FINALLY, the subsequent examples also aren’t “bloodless.” I couldn’t imagine calling the end of apartheid “bloodless” in any meaningful sense. I don’t know what the fuck is going on here.

Show Post

All this is to say that King’s success was circumstantial and relied on a specific set of conditions that he couldn’t replicate in other places. Further, King’s success wasn’t “bloodless:” it relied on the blood of the folks who marched at selma, in Birmingham, and who pushed hard in Chicago.

Show Post

In the Chicago Journals, King similarly observes that the tactics that won his success in the south weren’t working to achieve housing equality or the kind of legislative gains he wanted so he had to acquiesce to more militant, more direct actions.

Show Post

However, when he moved to the urban north, these tactics failed his movement. In “The Role of the Behavioral Scientist,” King notes that more direct action was necessary in the north because northern cities and culture could absorb the disruption of the protests he organized in the south.

Show Post

Uh. King’s success in the South was due to the cultural situation of the south which treated violations of segregated spaces as tantamount to violations of natural law. As a result, white people responded with extreme violence that shocked many folks in the nation.

Show Post