Joan wrote a post about Martin Luther King. I made this comment, preserved here:
One of the things that is routinely ignored in the civil rights struggle is the role of the Deacons for Defense and Justice, and other armed defenders.
Nonviolence works only under ideal conditions--primarily against a civilized, mostly nonviolent opponent. It worked against the governments of the US, and the colonial government of India, but would be useless against a more repressive regime or against violent enemies like the KKK.
The notion that defense will only escalate the violence is not supported by the facts. The KKK was fond of drive-by shootings--until they started taking return fire. At that point, the KKK decided that maybe drive-by shootings weren't a good idea.
It is immoral to use violence to achieve political goals. However, it is also immoral to stand by and allow innocents to be harmed when you have the means to effectively resist--I would much rather see the instigator of a drive by killed than their intended victim injured.
It is also immoral to take the means to resist away from decent people.Her response:
Whoa there, Sevesteen. Are you sure you want these comments committed to writing? They seem pretty anti-government and leading to what?? " The notion that defense will only escalate the violence is not supported by the facts. The KKK was fond of drive-by shootings--until they started taking return fire. At that point, the KKK decided that maybe drive-by shootings weren't a good idea. " I don't think that is why the KKK stopped shooting people. Where is your evidence for such a statement? I wouldn't bring the KKK into a discussion about Martin Luther King- totally inappropriate and possibly incendiary. Please do not reply. You simply cannot justify what you said to having guns for self defense. Be careful what you are saying....and my response to that
Maybe I was not as clear as I should have been, but even re-reading my comment I think you've had to try hard to come up with an anti-governemnt interpretation. I am not advocating violence against the government, or even instigating violence against a group as awful as the KKK. It would be immoral to go hunt down the KKK, to instigate violence against them.
However it is NOT immoral to shoot back at someone in a KKK costume who is shooting at you, your family or your neighbors. There is a vast difference between immoral terrorist violence as practiced by the KKK, and proper, moral defensive violence.
If I am unwelcome here, I will abide by that, but to misconstrue my comment and then to say I'm not welcome to clarify? Of course it is up to you whether you allow this post.
Unless you specifically say that you want me to continue, this will be the last comment I post on your blog. I am saying this to keep me honest, and I will be posting a copy of this on my blog, whether or not you approve this post.I don't mean for this to be 'she hurt my feelings, so I'm going home'. Rather, if I'm both unwelcome and she's unable to comprehend, there's little point in continuing to waste time posting there--and unless I publicly say 'I won't be posting', I'll be too tempted.