This reminds me of Kwame Ture’s response to King that we discussed in class: “Dr. King's policy was that nonviolence would achieve the gains for black people in the United States. His major assumption was that if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That's very good. He only made one fallacious assumption: In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.” I agree with his take on this, but also think that when there’s enough public outrage over state violence that does sometimes result in change. Then again, those changes can often be too little too late.

The end of this passage reminded me of a quote from Fred Hampton in 1968: “Bobby Seale is going through all types of physical and mental torture. But that’s alright, because we said even before this happened, and we’re going to say it after this and after I’m locked up and after everybody’s locked up, that you can jail revolutionaries, but you can’t jail the revolution. You might run a liberator like Eldridge Cleaver out of the country, but you can’t run liberation out of the country. You might murder a freedom fighter like Bobby Hutton, but you can’t murder freedom fighting, and if you do, you’ll come up with answers that don’t answer, explanations that don’t explain, you’ll come up with conclusions that don’t conclude, and you’ll come up with people that you thought should be acting like pigs that’s acting like people and moving on pigs. And that’s what we’ve got to do. So we’re going to see about Bobby regardless of what these people think we should do, because school is not important and work is not important. Nothing’s more important than stopping fascism, because fascism will stop us all.” The last bit of that quote is pretty widely circulated, but I like the whole context leading up to it, and it’s even more significant after his assassination by the Chicago Police and FBI.

It seems to me like god is always on the side of whoever’s doing the talking. There are biblical justifications for all sorts of horrific things. Reminded me of the song The New World Order by Defiance, Ohio. https://noidearecords.bandcamp.com/track/the-new-world-order

I’m convinced that approaching one another with agape is something to strive for, but I find King’s arguments lacking when his only justification comes from a faith based perspective. How can we make a case of agape without relying on emulating a god we may not believe in. He seems to come at things with the idea that we deserve freedom because god wants us to have that. If we take god out of the equation, what justification remains? In an increasingly secular world, we need to find secular motivations for agape

This highlights the need for liberated thinking before liberatory action. I like how it frames action as the inevitable outcome of a revolutionary change in sense of self. That new self demands expression and recognition. Revolutionary consciousness demands revolutionary action.

I'm really interested in King's distinction between militancy and violence. I’m not sure where he draws the line between the two. I think he’s getting at a wholehearted dedication to the cause, and a critical mass of dedicated people coming together to organize action. Here are the first definitions that pop up on Google: Militant means “combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.” Violent means “using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” I guess militancy doesn’t necessitate use of force, but under these definitions requires a direct confrontation and refusal of the status quo. Looking at the definitions (which vary widely between sources) reminded me of the politics of how these labels are applied, to the point that they’re almost meaningless without further explanation.