Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
yea. so really i don't think i contradicted myself with the whole compromise point. basically it seems like you are acting like it makes no difference which side is doing the compromising. i was saying when thugs make demands based on violence we shouldn't fulfill those demands. so in the civil rights scenario, the racists were making the demand that blacks just accept their status as second class citizens or else there would be violence. if they had just done this, maybe less people would have been hurt/killed. but the black protesters would have lost their rights in the process. this is akin to us censoring ourselves to appease bearded thugs. maybe less magazines will be blown up. yet our rights are degraded in the process. it's an undesirable compromise imo.
|
Actually, the similarities are there. Both movements were about trying to gain human rights in the face of poverty and abuse. And both movements had large terrorist cells that believed that using violence was the answer. You have to remember that groups like The Black Panthers truly thought that violence/murder was the answer, when all they did was hold back progress by turning the world away from their cause.
Fighting terrorists is important, as it helps to protect people in the immediate future. But in the long-run, the only way to truly eliminate the terrorist groups is to root out the socio-economic factors that caused them to flourish in the first place. When African Americans were finally given equal rights, and eventually managed to escape from the low-income areas that they had been forced into, terrorist groups like The Black Panthers faded away.