Disruption and obstruction can force concessions without explicit violence.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott achieved its goal without it by demonstrating the economic significance of black passengers. The Nashville Sit-ins won through the resilience of its participants without fighting back. The message in each case was “We’re going to continue being a problem until we get what we want.” The Civil Rights Movement in general achieved a lot of victories simply by being a persistent, well-coordinated nuisance.
Their discipline in staying non-violent even in the face or cruel injustice was a psychological weapon, which can win battles without firing bullets. It drew attention to that injustice, dominated news cycles until people could no longer look away. If media thrive on outrage, police violence is more effective than police suppressing terrorists.
The mistake that people make is to conflate peaceful, “polite”, lawful protest with non-violence: Protests need to be a problem. I can ignore people chanting whatever in the streets, but I can’t ignore them disrupting businesses and obstructing public places. I can try suppressing them with violence, but what if that doesn’t work, if they keep coming?
There’s a book on the topic, “Waging a good war” by Thomas E. Ricks that I found quite enlightening. The important takeaway is that there are multiple ways to win a war, and defeating the opposition’s will can work without actual violence, but the key part is still a military level of discipline and planning.
Disruption and obstruction can force concessions without explicit violence.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott achieved its goal without it by demonstrating the economic significance of black passengers. The Nashville Sit-ins won through the resilience of its participants without fighting back. The message in each case was “We’re going to continue being a problem until we get what we want.” The Civil Rights Movement in general achieved a lot of victories simply by being a persistent, well-coordinated nuisance.
Their discipline in staying non-violent even in the face or cruel injustice was a psychological weapon, which can win battles without firing bullets. It drew attention to that injustice, dominated news cycles until people could no longer look away. If media thrive on outrage, police violence is more effective than police suppressing terrorists.
The mistake that people make is to conflate peaceful, “polite”, lawful protest with non-violence: Protests need to be a problem. I can ignore people chanting whatever in the streets, but I can’t ignore them disrupting businesses and obstructing public places. I can try suppressing them with violence, but what if that doesn’t work, if they keep coming?
There’s a book on the topic, “Waging a good war” by Thomas E. Ricks that I found quite enlightening. The important takeaway is that there are multiple ways to win a war, and defeating the opposition’s will can work without actual violence, but the key part is still a military level of discipline and planning.