…general strikes. Yes, at moments they turned violent, but it is because the government escalated it
…we want the violence caused by the government to encourage more people to join protests
Maybe it’s just the difference between countries and media landscapes but that’s not what’s meant by “peaceful protest” in the US. The government escalates, blames the protestors (often false claims of rioting), and the media runs with the narrative. In an American context your describing mass violent riots.
“Peaceful” protest means you haven’t elicited a response from law enforcement beyond standing on the side of a road babysitting the crowd.
yeah that sounds like an education failure. a peaceful protest is like when India won its independence, where protestors stood their ground even as police were beating them to death.
Of course! The narrative taught in school about the US civil rights movement or the Indian independence movement is that the empires were having tea and crumpets then because enough people asked very politely and walked courteously near the nexus of power they got their rights/independance. Oh and also because one person sat somewhere on a bus, or a few people did a hunger sit /not a strike/.
We’re taught from childhood that you can make change by inconveniencing no one. It only makes sense that the narrative would survive where it’s left unchallenged.
Maybe it’s just the difference between countries and media landscapes but that’s not what’s meant by “peaceful protest” in the US. The government escalates, blames the protestors (often false claims of rioting), and the media runs with the narrative. In an American context your describing mass violent riots.
“Peaceful” protest means you haven’t elicited a response from law enforcement beyond standing on the side of a road babysitting the crowd.
yeah that sounds like an education failure. a peaceful protest is like when India won its independence, where protestors stood their ground even as police were beating them to death.
Of course! The narrative taught in school about the US civil rights movement or the Indian independence movement is that the empires were having tea and crumpets then because enough people asked very politely and walked courteously near the nexus of power they got their rights/independance. Oh and also because one person sat somewhere on a bus, or a few people did a hunger sit /not a strike/.
We’re taught from childhood that you can make change by inconveniencing no one. It only makes sense that the narrative would survive where it’s left unchallenged.