I wrote this in response to your previous post, which was flagged:
I don't think this rioting, violence, and general unrest should be compared to the Brown Shirts. Groups engaging in "antagonism and murder towards people they perceived as evil" are not uncommon in history. An analogy to the Nazis in the 30s seems out of place because, as you say, of everything that the Nazis did after the 30s.
If you want to talk to about ideologues, people for whom the ends justify the means, people who are willing to engage in violence and destruction for ideological goals, then you can make a comparison here. You can put the Brown Shirts in this category, you can put current rioters in this category, you can put a large number of historical groups in this category, and I think this categorization is fair. (Note that sometimes this violence may even be justified).
But why pick the Nazis in particular for your comparison? Comparing this group or that group to the Nazis is almost always rhetorical trick precisely because of the Holocaust. Why not pick some other group in history that used violence to pursue its ideological goals but didn't boil over into a genocide? The answer is that, if you picked another group, the rhetorical power of the comparison would be lost. But it would be a more honest comparison.
> you would think they would cynically propose a soft spoken figurehead who says inspirational things
Oh, but they did, just not from their own ranks.
Think about that. Who, among the entire political spectrum in the US, promises to the America's middle class and end to hostilities, a sense of harmony, and a partial absolution of the white guilt?
Hint: it's not one person but rather a team of two.
> Since BLM is an org with such “expertise” in what white people think, you would think they would cynically propose a soft spoken figurehead who says inspirational things. Instead, we get adversarial confrontation on the “fact” that all white people are racist and only white and white adjacent people can be racist. This is idiotic marketing strategy. You’d think they would avoid antagonizing their customer if they were serious about positive change.
Wow. You really are a racist. Or at least an authoritarian on some level.
You want people of color to convince you - a task of which is not theirs to fulfill - that they should have basic social rights in the US. You then refuse to be convinced because they aren't 'being nice' about it?
How on earth is fighting for social and civil rights a task of political suppression? BLM represents a bloc that has been disincentivised from voting from the founding of America until 2020.
Something screams authoritarian, and it certainly isn't protesting.
MLK is being used disingenuously by the right[1]. He was treated very similar to BLM during his activism and his death was openly celebrated by some political figures on the right. BLM has very consciously decided to foster a leaderless movement to prevent the vilification tactics used by right wing media to discredit movements (see AOC, Hillary, Kaepernick, etc..)[2]
The downvotes should be sufficient, but I think you are misinformed if you think the modern right’s perspective is the same as the 60’s right.
I don’t know anything about the perceived violence of MLK- but three quotes are in my brain on him:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
“We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”
His legacy is his ideas- not the lens through which they were perceived. He had success because his ideas were compassionate and strong. A YouTube video that tries to slap a narrative on how he was perceived then to justify your current bigotry is irrelevant compared to the quality of his ideas.
I think I approach agreeing with you that it’s bad to make these analogies- but I don’t know of alternatives that clearly communicate the perceived potential for conflict.
Thanks for helping me understand your perspective.
I don't think this rioting, violence, and general unrest should be compared to the Brown Shirts. Groups engaging in "antagonism and murder towards people they perceived as evil" are not uncommon in history. An analogy to the Nazis in the 30s seems out of place because, as you say, of everything that the Nazis did after the 30s.
If you want to talk to about ideologues, people for whom the ends justify the means, people who are willing to engage in violence and destruction for ideological goals, then you can make a comparison here. You can put the Brown Shirts in this category, you can put current rioters in this category, you can put a large number of historical groups in this category, and I think this categorization is fair. (Note that sometimes this violence may even be justified).
But why pick the Nazis in particular for your comparison? Comparing this group or that group to the Nazis is almost always rhetorical trick precisely because of the Holocaust. Why not pick some other group in history that used violence to pursue its ideological goals but didn't boil over into a genocide? The answer is that, if you picked another group, the rhetorical power of the comparison would be lost. But it would be a more honest comparison.