American revolutionists would like to have a word…
And even though after the French revolution times were bad you can ask yourself whether they would have been any better off if the revolution hadn’t occurred.
Even if the French themselves weren’t better off, fear of revolution triggered other authoritarian monarchs, like the Dutch king to agree to massive reforms. It’s not always a simple A-leads-to-B connection.
the Suffragettes are instructive. Their tactic of choice was property
destruction. Decades of patient pressure on Parliament to give women the
vote had yielded nothing, and so in 1903, under the slogan ‘Deeds not
words’, the Women’s Social and Political Union was founded. Five years
later, two WSPU members undertook the first militant action: breaking
windowpanes in the prime minister’s residence. One of them told the police
she would bring a bomb the next time. Fed up with their own fruitless
deputations to Parliament, the suffragettes soon specialised in ‘the argument
of the broken pane’, sending hundreds of well-dressed women down streets
to smash every window they passed. In the most concentrated volley, in
March 1912, Emmeline Pankhurst and her crews brought much of central
London to a standstill by shattering the fronts of jewellers, silversmiths,
Hamleys toy shop and dozens of other businesses. They also torched
letterboxes around the capital. Shocked Londoners saw pillars filled with
paper throwing up flames, the work of some activist having thrown in a
parcel soaked in kerosene and a lit match. The civil resistance model? More
like the methods envisioned in Lanchester’s paradox.
Militancy was at the core of suffragette identity: ‘To be militant in some
form, or other, is a moral obligation’, Pankhurst lectured. ‘It is a duty which
every woman will owe her own conscience and self-respect, to women who
are less fortunate than she is herself, and to all who are to come after her.’
The latest full-body portrait of the movement, Diane Atkinson’s Rise Up,
Women!, gives an encyclopaedic listing of militant actions: suffragettes
forcing the prime minister out of his car and dousing him with pepper,
hurling a stone at the fanlight above Winston Churchill’s door, setting upon
statues and paintings with hammers and axes, planting bombs on sites along
the routes of royal visits, fighting policemen with staves, charging against
hostile politicians with dogwhips, breaking the windows in prison cells.
Such deeds went hand in hand with mass mobilisation. The suffragettes put
up mammoth rallies, ran their own presses, went on hunger strikes:
deploying the gamut of non-violent and militant action.
After the hope of attaining the vote by constitutional means was dashed
once more in early 1913, the movement switched gears. In a systematic
campaign of arson, the suffragettes set fire to or blew up villas, tea
pavilions, boathouses, hotels, haystacks, churches, post offices, aqueducts,
theatres and a liberal range of other targets around the country. Over the
course of a year and a half, the WSPU claimed responsibility for 337 such
attacks. Few culprits were apprehended. Not a single life was lost; only
empty buildings were set ablaze. The suffragettes took great pains to avoid
injuring people. But they considered the situation urgent enough to justify
incendiarism – votes for women, Pankhurst explained, were of such
pressing importance that ‘we had to discredit the Government and
Parliament in the eyes of the world; we had to spoil English sports, hurt
businesses, destroy valuable property, demoralise the world of society,
shame the churches, upset the whole orderly conduct of life’. Some attacks
probably went unclaimed. One historian suspects that the suffragettes were
behind one of the most spectacular blazes of the period: a fire in a Tyneside
coal wharf, in which the facilities for loading coal were completely gutted.
They did, however, claim responsibility for the burning of motor cars and a
steam yacht
This is from How to blow up a pipeline by Andreas Malm,
that’s some real historical revisionism. it’s no different than what trump is doing to the smithsonian. you two have a lot in common.
but that’s what you liberals do. you whitewash and appropriate the work of people like MLK and Malcom X, and use their “peaceful” resistance to fund raise while ignoring their advocacy or participation in protests liberals deem “violent”.
I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity. — Martin Luther King
Whenever the Negroes keep the Democrats in power, they’re keeping the Dixiecrats in power. This is true! A vote for a Democrat is nothing but a vote for a Dixiecrat. I know you don’t like me saying that, but I’m not the kind of person who come here to say what you like. I’m going to tell you the truth, whether you like it or not. Up here in the North, you have the same thing. The Democratic Party don’t do it, they don’t do it that way. They got a thing that they call gerrymandering. They maneuver you out of power. Even though you can vote, they fix it so you’re voting for nobody. They got you going and coming. In the South, they’re outright political wolves. In the North, they’re political foxes. A fox and a wolf are both canine, both belong to the dog family. Now, you take your choice. You going to choose a Northern dog or a Southern dog? Because either dog you choose, I guarantee you, you’ll still be in the doghouse. This is why I say it’s the ballot or the bullet. It’s liberty or it’s death. It’s freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody. — Malcolm X
And because of that they were imprisoned and ridiculed by the media and didn’t gain right to vote at 21 until 14 years later after their organization had a huge schism splitting into multiple factions
However, a system of publicity, Ensor argues, had to continue to escalate to maintain its high visibility in the media. The hunger strikes and force-feeding did that, but the Pankhursts refused any advice and escalated their tactics. They turned to systematic disruption of Liberal Party meetings as well as physical violence in terms of damaging public buildings and arson. Searle says the methods of the suffragettes harmed the Liberal Party but failed to advance women’s suffrage. When the Pankhursts decided to stop their militancy at the start of the war and enthusiastically support the war effort, the movement split and their leadership role ended.
the liberals have been ridiculed by the media for the last 15 years. It’s time for them to do something to be taken seriously - if they want that to happen, anyway
American revolutionists would like to have a word… And even though after the French revolution times were bad you can ask yourself whether they would have been any better off if the revolution hadn’t occurred. Even if the French themselves weren’t better off, fear of revolution triggered other authoritarian monarchs, like the Dutch king to agree to massive reforms. It’s not always a simple A-leads-to-B connection.
That’s fair.
civil rights activists would like to have a word. women’s suffrage would like a word.
Thanks for the counterexamples to violent change.
I highly recommend you read this excerpt.
Long. (click to show)
the Suffragettes are instructive. Their tactic of choice was property destruction. Decades of patient pressure on Parliament to give women the vote had yielded nothing, and so in 1903, under the slogan ‘Deeds not words’, the Women’s Social and Political Union was founded. Five years later, two WSPU members undertook the first militant action: breaking windowpanes in the prime minister’s residence. One of them told the police she would bring a bomb the next time. Fed up with their own fruitless deputations to Parliament, the suffragettes soon specialised in ‘the argument of the broken pane’, sending hundreds of well-dressed women down streets to smash every window they passed. In the most concentrated volley, in March 1912, Emmeline Pankhurst and her crews brought much of central London to a standstill by shattering the fronts of jewellers, silversmiths, Hamleys toy shop and dozens of other businesses. They also torched letterboxes around the capital. Shocked Londoners saw pillars filled with paper throwing up flames, the work of some activist having thrown in a parcel soaked in kerosene and a lit match. The civil resistance model? More like the methods envisioned in Lanchester’s paradox. Militancy was at the core of suffragette identity: ‘To be militant in some form, or other, is a moral obligation’, Pankhurst lectured. ‘It is a duty which every woman will owe her own conscience and self-respect, to women who are less fortunate than she is herself, and to all who are to come after her.’ The latest full-body portrait of the movement, Diane Atkinson’s Rise Up, Women!, gives an encyclopaedic listing of militant actions: suffragettes forcing the prime minister out of his car and dousing him with pepper, hurling a stone at the fanlight above Winston Churchill’s door, setting upon statues and paintings with hammers and axes, planting bombs on sites along the routes of royal visits, fighting policemen with staves, charging against hostile politicians with dogwhips, breaking the windows in prison cells. Such deeds went hand in hand with mass mobilisation. The suffragettes put up mammoth rallies, ran their own presses, went on hunger strikes: deploying the gamut of non-violent and militant action. After the hope of attaining the vote by constitutional means was dashed once more in early 1913, the movement switched gears. In a systematic campaign of arson, the suffragettes set fire to or blew up villas, tea pavilions, boathouses, hotels, haystacks, churches, post offices, aqueducts, theatres and a liberal range of other targets around the country. Over the course of a year and a half, the WSPU claimed responsibility for 337 such attacks. Few culprits were apprehended. Not a single life was lost; only empty buildings were set ablaze. The suffragettes took great pains to avoid injuring people. But they considered the situation urgent enough to justify incendiarism – votes for women, Pankhurst explained, were of such pressing importance that ‘we had to discredit the Government and Parliament in the eyes of the world; we had to spoil English sports, hurt businesses, destroy valuable property, demoralise the world of society, shame the churches, upset the whole orderly conduct of life’. Some attacks probably went unclaimed. One historian suspects that the suffragettes were behind one of the most spectacular blazes of the period: a fire in a Tyneside coal wharf, in which the facilities for loading coal were completely gutted. They did, however, claim responsibility for the burning of motor cars and a steam yacht
This is from How to blow up a pipeline by Andreas Malm,
that’s some real historical revisionism. it’s no different than what trump is doing to the smithsonian. you two have a lot in common.
but that’s what you liberals do. you whitewash and appropriate the work of people like MLK and Malcom X, and use their “peaceful” resistance to fund raise while ignoring their advocacy or participation in protests liberals deem “violent”.
It’s like you didn’t even read the statement from King, lmao.
you are not smart. this is why you’re getting so many downvotes any time you comment here.
Pretty sure it’s because this hive is infested with Tankies, but ok pal.
Tankies are when you use actual history and don’t defend racist policies. Got it.
The suffragettes literally threw rocks at windows and commited arson.
And because of that they were imprisoned and ridiculed by the media and didn’t gain right to vote at 21 until 14 years later after their organization had a huge schism splitting into multiple factions
the liberals have been ridiculed by the media for the last 15 years. It’s time for them to do something to be taken seriously - if they want that to happen, anyway