Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by kstenerud | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

kstenerud

[flagged]

View on HN

As long as you pretend these didn't happen:

Iran (1953) - overthrow of the Shah by the CIA

Guatemala (1954) - overthrow of an elected government on behalf of US corporate interests

Cuba (1961) - invaded Cuba via proxy forces, attempted to assassinate Castro (Bay of Pigs)

Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (1955–1975)

Chile (1973) – overthrow of Salvador Allende

Nicaragua (1980s) - overthrow the Sandinista government (Contra war) without international authorization

Panama (1989) - invaded and overthrew the government without international without international authorizationauthorization

Iraq (2003) - invaded and overthrew the government without international authorization

Serbia (1999) - airstrikes without international authorization

Libya (2011) - exceeded authorization by UN to effect regime change

Syria (2014–present) - US military occupation and oil seizure is ongoing

There are many more, these are the more notable ones

King was definitely not protesting in a rules based order, at least not one which applied to black people. Nor was Gandi.

He also died from a bullet to the head and 60 years later a statement as simple as 'black lives matter' was controversial.

Nonviolence was never proposed as a shield for activists against violence. He knew what he was up against.

not so sure he did. Both King and X were “allowed” to speak out as much as they wanted… until each of them, realize the war they were fighting was not the real war. The real war was against the rich. Once Malcolm realized this, and that he was being played, and once MLK realized that non-violence was BS he started to drift more toward Malcolm’s end of things and direct that anger toward class warfare? That’s when they were each killed.

> a statement as simple as 'black lives matter' was controversial.

That was never controversial. What was controversial was the unstated implication after that statement: "and people don't think they do". When your slogan is a false accusation against people in general, they aren't going to take it well. Approximately zero people in the US think black lives don't matter, so they aren't going to appreciate you coming at them with that accusation even if it is left unstated.

We haven't had a 'world order'. We've had the threat of mutually-assured destruction.

Which has prevented another world war, but not regional conflicts, a cold war, and whatever the history books decide to call the current social media driven conflict.

I share your sense that there is an unsettling in the balance of the world order at present. However, I completely disagree that non-violence has no place in the absence, and I enter into evidence the Satyaagraha movement in British India in the interwar period, especially the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.

For just one example, see his response to the Massacre of Jallianwalla Bagh, which happened around the time of the end of WWI.

https://www.mkgandhi.org/storyofg/chap18.php

Non-violence formed a backbone of the Indian independence movement until independence was achieved at the close of WWII in 1947.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com