Page 1 of 2
#1
Its an issue that has been bothering me for a while and I really began thinking about it with this whole "occupy" thing.

Through out history, violance has been the only way to get things to change. People create a revolution, over throw their oppressors, and try to make things better. We live in a world today where people, in the western world, want change but have done absolutely nothing to change anything. Some movements in the sixties were successfull only because people were peaceful only until violance was needed, most noteable in the American civil rights movement after Martin Luther King was killed, riots broke out across the country. This can also be seen in events through out history, that I will stay out of to save you the wall of text.

All of this occupy *insert city name* is seen as inaffective and silly, because the people whom the poretestors are portesting are not affraid. Would the occupy not be more affective if they were an actual threat?

What are you thoughts?
Quote by celticstorm84
endless supply of cats = endless supply of food.


Quote by Calibos
I've also noticed that as i've got older, I want to be further and further away from the front at a gig. Damn kids with their mushy pits and walls of doom.
#4
Sunn O))):
Quote by Doppelgänger
You could always just sleep beside your refrigerator.

Guitar:
- Ibanez S670FM w/ JB
- Fender 'Lite Ash' Stratocaster
- Fender '72 Deluxe Telecaster
- Arbiter LP Jr. Doublecut
Amp:
- Laney VC15

'72 Tele Appreciation Group
RIP DIO
#6
Peaceful protest can certainly cause change. It just depends entirely on the situation. The occupy protests will yield nothing of substantial worth, for example.
#8
It depends what you're protesting, and how.

Standing around with placards and ****ing cardboard expressions on their faces, all monotoning the same chant over and over and over to the equally blank concrete floor achieves nothing except to piss the law enforcers off so they pepper spray you and kick pregnant women.

But burning buildings, smashing windows, assaulting people and throwing fire extinguishers off roofs to protest things costing more money...achieves even less.
#9
Well, Gandhi was only successful because the British were terrified of it spilling into civil disorder. I mean, they only properly left when India started tearing itself apart, so no, I think unless there is the reasonable expectation of a threat of force of some sort, I don't think peaceful protests can really effect any meaningful change.
#11
MLK only gets his way when Malcolm X is waiting in the wings in case he doesn't.
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#12
Quote by captaincrunk
Civil disobedience ought to be be unnecessary in a democracy. Just saying.



What is this democracy you speak of?
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.


Quote by MiKe Hendryckz
theory states 1+1=2 sometimes in music 1+1=3.
#13
You're missing the point of the Occupy movement. Nobody thinks 'if we peacefully occupy public spaces, the ruling class of financiers and politicians will change their minds' (and if they do, they're terribly naive) - what Occupy has tried to do is to create spaces in which the problems with our society can be discussed, and solutions found. They're not expecting the bankers to roll over and play nice; the only way that society can truly be changed for the better is by what most of the media and politicians would call political violence - and that's not something that we should shy away from - strikes aimed at the profits of the rich, occupations of workplaces, mass demonstrations and civil disobedience.
Quote by ErikLensherr
MLK only gets his way when Malcolm X is waiting in the wings in case he doesn't.

Damn straight. Gandhi also succeeded largely because others were willing to take action which was 'politically violent', aimed at their oppressive rulers.
Last edited by Kumanji at Nov 24, 2011,
#17
Quote by ErikLensherr
MLK only gets his way when Malcolm X is waiting in the wings in case he doesn't.

This.
#19
Directly? No.

Indirectly? Yes.
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#22
Quote by devourke


http://adaniel.tripod.com/figures.htm

Quote by BLLLAT
"But not all Indians admired Gandhi and his ideas of non-violent struggle. There were many who used violence and terrorism to fight for independence. These terrorism acts were of two kinds. There were general terrorist acts against British government interests, like blowing bridges, buildings or railway tracks.

Subhas Chandra Bose won the Congress leadership in 1939. He was very militant in his ideas, but he did not get Gandhi's support for him and therefore he resigned from the Congress leadership. In 1943 he arrived in Japan and with Japanese help established in Singapore 'Free India' government and the Indian National Army whose soldiers were Indians. During the Second World War this army penetrated east India and attacked British posts. Many in India respected Bose and they called him 'Netaji' meaning honored leader.

Another leader who had a lot of respect in India was Vinayek Savarkar. His stronghold was in Maharashtra. In some of its regions Savarkar had more followers than any other Indian leader. Savarkar was a Hindu nationalist and leader of the Hindu Mahasabha. He supported violent acts against the British. Many of his supporters claim that the main reason the British left India wasn't the struggle organized by the Indian National Congress but the violent terrorist acts organized by people like Savarkar. He was called by his followers

'Swatantraveer(independence hero) Savarkar'. His followers also claim that for his role in India's freedom struggle he has not been honored and given the due respect because of his anti-Gandhi slogans and because the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi was his close associate."


And then there's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_P._Newton


FACT. Non-violent protestors are given more credit in revolutions than the ones that actually take initiative, because the ****ing man wants it that way. Now quit being pussyfists and start tearing shit up.
.
#23
It normally provokes the authorities to violence and makes them look like right cunts.
#24
Quote by Thrashtastic15
Peaceful protest can certainly cause change. It just depends entirely on the situation. The occupy protests will yield nothing of substantial worth, for example.


Agreed
#27
Peacefully protesting and going to war both result in getting shot, if that's what you're asking?
#28
Quote by WaterGod
Violence just confirms what your oppressors think of you.

So?
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#29
Quote by Kumanji
I couldn't care less what my oppressors think of me.


If all white people thought that blacks were violent, and blacks went around killing white people. That would just confirm that blacks are violent and need to be seperated. But when you see images instead of whites beating up blacks who just sit there and do nothing, then whites are actually the ones who look violent.
#31
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
So the most effective way of protesting is to get beat up so people feel sorry for you?

I didn't see who said it was the most effective way of protesting but it's surely the best way to not go against your own morals to prove a point.
#32
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
So the most effective way of protesting is to get beat up so people feel sorry for you?

When you see this clip you don't think "poor guy, getting beat up like that -- "You think "Those BASTARDS."
That sort of isn't about making people feel sorry for you, it's about exposing the brutality of your oppressors.
I think we took too many drugs when we were kids,
'cause now we like to make
Weird Music
-Wayne Coyne
#34
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers
So the most effective way of protesting is to get beat up so people feel sorry for you?


It's probably a combination of beating up and getting beat up. Sort of like a good cop/bad cop routine
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
#35
Quote by Cianyx
It's probably a combination of beating up and getting beat up. Sort of like a good cop/bad cop routine

How about our aim being 'winning' rather than 'getting beat up so people feel sorry for us'.
#36
Quote by Kumanji
How about our aim being 'winning' rather than 'getting beat up so people feel sorry for us'.

What are your thoughts on fighting for pride?
#38
Quote by Kumanji
I think we can take pride in our victories.

No I mean if some guy comes up to you and shoves you to the ground. Do you walk away or do you start a confrontation?
#39
Quote by devourke
No I mean if some guy comes up to you and shoves you to the ground. Do you walk away or do you start a confrontation?

I fail to see what this has to do with political protest.
#40
Quote by Kumanji
I fail to see what this has to do with political protest.

It has nothing to do with it. I was curious
Page 1 of 2