General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If you're not able or are unwilling to protest in the streets, please do the actual protestors a favor [View all]still-prayin4rain
(402 posts)I think the original post is calling for people on one side of the debate of the most effective strategy to be quiet. Isn't looking to history and debating about the most effective way to organize a good thing? I understand people advocating for both sides of the debate, but I do not understand posts telling people not to debate.
I get your point, a more forceful showing did have a measurable impact. Fine, so let's look to history and let's make a thoughtful choice. Both movements had an impact. Could MLK's movement have made more progress more quickly without the other influence? Or not? How do we know this?
I am not a historian and was not alive back then, but I think that is what the poster you replied to is getting at. Let's listen to the historians and the people who were there and let's be smarter. Yes, we all know two camps typically emerge in these situations -- with the benefit of hindsight, is the duel, pacifist plus non-pacifist, way the most effective way to continue forward?
With the lives of our immigrant friends on the line, I think we owe a thoughtful strategy -- and I don't see how a thoughtful strategy emerges without debate and communication.
Edit history
Recommendations
2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):