From Martin Luther King (his speech at Stanford entitled "The Other America"):
Do you agree with MLK? Do you see a riot as the language of the unheard?
Do you agree with MLK? Do you see a riot as the language of the unheard?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"A riot is the language of the unheard"
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
A riot is the language of the violent.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
If people suffer injustice and they have no effective voice and are ignored.
They will eventually take direct action.
Deathbydefault
Apistevist Asexual Atheist
It's more a way of speaking used by the unheard, not at all a language.
What if most people think that what they say is utter rubbish and are ignoring them for good reason.
Rioters are violent youth usually. They need a kick up the arse.
I think that's what he was going for. It doesn't seem to me that he was saying that riots literally have vocabulary and syntax.
Many suffer injustice without rioting.
It's a choice...an unproductive one.
Is it more or less productive than continuing to suffer without standing up to it?
One can stand up to oppression without rioting.
Think of how effective demonstrations are when they're peaceful.
Riots result in a commercial no man's land...no supermarkets...no Starbucks...like what happened in Detroit.
Didn't you defend the use of the atomic bomb back in the day?
There are circunstances where rioting is less destructive than the alternatives. There is not always a better choice.
Remember the suffragists?
Men had the idea that women couldn't vote because they were too emotional.
So what did the suffragists do?
They chained themselves to fences and screamed and threw things.
Ergo, the men's biases were confirmed so they even more refused women's suffrage.
The women only got the vote later.
Men had the idea that women couldn't vote because they were too emotional.
So what did the suffragists do?
They chained themselves to fences and screamed and threw things.
Ergo, the men's biases were confirmed so they even more refused women's suffrage.
The women only got the vote later.
Which peaceful demonstrations have been successful?
There are many movements where the "peaceful" side of the movement worked within a context of violence: MLK had Malcolm X, Gandhi had Chandra Bos, etc.
Or Boston.
The effects of riots vary. And riots tend to happen when other avenues of protest aren't available, or have proven themselves ineffective.
But not against protesters or supermarkets.
If you're saying rioting is the best choice, then I say.....
Pbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbttttttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!
So you think that if women had waited patiently for men to give them the vote, they would have got it quicker than if they demanded it?
The riots against the Tzar Nicholas II of Russia seem to have been succesfull. As have those against Gadaffi. Then there is the French Revolution. And I seem to recall hearing of something that happened in Boston in 1773.
That will depend almost entirely on how willing to listen the target people are with and without those riots, won't it?
Did they riot though, or protest peacefully?
No, what I'm saying is that if they behaved responsibly and didn't confirm men's ideas that they were all too emotionally inept to vote then that would have been better. By confirming people's biases you only serve to shoot yourself in the foot.