This question continues to baffle me. As a liberal I would never countenance physical violence but I am continually flummoxed by this seeming contradiction. The very idea that significant change can occur without some kind of power struggle escapes me.
America's government was established from the ashes of a bitter war for independence.
Freedom from slavery was only won from a bitter war for equality.
Freedom from the tyranny of Adolf Hitler was won from a global war.
America's response to 9/11 wasn't peaceful protests, it was an all out war.
Libya's ousting of a dictator began with a violent conflagration, not a peaceful demonstration.
I can't think of a single significant improvement in human rights that hasn't been hard won with the cost of human life.
I read the Declaration of Independence quite often and every year it appears that our government's policies become more and more similar to the British government's at the time of our war for independence.
http://www.archives.gov/...
After reading it yet again tonight, I am startled once again by the similarities that exist in our country which led the colonies to decide that a violent struggle against inequality, oppression and tyranny was the only answer.
I know that the American colonies attempted peaceful reconciliation. It didn't succeed. It was met the same way it is being met today, with force.
It's clear to me that America's governments, be they local, state or federal, are becoming more and more intolerable of protests. They are using force to quell any dissension not in the governments favor.
And it is using the power of the local, state and federal enforcement agencies to do so.
Can someone please explain to me how peaceful protests from the poor and powerless can win the battle against the rich and powerful?