ratchedness as praxis.
Nonviolence declares that the American Indians could have fought off Columbus, George Washington, and all the other genocidal butchers with sit-ins; that Crazy Horse, by using violent resistance, became part of the cycle of violence, and “as bad as” Custer. Nonviolence declares that Africans could have stopped the slave trade with hunger strikes and petitions, and that those who mutinied were as bad as their captors; that mutiny, a form of violence, led to more violence, and thus, resistance led to more enslavement. Nonviolence refuses to recognize that it can only work for privileged people, who have a status protected by violence, as the perpetrators and beneficiaries of a violent hierarchy.
-Peter Gelderloos, Why Nonviolence Protects the State- Nonviolence is Racist (via rosadefuego)
Very good point- while I’m honestly too terrified and easily upset to even civilly disobey at this point (I’m working on it), and really don’t plan on ever using violent tactics, I have the privilege to do so and am really in no place to demonize those who choose otherwise for their own, equally valid (if not more so) reasons.
word, and this isn’t to say that you HAVE to use violence. I believe that there are certain people we are perfect, down and ready to utilize it as a tactic. I just personally think that if people decide to use it, to support them and not denounce them like so many pacifistic folks do. A diversity of tactics is important to any movement and so if you yourself can not participate in violent/militant tactics, find ways in which you can nonviolently support those whom are using those tactics. It’s by supporting the range of tactics being used that we can build a strong momentum and get some real change going and not just reform or crumbs from cookies being passed down to pacify the masses.