep their chill in the future when things can get more heated
Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and Marines in California is not about protests. It is not about ICE. It is not about immigration. It’s about […] his effort to move this country toward Authoritarianism. […] Trump’s argument for deployment of the troops is absurd and laughable. Does anyone really believe that we are in the midst of a “foreign invasion” or a “rebellion” against the United States?
Bernie Sanders
It’s amazing how much time some people spend worrying about the exact wording used by the small handful of influential people who seem to agree with them on an issue.
From what I have read, it is a simple fact that a nonzero number of people in LA have been protesting violently (or call it rioting). It’s even possible, but certainly not proven, these are Proud Boy agitators.
His comment may be based on the possibility they were not. It’s still a bit demoralizing when you and your thousand-strong hold back from violence, and your leaders still rebuke you for one person’s action.
This isn’t at all the gotcha this person thinks it is.
Martin Luther King Jr. called for nonviolent resistance. The people resisted nonviolently, including Bernie Sanders. The media lied and called them violent, but MLK Jr. continued to call for nonviolent resistance in the face of that, and it worked.
Here, Bernie Sanders is doing the exact same thing. He’s not suggesting that the protestors are violent any more than Dr. King was, as satirized by the propaganda cartoon. He’s just doing the exact same thing - call for nonviolent resistance. No more, no less.
I know nuance is dead, but it is just insane to think this is a “gotcha.” This person is the one “leaning into the hysteria” by assuming a call for action by itself is actually a condemnation of the protests.
See if you can spot the difference between Bernie’s statement and MLK’s:
I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to criticize Bernie for leaving that second part unsaid. Not to mention the point Hasan was making, which was picking this moment to talk about nonviolence - at a time when Trump is preemptively painting the protests as violent and insurrectionist - affirms Trump’s framing and justifies police escalation.
I’m with Hasan here, this was tone-deaf of Bernie, if not completely hypocritical.
Bonus MLK quote:
MLK Jr.'s speech on riots being the voice of the unheard was powerful, and stabbed at the heart of a complex issue.
But a year before that speech, here’s what he had to say about the Watts riots:
Uhhh, yes, he did say that… While addressing black americans living in the slums of Chicago, pleading with them not to “strike out with revenge against white people for the many wrongs perpetrated against you and yours”.
I don’t really think there’s any comparison between the Watts riots and the nature of the LA protests, not even close.
I didn’t compare them. You did.
MLK wasn’t discussing Watts in that quote, he was speaking very broadly about placing emphasis on the conditions that lead to riots instead of the riots themselves, and specifically on how much condemnation to place on them vs the conditions that lead to them.
In yours, he’s speaking directly to people who are living in a slum where violent retribution was a commonly understood feeling, and who had every reason to feel justified in lashing out in revenge. He specifically uses Watts as an example of an extreme expression of that revenge.
The LA protestors are not lashing out in revenge - I don’t think that quote, in the context in which it was given, applies to the protestors in LA. And I don’t think MLK’s thoughts on Watts in particular have any applicability to what’s happening in LA, but I do think it’s worthwhile for Sanders to take a lesson from MLK on where to place his condemnations.
Didn’t MLK also work because the Black Panthers were lurking in the background? Either the establishment dealt with MLK or they dealt with the Panthers.
They actually dealt with both unfortunately
Nuance was never alive.
No, Bernie is implying that the protesters are currently protesting violently.
He’s literally calling for discipline, not to stop protesting. A small minority of people were being violent. I think you’re looking for things to be upset about.
No he is implying that the protests are violent and amplifying a false narratieve.
I don’t read it that way
So why is he calling for non violence at non violent protests?
To remind people to not be violent when they protest.
And because the government is trying to provoke them into violence. It’s the hardest thing in the world to resist the urge to respond in kind.
Is he saying they are currently not violent?
He’s not saying anything about the current situation, he is just reminding people to pursue a non-violent strategy in the face of violent oppression.
YOU have a bias that you want to confirm, and nobody is going along with your propaganda.
Is he saying they currently are violent?
You’re so happy to imply one side but not imply the other. That’s a you problem.
I think because there are calls for violent resistance too and even if it is non violent now he is reminding people to keep their chill in the future when things can get more heated
It’s amazing how much time some people spend worrying about the exact wording used by the small handful of influential people who seem to agree with them on an issue.
That statement could be written by any generic person with D in front of their name.
Then why isn’t it being written by generic Democrats?
It is.
From what I have read, it is a simple fact that a nonzero number of people in LA have been protesting violently (or call it rioting). It’s even possible, but certainly not proven, these are Proud Boy agitators.
His comment may be based on the possibility they were not. It’s still a bit demoralizing when you and your thousand-strong hold back from violence, and your leaders still rebuke you for one person’s action.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod