General Discussion

...as in all large protest movements, there's the potential for pent up anger and resulting violence, and I grew up in the middle of some of that in 1968 in D.C. with entire of blocks nearby burned to the ground with most of the small Jewish-run stores that the community used.

Jesse Jackson organized his Project Breadbasket with Marion Barry, I believe, along with local grocery stores in the wake of the unrest after the assasination of Martin.

Anyway, I think most folks know that MLK's peaceful demonstrations, and his work with others like Abernathy in the WH in successive administrations, was the actual vehicle for change.

But the impetus to destructive acts was mostly organic, born out of the distressed condition of many of the people protesting.

I think there's been a lot of effort invested by the Trump cabal in representing those expressions of frustration as a organized strategy, when I believe it was mostly just an adjunct to the entire push for liberty and rights in the face of often violent pushback from entire communities, in concert with the governments that enabled those attacks of individuals and communities of color by allowing them to occur with impunity.

Of course, Bayard was just organizing marches and demonstrations, not lynchings. But that dynamic of his calls for direct, impactful action cast by some against MLK's decidedly more subdued gatherings provided room for demagogues to imply that he was in favor of hurting someone or damaging something or the other, much like the direct resistance in the streets is being portrayed today.

I got a feel of that natural urge to directly resist as I watched the young folk come into the streets with disregard for their own safety to measure their individual ability to direct their own government.

What a misdirected wealth of energy that we can use to organize progressive change in our elections. I do think the extremes that some feel compelled go to in their resistance are far from something governors or leaders can counsel well against, though.

Most people aren't in the streets, just a comparative handful to the population, certainly the press and observers outnumbering the young folks who are agitated and are foolishly dancing around within reach of the armed agents.

They're caught up in a very human reaction to bondage, these young ones having just experienced government lockdowns that possibly stifled their development at perhaps pivotal moments in their lives. They'll need to work through that, and we'll all need to take that inevitability into consideration. The government certainly won't do themselves any favors trying to stop it with more military repression. History tells us that.

And when we do see a revolt and a sizable number again take to the streets, the call for that resistance (like Gov. Walz and the mayor of Minnesota made) won't be anymore of an impetus to violence than the government is already fomenting and provoking. Simply put, in that instance, we may be the only ones coming to our defense against them.


*just thinking out loud, not anything negatively directed to you personally, or antagonistic to the considered advice you shared.