why do you assume I'm lazy and never have done anything?
I didn't say that you've never done anything - but I listed a lot of people who gave their lives for the struggle.
You're still alive, and you're here posting on the Coli, so I think it's a fair bet that you haven't done as much as they did.
The lazy thing was just hyperbole.
You are the one you claimed I had some sort of "White savior" mentality. I'm pointing out that you ironically spoke positively about the one guy who actually saw himself that way, while all the other names I listed were not seen as "White saviors" either by themselves or by the Black people they worked under and alongside.
Anyway, so this bs inclusive bs you're talking > assata Shakur?
Because I gave facts, while you gave one unsubstantiated quote. Shakur said that because she believed in a certain methodology, and she had to shyt on every other methodology in order to defend her own way of doing things. Her claims that other methods had always failed were demonstrably false, and her own actions have to go down as a failure to accomplish her aims.
In both of those cases, there were major steps that were made partially because of the triggering of White compassion/guilt and because some people had a genuine desire for human rights.
Why da fukk do you think they did so much work setting up situations which showed off White brutality, and made such a big deal about getting that shyt publicly covered, if appeals to morality were useless?
That's not saying anything about what every person believed, or about why every action was taken. But an appeal to morality was certainly a part of the process.
That was especially true in the John Brown case. No one actually thought that a slave rebellion led by a White guy had any chance of succeeding. The increased calls to end slavery that John Brown's case brought about weren't do to some new fear of Black rebellion (otherwise the calls would have come from the South, not the North). They came from a realization of the gravity of a moral wrong that was so great, someone was willing to give up their own life. That's what John Brown repeatedly stressed during his trial, and that's what many of the letters and public statements made after the trial, while the public tide was shifting, stressed as well.
Since? As opposed to before?
You're in a police brutality thread which only exists because of a video taken by a White boy who gave a shyt about his black friends, and you're denying the positive influence of some Conscious White people because your brain would explode if you were forced to expand from your racist mindset.
This is a ridiculous argument sprinkling in little half-truths in a historically bullshyt context. The pressure against South Africa came LONG before the Cold War ended, the US doesn't need to "pretend to be on a moral high horse" unless people's moral feelings actually matter, and if you know anything about the SA resistance movement you'd know that appealing to the moral feelings of the South African Whites and the greater world was a part of the strategy for decades.
Any saying that violence is what worked makes no sense if you look at the timelines of when significant violence occurred, when significant nonviolent focus was made, and when progress was actually made.
International opinion against South Africa was firm by 1980, apartheid began getting deconstructed by the mid-1980s, and the end of apartheid was announced a good year before the Soviet Union fell.
I never said that moral appeals were the only reason that apartheid fell, but they were certainly a part of it. You claim that the US had to look moral - if moral appeals don't matter, then why would it matter whether the US looked moral or not?
And if you claim moral appeals didn't matter, then you're also claiming that a large % of the movement were idiots for focusing so much effort on moral appeals, which supposedly were useless (even though major components of their aims were achieved while using these means.
Such a bytch answer.
".