Oh boy wait till you hear what the suffragettes were willing to do for another righteous cause, a bit over a century ago. I don’t know man, maybe the government should start reexamining its policies if ordinary people among its citizens are willing to start breaking into airbase and damaging their own planes.
They were willing to commit mass murder in London and Dublin, and to assassinate the Prime Minister. Also deeply keen on removing all Jews from the House of Commons. Things that today would indeed mark them as a terrorist organisation.
Later, Emmeline Pankhurst would found a political party with the aim of requiring all civil servants to prove their racial purity back at least 3 generations, and many of the more prominent members of the WSPU became prominent members of the British fascist movement, several being detained as a precaution during the second European fuss.
As a campaign, the WSPU was an abject failure. It put women’s votes back a decade, and Pankhurst failed to ensure that working class women were excluded from the franchise (she also wanted working class men excluded).
It was only a cataclysm the scale of WWI, and the groundwork of the suffragists working in opposition to the suffragettes, which brought votes for all.
Sounds like a classic case of both the moderates and the radicals being essential for any real change. The moderates are the hammer and the extremists are the anvil.
Society is like a bar of iron. It’s stuck in its shape and resists change. Non-violent moderate protest alone is like a hammer without an anvil. You strike the iron, but the iron ignores the blow. With moderate protest alone, the established powers simply ignore the protests. They bend and duck out of the way and nothing changes. But violent groups serve as the anvil. They hold the powers that be in place and prevent them from ducking away from the hammer blow of the moderates.
Both hammer and anvil are needed. Without the violent extremists, the moderates are simply painted as extremists and ignored. With them, the moderates can actually gain traction. Moderate protest movements don’t succeed unless there is also a violent wing. Moderates are only moderate if there is something to moderate against. Without the violent extremists, the moderates will be the ones labeled criminals and arrested, regardless of how extreme their tactics actually are.
Oh boy wait till you hear what the suffragettes were willing to do for another righteous cause, a bit over a century ago. I don’t know man, maybe the government should start reexamining its policies if ordinary people among its citizens are willing to start breaking into airbase and damaging their own planes.
They were willing to commit mass murder in London and Dublin, and to assassinate the Prime Minister. Also deeply keen on removing all Jews from the House of Commons. Things that today would indeed mark them as a terrorist organisation.
Later, Emmeline Pankhurst would found a political party with the aim of requiring all civil servants to prove their racial purity back at least 3 generations, and many of the more prominent members of the WSPU became prominent members of the British fascist movement, several being detained as a precaution during the second European fuss.
As a campaign, the WSPU was an abject failure. It put women’s votes back a decade, and Pankhurst failed to ensure that working class women were excluded from the franchise (she also wanted working class men excluded).
It was only a cataclysm the scale of WWI, and the groundwork of the suffragists working in opposition to the suffragettes, which brought votes for all.
Sounds like a classic case of both the moderates and the radicals being essential for any real change. The moderates are the hammer and the extremists are the anvil.
Society is like a bar of iron. It’s stuck in its shape and resists change. Non-violent moderate protest alone is like a hammer without an anvil. You strike the iron, but the iron ignores the blow. With moderate protest alone, the established powers simply ignore the protests. They bend and duck out of the way and nothing changes. But violent groups serve as the anvil. They hold the powers that be in place and prevent them from ducking away from the hammer blow of the moderates.
Both hammer and anvil are needed. Without the violent extremists, the moderates are simply painted as extremists and ignored. With them, the moderates can actually gain traction. Moderate protest movements don’t succeed unless there is also a violent wing. Moderates are only moderate if there is something to moderate against. Without the violent extremists, the moderates will be the ones labeled criminals and arrested, regardless of how extreme their tactics actually are.