>> ^thepinky:But don't you think, despite the comfort of our domestic situation and the ease and profitability of abusing the people of other lands, that people are passionate about this?

Look at any successful CD campaign, from MK Gandhi, to MLK, to general strikes, they are all structured around a single premise, people breaking the law they want changed. How would you break the law which makes it legal to offshore industry to despotic countries with no environmental controls? how would you break the law/policy which puts military contractors above the law?

CD is a great tool for taking control of your own life, it's a very poor tool for trying to effect the lives of others.

Don't you think it's slightly, I donno, pitiful to have decided that drastic action is ineffectual before even attempting it

That is an entirely different question.

Consider the Tiller assassination, terrorism is clearly an effective form of drastic action. These acts of terror will have the same effect as outlawing late term abortion, since everybody willing to preform them must live in a prison of their own making in order not to get shot by some nut-job. People are not lining up to provide this service, when the current crop die off/are assassinated, their will likely be nobody to take their place.

Clearly there are drastic means other that CD, they are more morally complicated, but the options exist.

>> ^Lodurr:
I agree with DFT, though I tend to think that local activism is the best form of activism. The best contribution you can make to the world is raising well-adjusted children, or providing stability in the lives of people around you--being a benevolent boss or a good neighbor. I think it's a waste of time and energy to focus on the ultimate direction of the country and ignore the effect you have on people around you. I think Thoreau is saying a similar thing--to resist in full force injustices in your personal life, because everyone doing this in tandem is the best way to address your government's problems.


Good point on not forgetting local activism but MLK said it best: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Civilization requires both local and global activism.

I don't think public debate is getting enough respect in this thread. It often looks like progressives are whining and bitching about everything under the sun but public debate does shift a nation's mindset. Civil disobedience brought big changes on integrating blacks but it took decades of public debate at all levels of american culture to begin cementing those changes in.

Gosh, I love this forum. You all came through with some really thoughtful comments. And sallyjune, thank you for your well wishes, but I'm not doing a homework assignment. I've been stewing about this and I'm genuinely interested in what you all have to say.

I honestly loved Thoreau's essay. It made me think about the moral obligation of civil disobedience, never mind the efficacy. I've read quite a bit of MLK Jr., and the thing about him is that he wanted to bring about change as quickly and efficiently as possible. He made CD into a science, and it worked.
He was amazing. Thoreau and the other transcendentalists were all about the abolition of slavery, but they were only effective as far as spreading the word. They got their ideas out there and it made a difference. Thoreau was obviously an advocate of civil disobedience, but it's like King took those ideas and dressed them up. He made them work.

Now, the most interesting thing to me about "Civil Disobedience" is that Thoreau saw CD as a moral obligation. In light of your comments it is evident that today we think of CD in terms of its practicality. Personally I think that this is the best way to look at it. Thoreau, on the other hand, believed that paying your taxes to an unjust government is despicable. He would probably wonder why you fund the murders that you so vehemently oppose. Never mind that it wouldn't do any good to get thrown into jail. He just thought it was wrong and he would wonder how you could live with yourself.

As the people that are familiar with my rants probably know, I'm very religious. One of the "Articles of Faith" of my church states that "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." Now, this only goes so far as the law is not evil. As a matter of belief, I think that we like to go through lawful channels to affect change or maintain the status quo. Thoreau and King both saw the lawful avenues of change as ineffectual and painfully slow. Meanwhile, innocent people are suffering and dying.

I think that dgandhi's comment is really insightful, but the optimist in me wants to believe that inefficacy is NOT inevitable. When I look at the force of people who are unhappy about death and devastation abroad, I wonder why CD isn't an option. You said, dgandhi, that the ugliness isn't dumped in our own backyards. This is true, and it certainly makes a difference. But don't you think, despite the comfort of our domestic situation and the ease and profitability of abusing the people of other lands, that people are passionate about this? I mean, I've heard such hatred and outrage coming from American lips that I'm amazed there isn't more unrest in this country. It seems almost incredible to me that people don't do more when they are that angry. Do you really think that Americans aren't willing to be "beaten unconscious trying to stop something?" It would certainly cheapen their words quite a bit, if you ask me.

Don't you think it's slightly, I donno, pitiful to have decided that drastic action is ineffectual before even attempting it, especially in view of the intensity of the talk that floats around the internet? Are we honestly more willing to get out of America than to try to change it? Do you feel right about leaving the rest of us nuts here with irresponsible power?

I'm not calling for civil disobedience here. I'm just throwing some ideas out there.

Yehoshua, you seem to pawn all responsibility off on the Palestinians, just as many Palestinians would pawn off all responsibility on you. Violence begets violence, and there is no reason to believe that Israeli violence has any more of a positive effect on Palestinian leadership than the reverse.

Are Israeli hearts and minds that unwinable?
Why does the Ghandi or MLK have to be Palestinian?
Shouldn't a strong, rational, influential voice for peace be just as welcome on either side of this aged blood feud?

So they collected a montage of thoughtless, violently aggressive responses from drunk Jewish boys (and one girl). This shows that not every Jewish youth is a wise or caring person. It doesn't say anything of substance about Israeli Jews or American Jews as people, their political views, or what they think of Obama.

I view this video as a lazy attempt to paint Jews as racists and extremists. Why didn't they go out on the street and talk to some adults? Or someone who was actually sober? No one should be shocked that filming groups of drunken boys yields filthy language and posturing.

I'm a 20-something educated Jew, who has been to Israel twice, and I thought Obama's comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were meritorious. The Palestinians get a state, if they give up violence and recognize Israel's right to exist. Israel must allow for a Palestinian economy to function, stop official support of "settling", relocate or arrange exchanges for existing settlements, and prevent the creation of new settlements.

Palestinian violence creates enough support for those on the political right in Israel so that they can continue to dominate the government and maintain the status quo. Until and unless the Palestinians find a leader like MLK or Gandhi, who embraces nonviolence and unites the majority of Palestinians under that banner, I doubt that the status quo will shift in any significant way.

"Socialism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social." -MLK

The choice between one or the other is a false one, because both systems fail in absence of the other. The best solution is an even balance of the two.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video John McCain booed giving speech about MLK. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'kkk, racist, civil rights, police, john lewis' to 'kkk, racist, civil rights, police, john lewis, protests, usa, mlk, 60s, 00s, reunion' - edited by Eklek

Mate, i think you've completely misread my post.

I'm saying that political correctness (ie. the need to enforce "black history month", the need to force people to say "chalk board" instead of "black board") is, i would say in most cases, counter-active to racial equality. And that's what morgan freeman is saying.

Racial equality is when no one even thinks about the need for black history month. To draw one's own connotations of racism from any use of the word "black" and ban it as a result is counter productive.

What i suggest IS treating others with respect. I hope i'm clearer now, i'm sure we're talking about the same thing.

I'm sure we agree on this matter and this is a misunderstanding, otherwise i don't understand your viewpoint at all!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
>> ^dannym3141:
I've always said this for years, as long as we have political correctness - ie. the need to enforce necessary AND UNNECESSARY changes to how we communicate - racism will never be gone. You draw attention to racism and i would say encourage racism by kicking up a fuss when someone demands that we use "chalkboard" for "blackboard".
This world has enough problems with racism without searching for it around every corner. Something that a lot of activists fail to realise.


I knew these words were going to be forced into some kind of conservative political ideological mold.

Morgan Freeman isn't suggesting we ignore racism. After all, MLK, Malcolm X and Rosa Parks' 'fuss kicking' brought equal rights under the law to everyone. Freeeman is merely saying that black history should be included as a year-round part of American history, and not relegated to the shortest month of the year.

Also, I don't get people who have such a huge problem with treating others with respect. Is the social pressure to say Asian instead of oriental really that oppressive to you?

>> ^dannym3141:
I've always said this for years, as long as we have political correctness - ie. the need to enforce necessary AND UNNECESSARY changes to how we communicate - racism will never be gone. You draw attention to racism and i would say encourage racism by kicking up a fuss when someone demands that we use "chalkboard" for "blackboard".
This world has enough problems with racism without searching for it around every corner. Something that a lot of activists fail to realise.


I knew these words were going to be forced into some kind of conservative political ideological mold.

Morgan Freeman isn't suggesting we ignore racism. After all, MLK, Malcolm X and Rosa Parks' 'fuss kicking' brought equal rights under the law to everyone. Freeeman is merely saying that black history should be included as a year-round part of American history, and not relegated to the shortest month of the year.

Also, I don't get people who have such a huge problem with treating others with respect. Is the social pressure to say Asian instead of oriental really that oppressive to you?

The FBI used to send MLK letters urging him to kill himself.

Ron Paul was also against recognizing MLK's birthday as a federal holiday, and same with Rosa Parks.

There's a lot of retarded shit that Dr.Paul believes in, and through his "states rights" vision, he'd allow states to re-segregate schools, teach creationism, deny contraceptives, and let coroporations run amok, killing our economy, provide unsafe and unfair labor practices, dissolve unions, and rape our wilderness.

This video is about as un-biased as Karl Rove's nutsac.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

JFK, MLK and Lucille Ball.

OK, maybe not the last one so much.

Summary of the comment voting clusterfuck here so far:

I said "fuck fox news" : 17 votes and starpoint.

Jordass points out that MLK and Ghandi wouldn't approve: 5 votes.

Choggie reminds us that the solution is to make our own media instead of going on theirs and shouting retarded slogans (or worse still... upvoting retarded slogans while sitting on your fat ass): 1 vote.

Quantumushroom actually makes sense for once: "They had a chance to use FOX against itself. Result: FAIL.": -4 votes.

I hope you're proud of yourselves.

Yeah i think this only strengthens Fox News by showing these retards, which im sure Fox had planned all along. Nothing takes your credibility away like guys who just seem like angry teenagers. Protesters that MLK and Gandhi would of wanted wouldnt need to create a scene or offend. They would let the anger of the opposition create the scene and then when broadcasted to the world it would offend. Thats what gave those movements credibility. Today it just seems like there is less tact and a more "lets yell and break shit" attitude.