And that implied violence always needs to be demonstrated at some point, or it's not seen as a credible threat. Changing the status quo is inherently disruptive - not changing the status quo has to be credibly seen as even more disruptive than the change being demanded.
The fault of being 'violent' is too often put on the people who resist; people are just never going to resort to a fatal armed struggle in any capacity unless they have been put to it under the immense suppression of the authority. And there is also a confusion of militarised opposition and ''violence'', the Portuguese conscripts rolled up to the capital and overthrew the fascist regime with tanks, artillery and guns, and yet it was one of the most exemplary peaceful revolutions in our time.
No, civil rights was passed by Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale twisting arms and showing fellow Democrats the data that they could sew up the Black vote for several generations and get an edge in urban electorates. MLK made it so that the population was fine with it. Malcolm X achieved fuck all.
That's not true. Most of the time they realise that the powerful often fear losing money more than they feel violence- one of the biggest problems with violent resistance is once you give in to it once, everyone sees that they can just start attacking and threatening you to get what they want.
Gandhi wasn't threatening violence, but he did threaten economic standstill. And if there was no profit, what was the point in British India in the first place?
110
u/TheCharalampos Jul 28 '26
All pacifist movements that achieved great results did have implied violence lending a large hand.