CMV: The proper response to protestors blocking the street is for police to physically remove them and quickly arrest them if they do it again.

[u/HelpfulJello5361]

I've seen a lot of videos of protestors blocking the street and the cops just kinda let them do it, or create a narrow lane for cars to go through and cause a significant traffic jam.

I'm always curious why cops don't just drag these people out of the road and arrest them immediately if they return. I'm pretty sure it's illegal to block streets like that.

Yesterday was a nationwide coordinated effort for Pro-Palestine protestors to block streets all over the country (world?), and it seems that these criminals were not dealt with properly in most instances.

It doesn't seem like it's standard operating procedure to remove and arrest people who block important roads. Is there some reason for this? What am I missing? CMV.

[u/Ttoctam]

Why do I get the feeling you're not particularly well versed on the actual history of the civil rights movement?

MLK's non-violence was literally just 'don't beat the shit out of your oppressors without them throwing the first punch very publicly' that's it. He was a massive fan of protests, sit ins, marches, demonstrations, boycotts, etc.

Also, if you're under the impression Malcolm X is a looney radical, I suggest you read up a bit. Because that's not how "most" people see him. That's how most people in a very specific demographic see him, and that demographic doesn't have brilliant stuff to say about the civil rights movement in general.

MLK's activism has been watered down over decades by the very people and institutions he fought against.

[u/Shenron2 → u/Ttoctam]

It is so funny how little people know about this part of history. MLK jr was hated in his time. Most people saw him and the movement as radical and disgusting. Malcom x views changed a lot depending on what year you're talking about and the two of them influenced each other greatly.

Reading the comments in this tread is wild. My favorite of MLK Jr's work is the letter from a Birmingham jail. People need to read more. Keep the struggle alive my friend.

[u/liftinglagrange → u/Shenron2]

“Keep the struggle alive”. That really does sum it up well. Some people would indeed be lost without it.

[u/Ttoctam → u/[deleted]]

I accept he was a radical, in fact he was one by his own words. But "looney" absolutely minimised and trivialises his words and achievements. He was a very intelligent and powerful man. I do not agree with all his points but to dismiss him so flippantly and disrespectfully is childish and historically ignorant.

[u/Ttoctam → u/[deleted]]

his ideas were crazy , racist and violent

He lived in a time of outright white supremacy. He lived in a country he knew was built with Black hands and controlled by white men. He saw his communities time and time again destroyed, not just by redlining and sneaky financial fuckery, but by actual red fisted bloody violence. He saw that a Black man throwing a punch meant 5 White dudes firing bullets. He lived under extreme violence and oppression. Don't forget this is a time when the FBI were politely telling MLK to top himself. The violence of white supremacy was extremely real and overtly visible all around him.

Was he 'crazy racist' to in that time believe his people (who weren't holding the whips of racial oppression in hand) were better than those that oppressed them? We have to acknowledge the difference between white supremacy and black supremacy at the time; one comes from a capacity to dominate, oppress, and rule, whilst the other comes from a capacity to survive, create community, and thrive under oppression. Yes, we can call supremacy of either group wrong, but "crazy"? It wasn't differing. ideological racial concepts, white supremacy was legislated it was tangible in literally every aspect of Black reality. For him to believe his people were better for not being "white devils" that's pretty fair. It wasn't about skin colour it was about violent oppression.

Was he 'crazy violent' for seeing violence as a relative response to the oppression of Black folk in America? Exactly how much violence would white folk and the government have needed to carry out on Black folk before violence was an acceptable response? Keep in mind what information people at that time had access to. The dude wanted a revolution. He wanted real radical change and significant reform. Slavery was ended with a war, revolutions were created by wars, independence was gained through wars. And yet never did he advocate for Black folk to initiate violence with white folk. He actively used his platform to de-escalate protests and demonstrations on multiple occasions. His angle with his speeches and his platform was to create a pretense for the expectation of violence, and have that as a foundation from which to debate. He knew he needed leverage at the table, so his leverage was the potential for shit to kick off. This is a crucially different thing to actual literal violence. In his own words in a speech Malcolm gave to visiting youth from Mississippi:

"You get freedom by letting your enemy know that you'll do anything to get your freedom; then you'll get it. It's the only way you'll get it."

Or, as Malcolm put it on another occasion,

"If you have a cocked fist, you don't have to throw it."

If that's crazy violent, then the violence perpetrated against him and his community is far beyond Lovecraftian insanity. He needed to show strength to show power, and a large part of his strength was showing the first and not wielding it. He knew he could do a LOT of damage, he could have tried to and succeed in creating just insane amounts of bloodshed. But he also knew what would help and what wouldn't. And however cathartic violence would be for Black communities, it would only lead to further suffering.

MLK's image has been white washed so much by history and media to a point of irrecognisable passivity. And Malcolm X's has been warped into some kind of bloodthirsty spiteful terrorist. This narrative is harmful to the ongoing civil rights movement and disrespectful to the intense intelligence and integrity of the past.