This is absolutely a fascinating article, but what intrigues me specifically about it is how it treats the 'violence vs. non-violence' argument as something that needs to be *logically considered* rather than dismissed in favor of whatever the arguer finds more emotionally satisfying.
Nonviolence was a very large ask - you could be beaten, blinded even killed, and you were being asked to do nothing to the people doing it to you and to let them get away with it. It naturally resulted in a much smaller cadre of people willing to carry out the task of creating these images that demonstrated the righteousness of their cause.
But they understood that the Jim Crow government would always be able to bring down more violence on them than they could respond with in kind, and that the government said that their stated purpose of violent repression was to protect innocent white people from debased, beastlike Negros who would never, ever do something like calmly sit there and ask to be served food while jeering crowds poured ketchup on them.
Everyone having this discussion these days tends to fall into one of two camps; either "the idea of violence being involved in stopping fascism makes me uncomfortable, so we have to make sure that our methods are always nonviolent", or "the idea of doing violence to my enemies and justifying it as necessary to stop fascism makes me feel really good and proud and strong, so we should encourage violence at every juncture." No one is wrestling with the actual question at the level of strategic or even moral issues; just getting the good emotional kick out of either denouncing or justifying violence depending on which their drug of choice is.
You have made a great point that nonviolence is effective for logical reasons, but I disagree that no one is making that argument. I tune into the Thursday discussions with Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg of Indivisible on Thursdays whenever I can, and they make this argument clearly and often.
Thx for pointing this out, Ellen. I've seen their discussions and they are terrific.
Indivisible is one of the many organizations in the prodemocracy coalition who are speaking up and out and taking action. One thing the Bulwark could do is to provide a clearinghouse on their site with links to all of these organizations so we subscribers can support them - learn about what they're doing, share that in your networks, and, if you can afford it, donate.
You should check out Indivisible's 1 Million Rising campaign and trainings. I joined my local neighborhood Indivisible group and it's been fantastic. Here's a link to our neighborhood website, all done by concerned neighbors: https://www.pdxdistrict2neighbors.org/
This is absolutely a fascinating article, but what intrigues me specifically about it is how it treats the 'violence vs. non-violence' argument as something that needs to be *logically considered* rather than dismissed in favor of whatever the arguer finds more emotionally satisfying.
Nonviolence was a very large ask - you could be beaten, blinded even killed, and you were being asked to do nothing to the people doing it to you and to let them get away with it. It naturally resulted in a much smaller cadre of people willing to carry out the task of creating these images that demonstrated the righteousness of their cause.
But they understood that the Jim Crow government would always be able to bring down more violence on them than they could respond with in kind, and that the government said that their stated purpose of violent repression was to protect innocent white people from debased, beastlike Negros who would never, ever do something like calmly sit there and ask to be served food while jeering crowds poured ketchup on them.
Everyone having this discussion these days tends to fall into one of two camps; either "the idea of violence being involved in stopping fascism makes me uncomfortable, so we have to make sure that our methods are always nonviolent", or "the idea of doing violence to my enemies and justifying it as necessary to stop fascism makes me feel really good and proud and strong, so we should encourage violence at every juncture." No one is wrestling with the actual question at the level of strategic or even moral issues; just getting the good emotional kick out of either denouncing or justifying violence depending on which their drug of choice is.
You have made a great point that nonviolence is effective for logical reasons, but I disagree that no one is making that argument. I tune into the Thursday discussions with Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg of Indivisible on Thursdays whenever I can, and they make this argument clearly and often.
Thx for pointing this out, Ellen. I've seen their discussions and they are terrific.
Indivisible is one of the many organizations in the prodemocracy coalition who are speaking up and out and taking action. One thing the Bulwark could do is to provide a clearinghouse on their site with links to all of these organizations so we subscribers can support them - learn about what they're doing, share that in your networks, and, if you can afford it, donate.
Along with Indivisible, these include:
- Democracy Docket (https://www.democracydocket.com)
- Protect Democracy who has a toolkit for countering authoritarianism (https://protectdemocracy.org/work/the-faithful-fight/?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=faithful_fight_campaign)
- Democracy Forward (https://democracyforward.org)
- Democracy Playbook 2025, evidence-based best practices for reversing democratic backsliding (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/democracy-playbook-2025/)
- Democracy Defenders (https://www.democracydefendersaction.org).
I'm sure there are more.
You should check out Indivisible's 1 Million Rising campaign and trainings. I joined my local neighborhood Indivisible group and it's been fantastic. Here's a link to our neighborhood website, all done by concerned neighbors: https://www.pdxdistrict2neighbors.org/
Stop the doomscrolling and TAKE ACTION!!
Thanks!!
https://substack.com/@thedangerousones/note/c-161567870?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=zom51
Portland is NOT a hellscape!