HI Annie. I’m not a subscriber but I have seen the quote frequently that “riots are the language of the unheard.” Of course, I (and probably every other advocate of non-violent resistance) agree that riots are most often the result of social injustices that have not been addressed. But there is a HUGE difference between saying riots (meaning here protests that turn violent against persons and property) are explicable and saying riots are justified as a valid tool for change. (For comparision, if someone has been long-abused and responds by abusing someone else, that response is explicable but not acceptable.) I find it unfortunate that some people this week are taking Dr. King’s fine point about riots being explicable and using it to negate his overarching philosophy of non-violent social transformation. As I said, I can’t read the article, but if it has a quote that shows King advocating that his own followers use violence and riots as valid tools, I will quit citing him as one of the great inspirations for nonviolent social change. Until then, I think we should keep “explaining riots” and “advocating/justifying riots” separate, and I find the current trend to conflate the two counterproductive.
If this is a duplicate, I apologize. I just saw the comment go on, and then pfffft.
Here’s a discussion of MLK’s “riots are the language of the unheard “
Love that ❤
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Rosaliene. Feel free to steal or share if you like 🙂 Gary
LikeLike
Well said
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Simon.
LikeLike
Here’s a discussion of MLK and “riots were the language of the unheard.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/01/what-would-martin-luther-king-jr-say-about-current-civil-unrest/?outputType=amp
LikeLiked by 1 person
HI Annie. I’m not a subscriber but I have seen the quote frequently that “riots are the language of the unheard.” Of course, I (and probably every other advocate of non-violent resistance) agree that riots are most often the result of social injustices that have not been addressed. But there is a HUGE difference between saying riots (meaning here protests that turn violent against persons and property) are explicable and saying riots are justified as a valid tool for change. (For comparision, if someone has been long-abused and responds by abusing someone else, that response is explicable but not acceptable.) I find it unfortunate that some people this week are taking Dr. King’s fine point about riots being explicable and using it to negate his overarching philosophy of non-violent social transformation. As I said, I can’t read the article, but if it has a quote that shows King advocating that his own followers use violence and riots as valid tools, I will quit citing him as one of the great inspirations for nonviolent social change. Until then, I think we should keep “explaining riots” and “advocating/justifying riots” separate, and I find the current trend to conflate the two counterproductive.
LikeLike
If this is a duplicate, I apologize. I just saw the comment go on, and then pfffft.
Here’s a discussion of MLK’s “riots are the language of the unheard “
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/01/what-would-martin-luther-king-jr-say-about-current-civil-unrest/?outputType=amp
LikeLiked by 1 person
So true!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, JT. I think so too 🙂
LikeLike
❤️🕊❤️
LikeLike
Grazie, Luisa!
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙏🌺
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree…peace is the way! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lovely
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. I wish I’d thought of it myself 🙂 But at least we can all be inspired by it. Saying it out loud is a great way to start the day!
LikeLike
A beautiful quote; I love how kind of doubles back on itself and leaves room for thought!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. In moments of doubt whether I’m on the right road, I find it quite clarifying.
LikeLiked by 1 person